SUN WEST CHOICE HEALTHCARE & REHAB

14002 WEST MEEKER BLVD, SUN CITY WEST, AZ 85375 (623) 584-6161
For profit - Corporation 140 Beds THE ENSIGN GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
78/100
#31 of 139 in AZ
Last Inspection: September 2024

Within standard 12-15 month inspection cycle. Federal law requires annual inspections.

Overview

Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab has earned a Trust Grade of B, indicating it is a good choice for families looking for care, though it is not without its shortcomings. It ranks #31 out of 139 facilities in Arizona, placing it in the top half, and #24 out of 76 in Maricopa County, meaning there are only a few facilities that are rated higher nearby. The facility is improving, having reduced its number of issues from 2 in 2024 to 1 in 2025, which is a positive sign for potential residents. Staffing is a strength here, with a rating of 4 out of 5 stars and a turnover rate of 44%, which is below the state average of 48%. However, the facility has faced some serious concerns, including a recent incident where a resident fell and was injured due to inadequate supervision, as well as issues regarding the protection of residents' rights from potential abuse by others. Additionally, there was a concern about the overall cleanliness and maintenance of the facility, as some residents experienced a lack of sanitary living conditions.

Trust Score
B
78/100
In Arizona
#31/139
Top 22%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
2 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
44% turnover. Near Arizona's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$4,838 in fines. Lower than most Arizona facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 36 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for Arizona. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
15 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 2 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (44%)

    4 points below Arizona average of 48%

Facility shows strength in staffing levels, quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 44%

Near Arizona avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $4,838

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: THE ENSIGN GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 15 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to protect the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, staff interviews and policy review, the facility failed to protect the rights of three residents (#38, #24, #23, #11) to be free from abuse from other residents (#39, #22, #10). The deficient practice could result in residents being physically or emotionally harmed.Findings include: -Regarding Resident #38 and #39 Resident #38 was re-admitted to the facility March 30, 2022, with diagnoses that included Alzheimer’s Disease, Dementia in other diseases classified elsewhere, Unspecified Severity, with other Behavioral Disturbance, Hypertension, Depression, Schizoaffective Disorder, and Unspecified Mood [Affective] Disorder. A quarterly minimum data set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #38 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 00, indicating severe cognitive impairment. A care plan dated January 26, 2023, revealed Resident #38 was an elopement risk/wanderer related to impaired safety awareness, potential for behavior problem of physical aggression towards staff and peers, and placing self on floor. A progress note dated August 10, 2022, revealed that Resident #38 sustained a bite injury from another resident to the back of the left hand. Further review of the progress notes reveal that the resident had behaviors consisting of intrusive wandering and aggression. Resident #39 was re-admitted to the facility June 20, 2022, with diagnoses that included Unspecified Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Vascular Dementia with Behavioral Disturbance, Anxiety Disorder Unspecified, Unspecified Severe Protein-Calorie Malnutrition, Unspecified Osteoarthritis Unspecified Site, Hypokalemia, and Irritable Bowel Syndrome Unspecified. A discharge MDS assessment dated [DATE], revealed Resident #39 had a staff assessment for mental status which revealed that the resident had a short-term memory problem and was severely impaired in regard to cognitive skills for Daily Decision Making. The BIMS score was not indicated. Further review of the MDS indicated that the resident had behavioral symptoms that included physical behavior directed toward others containing coding that indicated that the type of behavior occurred 1 to 3 days. A care plan dated August 11, 2022, revealed Resident #39 had the potential to demonstrate physical behaviors related to behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia, was prescribed psychotropic medications use related to agitation as evidenced by striking out. A progress note dated August 10, 2022, revealed Resident #39 had an altercation with a male resident (Resident #38) that resulted in Resident #39 biting Resident #38’s left hand and causing an injury. Resident #39 could not tell the progress note writer what provoked her to bite Resident #37. The progress note further indicated that Resident #39 is known to be very territorial and does get agitated when others come into her personal space. It was further revealed in the progress note that Resident #39 was not injured during the altercation. A documented report dated August 11, 2022 described the incident as “(Resident #38) was restless and wandering the hallway, approached (Resident #39)’s room. (Resident #39) became agitated as she can be protective of her space. Residents began arguing and when staff tried to intervene, (Resident #39) bit (Resident #38) on his left hand causing broken skin. A five-day investigation conducted by the facility revealed that, on August 10, 2022, in the Behavioral Unit, (Resident #38) was observed in the hallway, restless and pacing back and forth. (Resident #38) raised his hand in front his face and (Resident #39) leaned forward and bit (Resident #38) on the left hand between the thumb and the pointer finger. As soon as staff were able to intervene, they removed (Resident #39)’s teeth from (Resident #38)’s hand. The resultant removal of (Resident #39)’s teeth resulted in a tear to (Resident #38)’s left hand. The five-day report further indicated that a C.N.A. had witnessed Resident #39’s mouth on Resident #38’s hand and assisted Resident #38 with the removal of his hand from Resident #39’s mouth and then separated the two. -Regarding Resident #24 and Resident #22 Resident #24 was admitted initially on April 5, 2022, and was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer’s disease, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder, recurrent, severe with psychotic symptoms. A care plan focus, initiated on June 26, 2022, indicated that Resident #24 was an elopement risk/wanderer. An additional problem focus, initiated on July 11, 2022, revealed that Resident #24 had potential for a behavior problem of physical aggression towards staff and peers, verbal aggression, yelling out, and banging on doors. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicating severe cognitive impairment. A nursing note on October 23, 2022 indicated that Resident #24 was involved in an altercation with another resident, in which Resident #24 was punched on the right side of the head by the other resident. An additional nursing progress note dated October 23, 2022 revealed that a nurse had observed Resident #24 walking towards the nursing station with a shocked and confused expression. The nurse assessed the resident and found that the resident had a raised, discolored area on the right side of his head, which is stated to be in the area of the reported abuse. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizophrenia and depression. Review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. This MDS indicated that during the assessment period, the resident had exhibited verbal behavioral symptoms towards others one to three days and other behavioral symptoms not towards others one to three days. A nursing note dated October 23, 2022 at 3:00PM revealed that Resident #22 was agitated due to confusion and a wet bed. The note indicated that Resident #22 lashed out physically and hit another resident on the head. An additional nursing note dated October 23, 2022 at 3:00PM revealed that a nurse had observed Resident #24 at 2:45PM in his room, and the resident had asked for assistance to change clothes. The nurse observed at this time that Resident #24’s incontinent product was wet and indicated that staff would assist him soon. The nurse indicated that another resident (Resident #24) was observed sitting in a chair asleep in the hallway at this time, as the nurse was returning to the nursing station. The nurse sat at the nursing station to chart until other staff reported the altercation. Interview was conducted on August 29, 2025 at 9:28AM with a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA/Staff #172) who confirmed that she had witnessed the altercation between Resident #22 and Resident #24. The CNA stated she had worked with the two residents frequently, and recalled that the two residents did not like each other and often had tension between the two. The CNA explained that Resident #24 frequently wandered into other residents’ rooms, and Resident #22 did not like this, as Resident #22 was very protective of his belongings. The CNA stated that on October 23, 2022, she witnessed Resident #24 sleeping in a chair outside of Resident #22’s room. Resident #22 then approached Resident #24 and appeared to hit him. The CNA stated that Resident #22 had suspected that Resident #24 had gone into his room and may have stolen something. The CNA explained that following the event, the two residents were separated. Interview was attempted with other witnesses, but the other staff witnesses were unable to be reached for interview. -Regarding Resident #23 and Resident #22 Resident #23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, and Parkinson’s disease. The MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 8, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. A nursing note dated February 26, 2023 indicated that Resident #23 was involved in a resident-to-resident altercation. The note detailed that while attempting to leave the dining room, Resident #23’s wheelchair got tangled with another resident’s wheelchair, and staff attempted to separate the two. The note indicated that the other resident struck Resident #23 in the face, causing a lower lip laceration. The residents were then separated. Resident #22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizophrenia and depression. Review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 9, indicating moderate cognitive impairment. This MDS indicated that during the assessment period, the resident had exhibited verbal behavioral symptoms towards others one to three days and other behavioral symptoms not towards others one to three days. A nursing note dated February 26, 2023 indicated that Resident #22 was involved in a resident-to-resident altercation when leaving the dining room. The note indicated that the two residents’ wheelchairs were tangled up, and Resident #22 struck another resident in the face, causing injury to the lower lip. Staff separated the two residents. A review of the facility investigation dated February 26, 2023 revealed that a staff member and multiple residents reported witnessing Resident #22 hit Resident #23. -Regarding Resident #11 and Resident #10: Resident #11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included intracranial injury and psychotic disorder with hallucinations. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also revealed that the resident did not have any hallucinations, delusions, or physical or verbal behaviors towards others during the assessment period. A review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed no short-term memory impairments and that the resident was independent with decision making regarding tasks of daily life. This MDS indicated that during the assessment period, the resident had exhibited physical and verbal behavioral symptoms towards others one to three days and other behavioral symptoms not towards others four to six days. The nursing progress note dated August 12, 2023 revealed that two Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) had called the nurse to the dining room, stating that an altercation had occurred between Resident #11 and Resident #10. The note indicated that the two residents were talking at the dining table and got into an argument. Resident #10 attempted to elbow Resident #11, and Resident #11 then hit Resident #10. Staff then attempted to escort Resident #11 away when Resident #10 stood and hit Resident #11 in the back before falling to the ground. The note indicated that the two residents were assessed and no injuries were found. Resident #11 continued to be aggressive with staff and was sent out to the hospital for evaluation. Resident #10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemiplegia/hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting non-dominant left side and hypertension. Review of the MDS dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS score of 14, indicating intact cognition. The care plan focus, initiated June 26, 2023, indicated that Resident #10 had a behavior problem, related to resisting care, declining or throwing medications, and being aggressive with staff at times. The nursing progress note dated August 12, 2023 revealed that the nurse was called to the dining room, stating that an altercation had occurred between Resident #11 and Resident #10. The note indicated that the two residents were talking at the dining table and both became verbally aggressive. Resident #10 attempted to elbow Resident #11, and Resident #11 then hit Resident #10. Staff then attempted to escort Resident #11 away when Resident #10 stood and hit Resident #11 in the back before falling to the ground. Interview was attempted with the staff members working the day of the incident who may have witnessed the altercation, but none of the staff could be reached for interview. Interview was conducted on August 28, 2025 at 8:41AM with a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA/Staff #95), who stated that she would consider a resident hitting another resident to be abuse, and she would report this immediately to the administrator after separating the residents. The CNA reported that she often worked on the behavioral unit, so she had received training on how to de-escalate conflict. She reported that if a resident were to begin to scream at another resident or staff, she would try to give the resident space. She stated that this often helps. Interview was conducted on August 28, 2025 at 8:46AM with a Registered Nurse (RN/Staff #92), who stated that she often works with residents with behaviors, and they can get agitated easily. She stated that the difference between behaviors and abuse can sometimes be difficult to determine, but she stated that physical contact would be considered abuse. The RN explained that if a physical altercation occurred, the two residents should be separated and assessed for injury. Then, the manager, doctor, family, and administrator should be notified. Interview was conducted on August 29, 2025 at 10:35AM with the Director of Nursing (DON/Staff #151), who stated that abuse is anything willful, intentional, and deliberate. The DON stated that any physical altercations between residents are reported as abuse allegations. She also stated that the residents in the facility are mostly confused and do not know what they are doing. During this interview, the DON explained that she was not working at the facility when the altercation with Resident #22 and Resident #4 occurred, nor when the altercation with Resident #22 and Resident #23 occurred. She did explain that she remembered that Resident #22 was cognitively impaired and had behaviors, which she felt could be managed at the facility. Additionally, the DON stated that while she was present in her role when the altercation between Resident #10 and Resident #11 occurred, she could not recall details about the incident. Review of the facility policy titled, “Abuse: Prevention of and Prohibition Against”, revealed that residents have the right to be free from verbal, sexual, physical, and mental abuse, corporal punishment, and involuntary seclusion.
Sept 2024 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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews and reviews of facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews and reviews of facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure care and services that adhere to accepted standards related to medications administration was provided to one resident (#125). The deficient practice could result in resident not receiving the necessary treatment needed. Findings include: Resident #125 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, hypertension, atrial fibrillation, and depression. The care plan initiated on April 7, 2024 revealed the resident had altered cardiovascular status hypertension, atrial fibrillation, trans ischemic attack history. The goal was that the resident will remain free from signs and symptoms of hypertension. Interventions included give antihypertensive medications as ordered, monitor for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension and increased heart rate, and effectiveness, notify physician of any signs and symptoms of cardiovascular complications: nausea, vomiting, shortness of breath, decreased capillary refill, chest pain/discomfort, monitor for and document any edema, monitor/document abnormalities for urinary output and report significant changes to the physician. The physician order dated April 6, 2024 revealed the following orders: -Lisinopril (antihypertensive) 20 mg (milligram) give one tablet by mouth one time a day for hypertension; -Carvedilol (antihypertensive) 6.25 mg give 1 tablet by mouth 2 times a day for hypertension; and, -Midodrine (alpha adrenergic agonist) 5 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 24 hours as needed for hypotension. Review of the admission MDS (minimum data set) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score of 5 indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also revealed that the resident had no health conditions or chronic diseases that result in a life expectancy of less than 6 months. The NP (nurse practitioner) progress note dated June 5, 2024 revealed that staff reported that the resident had not been eating. Assessments included dementia and hypertension. Plan was to monitor BP (blood pressure), HR (heart rate) and rhythm and laboratories in the morning were ordered. Per the documentation, the resident's BP was controlled. The late entry NP progress note dated June 7, 2024 included that the resident was not eating and drinking well; appeared tired; was not answering questions; and that, an order to was given to the nurse for one liter of IV (intravenous) fluids. It also included that staff were continue to encourage oral intake. The condition follow-up note dated June 8, 2024 revealed that the resident was s/p (status post) IV hydration, was more alert but remained somewhat lethargic; and, oral fluids were encouraged and accepted at 50%. The BP record for June 8, 2024 was 128/74 mmHg (millimeters mercury) at 6:51 a.m. and 133/77 mmHg at 8:27 p.m. The condition follow-up note dated June 10, 2024 included BP was 113/62 mmHg; and that, the IV hydration was completed. The BP record for June 10, 2024 were as follows: -128/72 mmHg at 4:31 p.m. -116/62 mmHg at 5:27 p.m.; and, -120/60 mmHg at 11:52 p.m. The BP record on June 11, 2024 included the following: -115/61 mmHg at 1:41 a.m.; -95/67 mmHg at 2:52 p.m.; and, -95/65 mmHg at 5:30 p.m. The medication administration record (MAR) for June 2024 revealed that June 11, 2024 at 2:52 p.m., Midodrine was administered to the resident. However, there was no documentation found in the clinical record that Midodrine was administered at 5:30 p.m. for a BP reading of 95/65 mmHg; and that, the physician was notified. The BP record on June 13, 2024 was 80/62 mmHg at 7:53 a.m. and was 65/33 mmHg at 10:08 a.m. and 10:23 a.m. Despite documentation of low BP at 7:53 a.m., 10:08 a.m. and 10:23 a.m. on June 13, 2024, there was no evidence found that Midodrine was administered to the resident. Review of the MAR for June 2024 revealed that Lisinopril and Carvedilol were documented as administered to the resident at 8:00 a.m. on June 13, 2024 (approximately 7 minutes from the time BP reading of 80/62 mmHg). The clinical record revealed no documentation of any interventions put in place to address the resident's low BP readings at 7:53 a.m., 10:00 a.m. and 10:23 a.m.; and that, the physician was notified. The nursing note dated June 13, 2024 at 12:08 p.m. included that the resident was sent to the hospital due to low BP and per physician and family request. An interview was conducted on August 30, 2024 at 8:11 a.mm with a certified nursing assistant (CNA/staff #150) who stated that when she comes in for her shift, she would check the assignment book to see which residents she has and would do walk-in rounds during report. The CNA said that while waiting for the resident's breakfast, she would starts taking vital signs for her residents at around 6:30 a.m.; and this usually take around 30 minutes to an hour to finish taking vital signs for all residents assigned to her. She said that she would then document the resident's vital signs in the electronic record at around 7:30 a.m. The CNA said that abnormal BP reading would be a BP above 140/80 mmHg and under 100/60 mmHg; and that, she would notify the nurse immediately about the abnormal BP reading. An interview was conducted with another CNA (staff #135) on August 30, 2024 at 8:25 a.m. Staff #135 stated that when he arrives for his shift, he gets a report from the night shift, checks his assignment, and then start to get vital signs for residents assigned to him. He said that he starts taking resident vital signs from 6:00 a.m. through 7:00 a.m., documents the vital signs in the electronic record within same time frame up to 7:30 a.m. so the nurse has the vital signs results on hand and could do medication pass. Staff #135 stated after finishing taking resident vital signs, he will check the resident rooms, pass out breakfast which was served at 7:00 a.m. Staff #135 stated that an abnormal and high blood pressure would be150/80-90 mmHg and low blood pressure would be 100/60 mmHg; and that, he would report these abnormal vital signs to the nurse so the nurse can possibly administer medication if needed and to make sure that the resident was okay. In an interview with a registered nurse (RN)/staff #58) conducted on August 30, 2024 at 8:44 a.m., the RN stated that the 8:00 a.m. scheduled medications can be given at 7:00 a.m.; and that, documentation in the MAR revealed the use of the following codes: (a) check mark to indicate medication was administered; (b) Number 2 to indicate Hold/See Nurses Notes; (c) Number 10 to indicate hospitalization; and, (d) Number 12 to indicate blood pressure parameters. The RN said that when giving blood pressure medications, she will look for the resident's current blood pressure, pulse and their physical state such as being alert. She stated that she will not administer an antihypertensive medication such as lisinopril if the systolic blood pressure was less than 90 mmHg, if pulse was anything less than 60 for pulse, and she will notify the provider of the resident vital signs. During an interview with director of nursing (DON/staff #504) and the clinical resource (staff #505) conducted on September 3, 2024 at 10:25 a.m., the DON stated that for a change of condition, staff would first assess the resident then notify the provider. The DON said that they transfer resident to the hospital when the level of care cannot be provided in their facility; and that, when a resident is transferred, they would notify their family and complete the notice of transfer/discharge. Regarding resident #25, the DON stated the resident had lisinopril 20 mg by mouth every day for hypertension scheduled to be administered at 8:00 a.m. and carvedilol 6.25 mg twice a day scheduled to be administered at 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. The DON stated that on June 13, 2024 at 7:53 a.m. the resident's BP was 80/62; and, the actual time lisinopril and carvedilol were given to resident #25 on June 13, 2024 was at 8:26 a.m. She stated that staff were expected to call/notify the provider when the BP was low and to follow physician orders. Further, the DON stated that resident #125 was transferred out due to low blood pressure per family request. She stated that the resident's BP was 60/33 at 10:23 a.m.; and the resident was transferred out at 10:49 am on June 13, 2024 for low blood pressure. The facility policy on Administration of Drugs with revision date of February 2024 included that medications shall be administered as prescribed by the physician. Medications must be administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending physician.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0773 (Tag F0773)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an abnormal lab results for one resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure an abnormal lab results for one resident (#91) were promptly communicated to the provider. The deficient practice could result in complications and/or worsening of resident's health. Findings include: Resident #91 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia, dysphagia, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and psychotic disorder. The ADL (activities of daily living) care plan dated July 26, 2024 revealed the resident had ADL self-care performance deficit related to dementia, impaired mobility and UTI (urinary tract infection). Interventions included for staff to provide up to extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, transfers, personal hygiene and locomotion on and off unit. Another care plan dated July 26, 2024 included that the resident had bowel/bladder incontinence related to dementia and impaired mobility. Intervention included to monitor/document for signs/symptoms of UTI. The late entry NP (nurse practitioner) progress note dated August 7, 2024 revealed the resident had been having nausea and vomiting, had IV (intravenous) fluid running and had a pending urine culture. Assessment included leukocytosis. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, indicating severe cognitive impairment. The nutritional care plan revised on August 10, 2024 included the resident had potential nutritional problem and required diuretic treatment with fluid related weight changes and abnormal labs expected. Interventions included to obtain and monitor lab/diagnostic work as ordered, to report results to the physician and to follow-up as indicated. Review of physician order dated August 16, 2024 revealed an order for a urine culture and sensitivity for leukocytosis for 2 days. This order was transcribed onto the MAR for August 2024 and revealed documentation was coded as 1 indicating refusal on August 18, 2024 Review of the nursing progress note dated August 19, 2024 revealed that the urinalysis (UA) result was back; and that, the NP was notified. Per the documentation, there were no new orders and will wait for culture and sensitivity result. The UA result with collection date of August 19, 2024 revealed abnormal results: moderate leukocyte, trace protein and trace-intact blood. It also included a final urine culture result of >100,000 CFU/ml (colony-forming units per milliliter) of Klebsiella pneumoniae (bacteria) ESBL (Extended-spectrum beta-lactamases). Per the documentation, the lab result had a report date of August 22, 2024. Despite documentation of the laboratory result, the clinical record revealed no evidence that treatment was provided and started from August 22, 2024 to August 28, 2024. There was also no evidence found that the physician was notified of the urine culture result from August 22 through August 27, 2024. The physician progress notes on August 28, 2024 at 8:21 a.m. included that the physician was asked to see the resident due to concerns for change in mental status. Per the documentation, the resident's family had been requesting blood work because the family thought that the resident had UTI as the resident's mental status changed. Per the documentation, urinalysis was reviewed and showed positive for UTI; and that, the resident was not at her baseline during the visit. Assessments included leukocytosis and UTI - Klebsiella. Plans were to start on oral antibiotics for underlying UTI; and if the clinical picture changes will start IV antibiotics; and, consider starting IV fluids for volume contraction. The nursing note dated August 28, 2024 revealed that the resident's family was notified of the UA results and the starting of the oral antibiotics. The physician order dated August 28, 2024 revealed an order for Amoxicillin-Pot Clavulanate (antibiotic) 875-125 mg (milligram) give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours for bacterial infection for 10 days. This order was transcribed onto the MAR but was also marked as pending confirmation. There is no evidence found in the clinical record that the antibiotic was administered to the resident. A nursing progress note dated August 29, 2024 at 4:25 a.m. revealed that Resident #91 had UTI and was ordered amoxicillin; and that, the resident became unresponsive, was spasming, had fluctuating vitals and could not swallow her antibiotics. Per the documentation, physician requested for the resident to be sent out to the hospital. An interview was conducted on August 29, 2024 at 1:38 p.m. with a licensed practical nurse (LPN/staff #31) who stated that it was the responsibility of the nurse to tell oncoming staff about pending labs during nurse to nurse report; and that, the nurses should check the lab book to be aware of pending labs for residents under their care. The LPN said that in order to check the status of lab results, a nurse can call and ask the lab or check in the electronic health record (EHR) under the results tab. She also stated that urine cultures typically take 2-3 days before a result is received; and, once results were received, staff should immediately notify the physician and put a nursing note into the clinical record. In an interview with the DON conducted on August 30, 2024 at 10:27 a.m., the DON stated that lab results should be reported to the physician once the result is received. She said that the expectation was for nursing staff to look at any lab results throughout their shift and notify the physician of any changes or new results. Regarding resident #91, the DON stated that the most recent urine culture result was received on August 22, 2024; but stated that the result did not seem right and would call in the Infection Preventionist to address this lab result. An interview with the DON and the Infection Preventionist (IP/staff #97) was conducted on August 30, 2024 at 10:44 a.m. The IP stated that sometimes the lab results do not reflect correctly in the EHR; and that, the urine culture result for resident #91 was received on August 28, 2024 and not on August 22, 2024 as noted in the EHR. Further, the DON stated that it was important to address things when made aware; however, she does not believe that the resident's lab result was reported to the facility until August 28, 2024. A telephone interview was conducted on August 30, 2024 at 10:50 a.m. with a representative from the laboratory where the urinalysis and urine culture of resident #91 was processed. The lab representative stated that the laboratory order for a urine culture for resident #91 was received by the lab on August 19, 2024; and, the results were reported to the facility on August 22, 2024 at 11:44 a.m. The lab representative further stated that any results sent to the facility would be available in their EHR within a few minutes. On August 30, 2024 at 12:46 p.m., the DON presented an email correspondence from the laboratory's Director of Sales and Marketing who wrote that laboratory was investigating the laboratory results for requisition for resident #91. The email also included that the laboratory had received the lab request on August 19, 2024 with the final report being reported on August 22, 2024 at 11:44 a.m. In a telephone interview with the laboratory customer service representative conducted on September 3, 2024 at 10:16 a.m., he stated that urine cultures normally take 3-4 days but that results are instantly reported to the facility. Further, the lab customer service representative stated that the urine culture result for resident #91 was reported to the facility on August 22, 2024. Review of the facility policy titled Change of Condition Reporting revealed that all changes in resident condition should be communicated to the physician and documented. This policy further specifies that changes such as changes in behavior and abnormal laboratory results should be communicated to the provider promptly, and the notification should be documented.
Aug 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, facility documentation, policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, facility documentation, policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure adequate supervision was provided to one resident (#1) to prevent a fall with injury. The deficient practice resulted in a fall with injury. Findings include: Resident #1 was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included epilepsy, personal history of traumatic brain injury (TBI), hemiplegia, and hemiparesis following cerebral infarction affecting right dominant side. A care plan initiated on March 29, 2023 included the resident had ADL (activities of daily living) self-care performance deficit related to TBI and was at risk for falls related to right sided weakness. Interventions included two-staff participation with transfers and wearing of safety helmet, frequent reminder to allow staff to supervise while ambulating, call light be within reach, encourage to call for assistance as needed, wearing appropriate footwear when ambulating or wheeling in wheelchair and keeping needed items such as water in reach. The care plan dated April 7, 2023 included the resident had bowel/bladder incontinence related to impaired mobility. Interventions included to ensure there was an unobstructed path to the bathroom. Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] revealed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 5 indicating the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS assessment also indicated that the resident required limited one person assist for transfers, walking, and locomotion and used a walker and/or wheelchair as mobility devices. The discharge note dated July 21, 2023 included the resident left facility and was transported by a family member for a brain surgery. Per the documentation, the resident's vitals were stable with no acute distress and the provider was aware of surgery. A physician order dated July 24, 2023 included for the bed may be placed against the wall to increase living space in room. A fall risk evaluation dated July 24, 2023 revealed a score of 14 indicating the resident was high risk for fall. The assessment included the resident has had a history of 1-2 falls in the past three months, had balance problem while standing/walking, decreased muscular coordination/jerking movements, change in gait pattern when walking, and required use of assistive devise. A physician note dated July 24, 2023 revealed the resident had left-sided cranioplasty on July 21, 2023; and that, during hospitalization, the resident had a seizure-like episode in the recovery room after surgery and was transferred to ICU (Intensive Care Unit) for close monitoring and neurocritical care. Per the documentation, during the physician's examination at the day of discharge, the resident did not require oxygen, denied shortness of breath, chest pain, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, fevers, or loss of consciousness. Assessment included CCM (Cerebral cavernous malformations) medical management treatment and plan. The plan was to continue seizure precautions per facility, follow up with neuro surgery/neuro as outpatient, and fall precaution. A nursing note dated July 25, 2023 included skin examination for re-admission revealed an incision to left side of head from temple to mid-forehead in a C-shape, approximately 25 centimeters long, with approximately 42 staples in place, was open to air, with no redness, drainage or separation noted along incision. It also included that there were no signs/symptoms of infection, non-tender to touch and the resident denied pain. Further, the documentation included that the resident had non-skid socks in place and bed in low position. The skin care plan dated July 26, 2023 included that the resident had actual impairment to skin integrity related to surgical wound to scalp with staples. Interventions included to follow facility protocols for treatment of injury. The condition follow-up note dated July 26, 2023 revealed resident was monitored for readmission s/p (status post) skull bone flap replacement and postoperative seizure activity. A condition follow-up note dated July 27, 2023 indicated that the resident was monitored for readmission s/p skull bone flap replacement and postoperative seizure activity. Per the documentation, no distress, seizure activity was noted or reported and the staples to scalp were intact with no signs/symptoms of infection. It also included that resident tolerated all medications and the vitals were within normal limits. The physician progress note dated July 31, 2023 included the resident was alert and oriented x2, had surgical scar to the left side of the head and had right hemiparesis. Assessments included history of SDH/SAH (Subdural hemorrhage/subarachnoid hemorrhage) s/s decompressive craniectomy; s/p cranioplasty on July 21; and, generalized weakness. Plan was CCM medical management treatment and plan and fall precautions. Review of the comprehensive care plan did not include any focus of care, goals, desired outcomes, and specific interventions related to the resident's recent cranioplasty from July 25 through August 2, 2023. A physician order dated August 3, 2023 included for an order that the bed may be placed in appropriate position for safety. The comprehensive care plan was revised on August 3, 2023 to include the following interventions initiated: -Anticipate and meet needs; -Bed in appropriate position for safety; -Educate resident/family about safety reminders and what to do if a fall occurs; -Follow facility fall protocol; -Maintain a clear pathway, free of obstacles; -May place bed against wall to increase living space in room; -Encourage to use bell to call for assistance; -Converse with resident while providing care; and, -Explain all procedures/task before starting. A Nurse Practitioner (NP) progress note dated August 8, 2023 included that the resident was up in chair, ambulated independently and denied pain/headache. Physical exam of the skin noted surgical scar to left side of head. Another NP progress note dated August 15, 2023 revealed the resident was up and ambulating on unit and was talking more clearly; and that, the nurse reported that he resident's pulse was sometimes low due to propranolol. Physical exam of skin noted surgical scar to left side of head. Assessment was CCM medical management treatment and plan. Plan included to continue seizure precautions-per facility and fall precaution. Review of the fall risk evaluation dated August 18, 2023 revealed a fall risk score of 9 indicating medium risk for falls. The assessment also included the resident had a history of 1-2 falls in the past three months, had balance problem while standing/walking, decreased muscular coordination/jerking movements, and change in gait pattern when walking. A nursing note dated August 18, 2023 included that the nurse heard a loud noise in resident's room and upon entering found the resident on the bathroom floor with head against the wall with significant amount of bleeding. Per the documentation, the resident reported that he tripped on commode that was in the bathroom; and that, 911 was called because resident had recent surgery to the head. A physician order dated August 18, 2023 revealed an order to send the resident to the ED (Emergency Department) for evaluation and treatment regarding fall. The nursing home to hospital transfer form dated August 18, 2023 included the resident was transferred to the hospital for a fall with injury. Under relevant information, there was no mention that the resident had a recent cranioplasty. Review of the fire department incident report revealed that on August 18, 2023 revealed the resident was found on the floor in the bathroom with head dressed and bandaged. Per the documentation, resident had moderate amount of blood on his head and face, would occasionally moan but was unresponsive to verbal stimulus. Detailed findings included bleeding, deformity, laceration and swelling to the head. The documentation also included that the laceration was approximately 6 inches long was full thickness with brain matter protruding from the wound. The report also included that the resident's initial acuity was Critical /Immediate; and that, after assessment and treatment, the resident's final acuity was unchanged. It also included that the resident was transported to the hospital emergency department. An undated graphic photo provided by the complainant revealed that the resident was lying down with leads on his chest, nasal cannula on his nose and blood-stained gauze was lying beside the resident's head. The photo revealed the resident had dried blood stain on his forehead and deep laceration extending from the top of his forehead just by the hairline to almost the length of the top of his head with the wound opened and something white was protruding from the open wound on the top of the head. The facility's incident report with a locked date of August 21, 2023 included that on August 18, 2023 a loud noise was heard in the resident's room and the resident was found in the bathroom floor with his head against the wall and had significant amount of bleeding. The report included that the resident described that he tripped over a commode that was in the bathroom. Further review of the fall risk care plan revealed that the intervention of frequent safety checks and frequent reminder to allow staff to supervise while ambulating was not initiated until August 18, 2023. An IDT (interdisciplinary team) fall committee note dated August 21, 2023 revealed the resident had a fall incident on August 18, 2023, was found on the floor in his bathroom and had a laceration to his head. Per the documentation, 911 was called due to recent craniotomy and resident was admitted to the hospital. The documentation also included that resident reported that he tripped on his commode while getting off the toilet and fell forward. Per the documentation, the commode was in place to raise the toilet seat to an appropriate height for the resident. Further, the note revealed that the resident was ambulatory with supervision with no assistance, had a recent left craniotomy and had history of TBI with decompressive craniotomy, seizure disorder; and, worked with therapy for strengthening. It also included that resident will often get up alone and walk around his room and staff provided frequent safety reminders and redirection. However, review of the clinical record revealed no documentation that resident #1 was provided safety reminders, redirection, or education regarding ambulating without supervision/assistance. During an interview with a licensed practical nurse (LPN/staff #5) conducted on August 25, 2023 at 1:35 pm, the LPN stated that interventions for residents at risk for fall included frequent checks and lots of education if the resident were alert and oriented. The LPN said that an incident report is completed following a fall; and, if the fall was unwitnessed then neuro checks were also completed. The LPN said that even when the fall was witnessed but if the resident hits their head, neuro checks and assessments were completed. Regarding resident #1, the LPN said that he was familiar with resident #1 who was new at the facility for rehabilitation and was moved to North station. The LPN said that resident #1 was a very pleasant man who was making great strides with rehab, was improving his vocabulary and making daily improvements with regards to being able to do things for himself; and that, the resident was highly motivated. The LPN said that resident #1 had a surgery in which part of the resident's skull removed and replaced; and that, the suture line was healing. He stated that the resident's room was close to the nurse's station; and that, there were no orders for mat on the floor. He said sometimes, the resident would call for help and sometimes would not call for help and those were the times that he had to be reminded. The LPN said that resident #1 was a standby assist; and that, resident #1 normally listens when told not to get up and wait. However, the LPN said that the resident does try to get up. He also said that maybe if he had gotten to the room to give the resident his medications 10 seconds prior or if somebody saw him getting up, then resident #1 would have been reminded and he would not have gotten up and fell. The LPN said that certified nursing assistants (CNAs) and the nurses conduct rounds on the resident but staff was him frequently and so were the nurses. He stated that resident #1 was not on a specific rounding timeframe. However, since resident #1's roommate was actively passing, there were always people there. Regarding the fall incident, the LPN said that the interventions in place at the time of the resident's fall included frequent reminders and education since the resident needed constant reminder, call for help (resident would acknowledge that it was important) and bed was in low position. At the time of the fall, the LPN said that he was in the process of preparing the resident's medication when he heard a loud noise and he went to the resident's room and found that the resident was not in bed. The LPN said that he tapped on the door and when he opened the door, the resident was on the floor leading to the restroom; and that, the resident was putting 2-3 words together. The LPN stated that he then applied pressure to the wound and asked the resident what happened; and that, the resident kept mixing his words and kept pointing to the commode, was not sensible, and spoke in a lower tone compared to his normal voice. Further, the LPN stated that prior to the resident's fall, the suture line to the resident's wound was healed and nothing was open, the staples had been removed. However, after the fall, it looked like there was a significant wound and there was a lot of bleeding so he yelled for 911 to be called. The LPN said that the resident's wound was right in the frontal area about a centimeter from the healed suture line and that skin on the head being pulled back a little. The LPN stated he could not tell how deep the wound was but that it had some thickness to it and was a pretty good laceration. Further, the LPN said that he applied pressure and waited for 911 since the wound looked beyond his scope of care. The LPN said that he was not aware that the resident was not back yet; and that, he thought the resident was coming back the same day. He said that he last spoke to the resident's family who told him that they were waiting for the test results then the resident would come back to the facility. However, the LPN said that when another nurse called the hospital on Tuesday, August 22, 2023, the nurse was told that the resident was on life support and there were brain matter coming out of his skull. The LPN said that this information was not confirmed. An interview with a CNA (staff #10) was conducted on August 25, 2023 at 2:09 p.m. Staff #10 stated that interventions for fall risk resident usually consisted of: redirecting and assisting them, letting them know how to use the call light and ask for assistance, help them get into bed, and ensure call light was within reach. The CNA noted that some residents are care planned to have mat on the floor and/or bed lowered to the floor. Staff #10 stated that she was familiar with resident #1 and that he was a pleasant man who had to be redirected several times. She said resident #1 is supposed to use his wheelchair to ambulate. However, resident #1 walks around without his wheelchair. Since resident #1 is unstable, he has to be told not to get up without using a wheelchair so he does not fall. Staff #10 stated that when resident #1 is left alone, he then gets up without the wheelchair and walks instead. She said that resident had a fall; and, when the fall occurred, she was across the hall and heard a bump and a nurse yelling for help and she took the resident's vitals. The CNA said that the nurse asked resident #1 what happened and resident said he got up, tripped on the commode and hit his head. The CNA said there was blood everywhere and they put pressure on the resident's head and called 911. She stated that one person was taking vitals, and another nurse and another CNA were helping. The CNA said that she heard the resident say that he tripped and hit himself on the wall which was contradicting what the LPN (staff #5) had said regarding resident's ability to say what happened. The CNA stated that the interventions in place for resident #1 at the time of the incident included call light in place, mat on the floor, lowered bed, ensure that things resident needs were within reach to prevent him from doing things he was not supposed to, and redirect if resident does things that are not safe. The CNA further stated that she does not think there was anything that could have been done to prevent the resident from falling. A phone interview with another LPN (staff #15) was conducted on August 28, 2023 at 8:59 a.m. She stated that upon admission residents are assessed for fall risk and based on this, they determine if there are orders for safety. She said that safety education is provided if resident is coherent enough to agree; and that, they also do a toilet schedule and fall risk management. Staff #15 stated that she only took care of resident #1 twice; and that, resident #1 just sat at the side of the bed and listened to music and seemed to respond better in Spanish. She stated that during the night shift, resident #1 asks for help before getting up and would turn on his call light. Staff #15 stated that resident #1 suffered a fall the morning before she returned to shift. Staff #15 said that at the time of the fall, the fall interventions in place for resident #1 included toilet schedule, might have had a mat on the floor but she was not sure, and was care planned for safety. She stated that since she was always in the hall, when she worked with him, she checked on him approximately every 45 minutes. Staff #15 stated that for the night shift, resident #1 was pretty compliant. However, she was not sure if it was the same for the day shift. Staff #15 stated that when she cared for him, resident #1 had a large incision on his head, but it was healing, there was no drainage or anything open. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #50) conducted on August 28, 2023 at 2:03 p.m., the DON stated that her expectation was for staff to identify residents' risk for falls and implement interventions that are ordered and care planned. She stated that the interventions for fall risk residents depends on the resident and the evaluation. The DON said that her expectation was for staff to identify who the high-risk residents are and follow physician's orders for interventions, conduct frequent checks for safety, ensure items are within reach and to toilet resident frequently. Furthermore, the DON said that if an intervention was not working, they meet as IDT (interdisciplinary team) to create new interventions and that if a resident wants to lay on the floor, that would be included in the care plan. The DON said that it also her expectation a risk management is completed in the electronic record following a fall incident; and that, there are IDT notes in the electronic record, the team reviews information during standup, talk about interventions, and discuss during weekly fall meeting on Friday for opportunities and trends. She also said that it is expected that new interventions are put in place after a fall incident and the interventions are based on the assessed needs of the resident. She stated that if a resident fell and goes to the ER (Emergency Room) then that was an intervention and they would reevaluate the interventions when the resident returns. Regarding resident #1, the DON stated that she was not too familiar with resident #1 without looking at his clinical record; however, she stated that she knew the resident and that the resident was working with therapy. Further, the DON stated that resident #1 was encouraged to use call light but gets up on his own and had to be redirected. The facility policy titled Fall Management System reviewed June 2023 indicated that it was their policy to provide each resident with appropriate assessment and interventions to prevent falls and to minimize complications if a fall occurs. Furthermore, residents with a fall risk eval score of 10 or above are considered high risk and will have an individualized care plan developed which includes measurable objectives and timeframes. The policy also included that the care plan interventions will be developed to manage falls and will consider the particular elements of the assessment that put the resident as risk. Review of the facility policy titled Documentation and Charting revised July 2022 revealed that it is their policy to provide a complete account of the resident's care, treatment, response to care, signs, symptoms, etc., as well as the progress of the resident's care. The facility policy on Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning reviewed October 2022 stated that comprehensive care plan will include resident's needs identified in the comprehensive assessment and any specialized services, resident's goals, and desired outcomes.
Feb 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed clinical record review, staff interview, and the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) manual, the facility faile...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on closed clinical record review, staff interview, and the RAI (Resident Assessment Instrument) manual, the facility failed to ensure the MDS (Minimum Data Set) assessment was accurate for one resident (#121). The sample size was 25. The deficient practice could result in an inaccurate assessment and resident not receiving the appropriate care and services needed. Findings include: Resident # 121 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, down syndrome, restlessness and agitation, adult failure to thrive, essential (primary) hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia without lower urinary tract symptoms, hyperlipidemia, syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone, hyperkeratosis of [NAME], and personal history of urinary (tract) infections. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident # 121 included that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was not conducted because the resident was rarely/never understood. The assessment included that the resident had an ok short- and long-term memory with memory/recall ability for staff names and faces only. The assessment included that the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The assessment included that the resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The assessment included that the resident did not have oxygen while not a resident or while a resident. Review of the clinical record revealed the following provider orders: -CHECK O2 SATS (oxygen saturations) every shift and apply oxygen when SATs are <90% -Continuous Oxygen- Titrate between 1 and 5 LPM (liters per minute) VIA NC (nasal cannula) to maintain O2(oxygen) SATS (oxygen blood saturation) OVER 90% every night shift for sleep apnea (ordered 12/3/2022) -Transfer to hospital one time only for SOB (shortness of breath), Low O2 (oxygen) Review of the clinical record revealed the following vital signs: -Oxygen Saturations: --11/30/2022 5:05 pm 94.0 % on room air --12/2/2022 1:31 am 92.0 % while on oxygen via nasal cannula --All values within normal limits from 12/2-12/14 --12/14/2022 11:06 am 96.0 % Room Air --12/14/2022 12:09 am 85.0 % Room Air A Nursing note dated December 1, 2022 at 6:42 pm included that the resident's oxygen saturation was 85%. The note included that the nurse that wrote the note provided oxygen via simple mask at 5 liters per minute. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for December 2022 revealed resident #121 was administered oxygen at 2 LPM (liters per minute) on December 3 and 4, 2022. During an interview conducted on February 2, 2023 10:17 am with a MDS nurse (staff #146), staff #146 stated that on the day of admission she looks at hospital records, notes, assessments, and the resident to complete the 7 day look back period. Staff #146 stated the MDS is responsible for triggering care areas on the care plan. Staff #146 stated that oxygen should have been coded on the MDS. An interview was conducted on February 2, 2023 at 10:52 am with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #11). The DON stated that care plans are generated from the MDS assessment and as resident needs change. The DON stated that the expectation is the MDS be accurate at the time of the assessment. The DON stated that the oxygen should have been captured on the MDS for resident #121. A facility policy titled Resident Assessments (revised 5/2022) included that it is the policy of this facility that resident assessments shall be developed and reviewed on a timely basis based on resident condition and RAI guidelines. The RAI manual revealed steps for assessment of special treatments that stated to code continuous or intermittent oxygen administered via mask, cannula, etc., delivered to a resident to relieve hypoxia in this item. This item may be coded if the resident places or removes his/her own oxygen mask, cannula.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that comprehensive ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, and policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that comprehensive care plans were developed for one resident (#121) using oxygen therapy. The deficient practice could result in residents needs based on the comprehensive assessment not being met. Resident # 121 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus without complications, down syndrome, restlessness and agitation, adult failure to thrive, essential (primary) hypertension, benign prostatic hyperplasia without lower urinary tract symptoms, hyperlipidemia, syndrome of inappropriate secretion of antidiuretic hormone, hyperkeratosis of [NAME], and personal history of urinary (tract) infections. An admission Minimum Data Set (MDS) dated [DATE] for Resident # 121 included that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) was not conducted because the resident was rarely/never understood. The assessment included that the resident had an ok short- and long-term memory with memory/recall ability for staff names and faces only. The assessment included that the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The assessment included that the resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfers, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The assessment included that the resident did not have oxygen while not a resident or while a resident. Review of the clinical record revealed no documentation of a care plan for oxygen use or respiratory. Review of the clinical record revealed the following provider orders: -CHECK O2 SATS (oxygen saturations) every shift and apply oxygen when SATs are <90% -Continuous Oxygen- Titrate between 1 and 5 LPM (liters per minute) VIA NC (nasal cannula) to maintain O2(oxygen) SATS (oxygen blood saturation) OVER 90% every night shift for sleep apnea (ordered 12/3/2022) -Transfer to hospital one time only for SOB (shortness of breath), Low O2 (oxygen) Review of the clinical record revealed the following vital signs: -Oxygen Saturations: --11/30/2022 5:05 pm 94.0 % on room air --12/2/2022 1:31 am 92.0 % while on oxygen via nasal cannula --All values within normal limits from 12/2-12/14 --12/14/2022 11:06 am 96.0 % Room Air --12/14/2022 12:09 am 85.0 % Room Air A Nursing note dated December 1, 2022 at 6:42 pm included that the resident's oxygen saturation was 85%. The note included that the nurse that wrote the note provided oxygen via simple mask at 5 liters per minute. Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for December 2022 revealed resident #121 was administered oxygen at 2 LPM (liters per minute) on December 3 and 4, 2022. During an interview conducted on February 2, 2023 10:17 am with a MDS nurse (staff #146), staff #146 stated that on the day of admission she looks at hospital records, notes, assessments, and the resident to complete the 7 day look back period. Staff #146 stated the MDS is responsible for triggering care areas on the care plan. Staff #146 stated that oxygen should have been coded on the MDS. An interview was conducted on February 2, 2023 at 10:38 am with a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/staff #118). Staff #118 stated that when there is an admission order or a change of condition that results in an order for a new treatment, that treatment is added to the care plan. Staff #118 stated that he would have updated the care plan to include oxygen for resident #121. An interview was conducted on February 2, 2023 at 10:52 am with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #11). The DON stated that care plans are generated from the MDS assessment and as resident needs change. The DON stated that the expectation is the MDS be accurate at the time of the assessment. The DON stated that the oxygen should have been captured on the MDS for resident #121. A facility policy titled Care Planning (revised 11/22) included that it is the policy of this facility that the interdisciplinary team (IDT) shall develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The care plan will be revised as needed and interventions will be implemented. The care plan will be revised as needed for order changes or resident changes in condition and interventions will be implemented as appropriate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, staff interviews, and facility policies and procedures, the facility provided a psychotropi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on review of clinical records, staff interviews, and facility policies and procedures, the facility provided a psychotropic medication for Bipolar disorder for one resident (#72) without a diagnosis of Bipolar disorder: Findings include: Resident # 72 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified fracture of right calcaneus, subsequent encounter for fracture with routine healing, other viral pneumonia, other coronavirus as the cause of diseases classified elsewhere, acute respiratory failure with hypoxia, urinary tract infection, site not specified, type 2 diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia, type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic neuropathy, asthma, hypertensive chronic kidney disease with stage 1 through stage 4 chronic kidney disease, or unspecified chronic kidney disease, chronic kidney disease, stage 4 (severe), long term (current) use of insulin, obesity, depression, long term (current) use of anticoagulants, fibromyalgia, and dysphagia. Review of the clinical record revealed no diagnosis of bipolar disorder. Review of the clinical record revealed the following provider order: -ARIPiprazole (used to treat certain mental/mood disorders such as bipolar disorder) Oral Tablet 2 MG (ordered 1/15/2023), give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for bipolar disorder aeb (as evidenced by) mood lability Review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for January 2023 revealed that resident #72 was administered ARIPiprazole from January 16 through 31, 2023. A care plan initiated on January 15, 2023 for psychotropic medication use related to bipolar disorder included goals that the resident would be free from drug related complications and would have decreased episodes of mood lability. The interventions for these goals included administering medications as ordered, monitor for target behavior symptoms, and discuss with medical doctor for ongoing need of medication. A BHS (behavioral health service) provider note dated January 31, 2023 at 11:59 am included that the resident had a diagnosis of major depressive disorder, single episode. Review of the provider note dated January 31, 2023 did not include any documentation of a diagnosis of bipolar disorder. An interview was conducted on February 2, 2023 at 10:38 am with a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/staff #118). Staff #118 stated that when a psychotropic medication is ordered the he would verify the order, obtain a consent from the resident or representative, and verify the diagnosis. Staff #118 stated that there is no diagnosis of bipolar in the clinical record that he found for resident #72. An interview was conducted on February 2, 2023 at 10:52 am with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #11). The DON stated that the expectation of the staff is to make sure psychotropic medications are administered as ordered. The DON stated that the staff need to obtain consents, verify the orders, and monitor the resident for the behaviors or moods to make sure the medication is treating the diagnosis associated with the order. The DON stated that resident #72 does not have a diagnosis of bipolar. A facility policy titled Psychoactive Medication (revised 11/2022) included that a physician's order is necessary for the use of a psychoactive medication. Psychoactive medications are to be administered only when required to treat the resident's medical symptoms. No psychoactive medications will be utilized without a specific physician's order, or without a diagnosed specific condition, and will include the target behavior.
Jan 2022 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

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 review, the facility failed to ensure advanced directive was accur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure advanced directive was accurately documented for one of two sampled residents (#27). The census was 124. The deficient practice could result in residents receiving services which are not in accordance with their wishes. Findings include: Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, major depressive disorder, anemia and osteoarthritis. Review of the Advance Directive form in resident's #27 clinical record revealed that the resident does not want cardiac resuscitation measures (CPR) and does not want artificial nutrition (tube feeding) if unable to accept nourishment by mouth. The form also revealed that consent was received from the resident's family member on [DATE] and the form was signed by the facility representative on [DATE]. However, a physician's order dated [DATE] stated CPR/Full Code. Further review of the clinical record did not reveal the resident had changed the advance directive from DNR (Do Not resuscitate) to full code. An interview was conducted with a Licensed Practical Nurse (LPN/staff #28) on [DATE] at 11:35 AM, who stated advance directive is filled out on admission by the admission nurse and then an order is entered into PCC (Point Click Care/electronic record). Staff #28 stated the resident or resident's POA (Power of Attorney) can change the advance directive at any time. She stated in that case, a new form is signed and the resident clinical record is updated. The LPN stated she will look at the nursing assignment sheet or the PCC to look for a resident's code status. She then looked at the assignment sheet and stated that resident #27 is a full code. The LPN stated the code status in the resident's chart should match with what the resident or their POA signed on the advance directive form. Staff #28 looked at resident's #27 chart in PCC and stated that the resident has an order for full code and full code is listed therefore the resident is a full code. The LPN then reviewed the advance directive form signed on [DATE], and stated the resident representative signed for DNR. She stated the code status did not match and stated the resident records needed to be updated. The LPN stated if a resident received CPR when the resident had signed for DNR then it becomes a legal issue. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #133) on [DATE] at 11:19 AM. She stated the advance directive form is filled out on admission by the admission nurse and the admission nurse is the one placing the order. The DON stated then she will go through the admissions paperwork to make sure everything is correct and trust the staff that they completed the admission work. She stated that after the nurse informed her about resident #27 code status, she immediately checked, confirmed with the POA and corrected the resident's clinical record. The DON stated the facility was audited and there were no other issue with advance directive beside resident #27. The facility policy titled Advance Directive Documentation revised on [DATE] stated that the admission coordinator, or social service director shall provide the resident or responsible agent information regarding the right to formulate an advance directive, inquire whether he/she has completed an advance directive and document in the resident health record.
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, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensur...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, resident and staff interviews, and facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure that an allegation of sexual abuse for one resident (#32) was reported to the State Agency. The deficient practice could result in allegations of abuse not being reported as mandated by federal guidelines. Findings include: Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder, delusional disorders, and cognitive communication deficit. The admission Minimum Data Set assessment dated [DATE] included a brief interview mental status (BIMS) score of 13 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS assessment also included the resident did not hallucinate or have delusions during the look-back period. During an interview conducted with the resident on January 3, 2022 at 10:14 a.m., resident #32 stated that there are two guys that come into her room. She said that one of the men that came into her room the day before yesterday and tried to put his penis by her mouth. She said that she reported it and staff told her that they do not mean what they are doing. She stated that she is afraid of them, emotional, challenged to not go crazy. An interview was conducted on January 5, 2022 at 10:21 a.m. with a certified nursing assistant (CNA/staff #116). She said last week she heard resident #32 screaming in her room. Staff #116 stated she went to the resident's room and the resident told her that a male resident was disrobing and exposing himself. Staff #116 stated the male resident was in the room but had on clothes. She also said that she has received training about abuse and she is supposed to tell the nurse/manager when a resident makes an allegation of abuse. The CNA stated that that she did not report it because it is standard behavior for that resident to wander and to remove clothing, and it is standard behavior for resident #32 to scream and make allegations. Staff #116 stated that since the resident still had his clothing on, she did not think that anything happened. On January 6, 2022 at 10:24 a.m., an interview was conducted with another CNA (staff #4), who stated that she was told by another staff, but could not remember which staff, that resident #32 had reported a resident was in her room attempting to show his penis. She stated that she does not know what was done about the complaint. On January 7, 2022 at 10:16 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #133). She stated the staff should have reported the allegation made by resident #32 to her, and she would have reported the allegation to the State Agency, Adult Protective Services, the Sheriff, and the Ombudsman. The facility policy, Reporting Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime, revised November 15, 2018 stated it is the policy of this facility to protect its residents from abuse, neglect, exploitation and misappropriation of resident property. The facility likewise seeks to protect its residents from being subjected to incidents of crime, and to ensure that any such incidents (or reasonable suspicion of such incidents) are reported in a timely manner to the State Survey Agency and local law enforcement. When a covered individual (referred to herein as staff') suspects a crime has occurred against a facility resident, he/she must report the incident to the State Survey Agency and local law enforcement. The staff member shall report the suspicion immediately but not later than 2 hours after the crime has been committed. Staff must also report the suspicion of an incident to the Administrator.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

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, review of facility policy, and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manua...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record review, staff interviews, review of facility policy, and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to ensure that a significant change in status Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment was completed for one resident (#75) who was admitted on hospice services. The sample size was 25. The deficient practice could affect residents' continuity of care. Findings include: Resident #75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, senile degeneration of brain, and major depressive disorder. A physician order dated October 14, 2021 included an order for hospice to evaluate and treat. A hospice informed consent revealed the consent was signed by the resident's legal guardian for a start of benefits on October 14, 2021. Review of the physician order dated October 18, 2021 revealed the resident was with hospice, diagnosis senile degeneration of the brain. A review of the Care Plan initiated on October 18, 2021 revealed the resident had a terminal prognosis and was admitted to hospice. The goal was that the resident's comfort would be maintained. Interventions included coordinating care with hospice to provide activities of daily living care to the resident, and comfort and support to the resident and family. However, continued review of the clinical record did not reveal a significant change in status MDS assessment had been completed. An interview was conducted on January 7, 2021 at 12:23 PM with the MDS Nurse (staff #7), the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #133), and Clinical Resource (staff #129). The MDS nurse stated that when a resident is admitted to hospice services, a significant change in status MDS assessment is required to be completed. The MDS nurse reviewed resident #75's record, and stated that there was not a significant change in status assessment for the start of hospice services on October 14, 2021 for this resident. Staff #129 stated that there was an oversight from an MDS resource nurse that reviews and audits MDS assessments for accuracy and completion. The facility policy titled Frequency of Assessments revised May 2021 stated it is the policy of this facility that resident assessments shall be developed and reviewed on a timely basis, based on resident condition and RAI guidelines. The RAI manual stated a significant change in status assessment is required to be performed when a terminally ill resident enrolls in a hospice program or changes hospice providers and remains a resident at the nursing home.
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, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure infection prevention and control stan...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interviews, and facility policy, the facility failed to ensure infection prevention and control standards were maintained when handling one resident's (#70) medication during medication administration. The sample size was 6. The deficient practice could result in transmission of infection. Findings include: Resident #70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemiplegia and hemiparesis following an unspecified cerebrovascular disease affecting the right dominant side and essential hypertension. Review of the clinical record revealed a physician order dated November 9, 2021 for Atenolol 50 milligrams (mg) one tablet by mouth one time a day for hypertension. A medication administration observation was conducted on January 5, 2022 at 7:57 AM with a Registered Nurse (RN/ Staff #118). Staff #118 was observed preparing medications for resident #70. During the observation, the RN was observed to take out the resident's medication named Atenolol (antihypertensive) tablet 50 mg. The medication was in a blister pack/card and was observed to have two tablets left in the card. The RN was then observed to pop one tablet of Atenolol 50 mg into the medication cup. During the observation, both of the tablets from the medication blister pack were observed to fall out of the card. One tablet was observed to fall in the medication cup and one tablet was observed to fall on top of the medication cart. The nurse was then observed to pick up the tablet that fell on top of the medication cart without gloves and place it back in the blister pack. The nurse was observed to tape the blister pack so that the medication would not fall out and placed it back inside the medication cart. Following the observation, the nurse was asked about resident #70's Atenolol 50 mg tablet. The nurse stated that when she tried to pop one tablet of Atenolol into the medication cup, both of the tablets fell out. She stated one tablet went into the medication cup and one fell on top of the medication cart. She stated she placed the remaining tablet that fell on top of the cart into the blister card, taped it and placed the card back in with the resident's other medication cards. An interview was conducted with the RN (staff #118) on January 5, 2022 at 9:57 AM. She stated when a medication pill falls on the floor, she will discard the medication. She stated if narcotics medications fall on the floor she will call the unit manager and waste the narcotics in sharps containers. She stated that she tries to pour medications directly from the container into the medication cup to minimize touching. The RN stated that she will discard medications that fall on top of the cart and tries not to touch the medication with her hands due to infection risks. She stated that she tries to keep her hands as clean as possible but her hands still will not stay clean as hands have many bacteria. She stated that if she touches the pill with her hands there is risk of infection transmission. When asked about the observation, she stated that she should have discarded the medication once it fell on the cart. The RN stated she saved the medication because the resident had only one medication left so she was worried that the resident might run out of the medication; therefore, she placed the tablet that fell on top of the cart back into the medication blister card. She stated it has not happened that the residents run out of medications but she was worried about it. She stated she has not discarded the medication. She stated she should have discarded the medication. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #133) on January 7, 2022 at 11:19 AM. She stated her expectation from the nurses is for them to perform hand hygiene before giving medications, after popping the medications and after giving the medication. She stated the staff should not be touching the pills with their hand. The DON stated that if the medication pill falls on the top of the medication cart, the pill should be wasted and not given to the resident. The DON stated there is a risk for infection if the nurses are touching the medication pills with their hand. The facility's policy Medication Administration - Oral stated it is the policy of the facility to accurately prepare, administer and document oral medications. Wash hands or use hand sanitizer. Remove unit does medications from cards into med souffle cup for resident. The policy did not include the procedure to follow if the medication did not go into the medication cup.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure that maintenance and housekeeping services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, staff interviews, and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure that maintenance and housekeeping services necessary to maintain a sanitary, orderly, and comfortable interior was provided for 7 residents (#24, #63, #11, #74, #31, #41, and #76). The census was 124. The deficient practice could result in resident rooms not having a homelike environment. Findings include: An observation was conducted on January 3, 2022 at 9:45 AM. The hallway and room of resident #24 and resident #63 were noted to have a foul odor. Under the window to the exterior wall of the residents' room and closest to resident #24's bed, wall paper was observed peeling from the base of the window downward to the floor in 2 areas. Behind the wallpaper that was peeling was an open hole in the wall. The hole was observed to be approximately 8 to 10 inches in width and 4 to 6 inches in height. The closet space provided for resident #24 had closet fixture pieces that were wire-like that were on the floor inside that closet, and broken plastic brackets inside of the closet. On the floor near the closet for resident #24 was a thick black substance on and around the baseboard. The corner of the closet was observed to have peeling plaster and wallpaper. At the base of the floor on the base trim was a small hole approximately 1 inch by 1 inch. Wall paper was observed peeling to the right and just under the sink in the room. The wallpaper to the right of the sink was observed to have red dry droplets noted in multiple areas in circular droplet shapes. Also observed were 2 holes in the ceiling and drywall pieces hanging down. The holes were approximately 1 inch and circular shaped over resident #63's bed. Observation of the closet space for resident #62 revealed metal trim exposed to the wall edge near the closet, and the baseboard trim was missing. Wallpaper peeling from the wall and plaster debris was observed on the floor. Resident #63 was observed with no pictures on the wall or in the resident's area and had one bedside table and a bed. The floor space of resident #63 was noted to have 3 dry brown smudges on the floor near the bed. On January 3, 2022 at 12:50 PM, the room for resident #11 was observed. An area approximately 3-4 feet wide from the ceiling to the top of the resident's bed was observed to have wallpaper that had been peeled off. To the left of the bed was a white fiberglass reinforced plastic panel covering the wall that had a hole next to bed at the base of the paneling. The wall was to the left of the resident's bed. An observation was conducted of resident #74's room on January 3, 2022 at 12:52 PM. The electrical outlet next to resident #74's bed was missing the electrical outlet cover plate. The metal outlet cover was sitting on the air conditioning unit to the left of the bed. The outlet was left exposed. Continued observation revealed resident #31's room was also observed with an outlet with no cover plate, the outlet was left exposed. The cover plate was near the air conditioning unit. The Regional Maintenance Director (staff #135) was notified immediately of the safety concern. He stated that this occurrence should be documented in the facilities TELS system for reporting and tracking maintenance repairs. Further, staff #135 stated that he would review the TELS system for work orders for the identified building repair concerns. During an observation conducted on January 4, 2022 at 9:22 AM, the hallway of rooms 137-148 was noted to have a noticeable smell of urine in the hallway. During an observation conducted on January 5, 2022 at 12:33 PM, the interior wall near the exit to the corridor in residents' #41 and #76 room had a brown crusted area to the wall near the light switch. The brown smudged area was observed to be circular and in multiple areas spreading approximately 8 to 10 inches. On January 6, 2022 at 8:46 AM, a door labeled electrical room was observed on the hallway. The outside of the door (in the hallway) was observed to have rust colored brown substance that ran down the door in three areas. The substance was dry and crusted and appeared to have ran approximately 6 inches from top to bottom. A second observation of resident #41 and #76 room was conducted on January 6, 2022 at 8:49 AM. The brown dry smudged substance near the light switch on the wall closest to the corridor was observed to still be there. An interview and observation were conducted on January 6, 2022 at 9:11 AM with the Administrator (staff #136) and the Maintenance Assistant (staff #117). The Maintenance Assistant stated that the facility was alerted to the hole in the wall in resident #24 and resident #63 room. Staff #177 stated that the facility staff replaced the drywall and there was no longer a hole in the exterior wall. Additionally, he stated that the maintenance team went around all of the rooms yesterday (January 5, 2021) and checked all of the light switch plates that were missing or broken and replaced them. Further, he stated that the ply wood under the sink in resident #24 and #63 room was placed there because a resident was pulling the plumbing from under the sink and that there were holes in the ceiling because another resident was pulling the curtains from the ceiling. Staff #117 stated that if the building needs repair he expects the staff on the floor to report it so it can be put into the TELS system for documentation. Additionally, he explained that he knows that is not the current practice. Further, he explained that the staff needs education so they can learn to report the building issues, so that repairs can be addressed. An additional interview was conducted on January 6, 2022 at 9:25 AM with the Maintenance Assistant (staff #117). The Maintenance Assistant stated that he and the Director of Maintenance are new to the facility and that they do not have records or further evidence to provide from the TELS system. Staff #117 stated that instead of utilizing the TELS system of a building repair that need to be completed, the maintenance staff would just go and fix it. Further, staff #117 stated that staff need more education regarding notifying the maintenance team of building repairs that are needed. He stated there are more floor staff to identify concerns than there are of the maintenance team. Staff #117 stated maintenance cannot go room to room every day to identify concerns. An interview was conducted with the Administrator (staff #136) on January 6, 2022 at 10:13 AM. Staff #136 stated that he was unaware of any family or visitor that has filed formal grievances related to the building repair needs. He stated that he expects staff to report any building repair concerns to the maintenance team. Further he stated that the facility utilizes TELS to track building repairs. He stated timeliness of getting repairs fixed is monitored by the leadership team. Further, he stated the TELS system is important to utilize because it helps the facility to be organized and helps staff keep track of things that need to be repaired. The Administrator stated that he was unaware if the TELS system had evidence that work orders were put in the system for the identified items brought to his attention on January 6, 2022 at 9:11 AM. In regards to the residents' room and environment, the Administrator stated that due to the COVID-19 pandemic the facility staff has had difficulty with resident behaviors and room items have had to be removed. Further, staff #136 stated that if there are any areas of concern regarding cleanliness such as brown smeared substance or liquids dried to the walls, he expects the staff to clean it off of the walls using the appropriate disinfectants. On January 6, 2022 at 12:54 PM, an interview was conducted with the Regional Maintenance Director (staff #135). He stated that the facility TELS system does not have any work tickets for any wallpaper or structural holes building concerns. He stated that he has reviewed the TELS system work orders and that the facility has only been entering work tickets for broken beds, televisions that were not working, and call lights. Further, he stated that he recognized that there was a need for housekeepers that are in the rooms every day to be provided education to report building concerns because there are increased risks for missing needed building repairs. Review of the facility policy regarding maintenance requests and work orders revised November 2016 stated it is the policy of this facility to maintain a clean, well repaired building, and provide staff to report any issues needing attention. All work request must be in form of work orders, not verbal (unless emergency situations). The facility uses electronic work orders through TELS. TELS can be accessed through manager's computers, Kiosk, PCC (point click care), and at the nurses' station. Give complete information on all work orders, include what, where, and who is reporting. The facility's infection control policy titled Housekeeping Services revised May 2021 stated it is the policy of this facility to require effective environmental sanitation to lessen the hazards of exposure to contaminated air, dust, furnishings, equipment and other fomites. Frequent cleaning of the facility's interior will aid in physically removing and reducing microorganisms' potential contribution to the incidence of health-associated infections (HAI). The housekeeping supervisor will implement effective systems of environmental sanitation, including a regular cleaning schedule for all areas. The housekeeping supervisor will work closely with the infection control team to establish and maintain consistent practices and high standards of cleanliness. In-service training programs will be held for new personnel as well as older employees for the purpose of introducing them to new techniques and skills. Periodic inspection of the facility will be made by the housekeeping supervisor or as a joint exercise with the infection control team. Thorough scrubbing will be used for all environmental surfaces that are being cleaned in resident care areas. In resident care areas, cleaning of non-carpeted floors and other horizontal surfaces will be done daily and more frequently if spillage or visible soiling occurs. Doorknobs, handrails, bath rails, sink handles, etc. will all be cleaned at least once daily and more often as needed. Cleaning of walls, curtains, blinds, etc. will be completed when dust/soil is visible. The facility policy titled Physical Environment Equipment Maintenance reviewed May 2021 stated it is the policy of this facility to establish procedures for routine and non-routine care of equipment and to ensure that equipment remains in good working order for resident and staff safety. Electrical and hydraulic equipment will be inspected by the Maintenance Supervisor prior to initial use and on a routine basis to ensure that equipment is working properly. The Maintenance Supervisor will carry out routine maintenance on specified program equipment, as per manufacturer's recommendations and/or program policy. In the event that equipment maintenance or servicing is required between scheduled checks, maintenance requests will be made through TELS. All staff filling out the TELS request will include date, nature of problem. TELS maintenance requests will be checked by Maintenance Supervisor or Designee at least daily. If equipment requires repair other than routine maintenance or servicing, the vendor through which the equipment was purchased will be contacted and arrangements made for repair/replacement.
CONCERN (E)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** -Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Paraplegia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Dise...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** -Resident #37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Paraplegia, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), and Neuromuscular Dysfunction of the Bladder. Review of the progress notes revealed a Change in Condition note dated November 16, 2021 at 10:42 PM that resident #37 had symptoms or signs noted of abdominal pain. A note dated November 17, 2021 at 5:07 PM revealed the resident was sent to the emergency room (ER) for a non-emergency abdominal Computed tomography scan (CT), to rule out an acute abdominal perforate of the bowel. The family was notified via telephone. The Medical Doctor (MD) was present. A verbal physician order in the resident's electronic record dated October 17, 2021 stated to transport to the emergency room for non-emergency abdominal CT, to rule out acute abdomen and perforator bowel. Further review of the resident's clinical record revealed a notice of transfer form dated November 17, 2021 that the transfer/discharge was necessary for the resident's welfare and that the resident's needs cannot be met in the facility due to abdominal pain. The form was signed by the resident representative and dated November 18, 2021. Review of the admission/discharge logs revealed that the Ombudsman was not notified of discharges/transfers in September 2021, October 2021, and November 2021. Facility documentation included a letter from the Social Services Manager (staff #29) stating that she did not know that it was her responsibility to send the discharge list to the Ombudsman each month. An interview was conducted on January 6, 2022 at 2:48 p.m. with the Social Services Manager (staff #29), who stated the Ombudsman wants to be notified at the end of each month regarding discharges, but she just found about it and needs to find out who was sending the notices before her. During the interview, she contacted the Medical Records Supervisor (staff #44) and was told that she was responsible for notifying the Ombudsman regarding transfers and discharges. Staff #29 stated that she has never notified the Ombudsman and would imagine that it has not been done since she started working at the facility in September 2021. During an interview conducted on January 7, 2022 at 10:00 a.m. with the Administrator (staff #136) and the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #133), staff #133 stated the Ombudsman is notified of transfers/discharges via fax/email/calls and it is the responsibility of the Social Services Manager to notify the Ombudsman regarding transfers. Staff #136 stated the Ombudsman was not notified about resident #76 and #37 being transferred to the hospital and he had no evidence that the Ombudsman was notified regarding transfers/discharges for the months of September, October, and November 2021. Further the Administrator stated that there should be at least monthly notification to the Ombudsman. Staff #136 stated however, the management team have identified there is likely a deficient practice for a duration of time related to the notification to Ombudsman, and at this point there is missing Ombudsman notification for these two residents. The facility's policy, Admission, Transfer, and discharged , revised November 2019 stated the facility will notify the Ombudsman per CMS regulations and guidelines. Based on clinical record reviews, facility documentation, staff interviews, and facility policy and procedures, the facility failed to ensure a copy of the written notice of transfer/discharge for two of two residents (#76 and #37) was sent to the Office of the State Long Term Ombudsman. The deficient practice could result in the ombudsman not being notified of resident transfers/discharges. Findings include: -Resident #76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included sepsis, major depression, and anxiety. A Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated August 31, 2021 indicated the resident was cognitively intact with a score of 11. Review of the progress notes revealed the following: -On October 16, 2021 at 10:17 p.m. change of condition: symptoms or signs of condition change: altered mental state. -On October 16, 2021 at 10:37 p.m. resident refused medications and was noted to have altered mental state. Slurring words or not answering. Leaning over in wheelchair. Nurse Practitioner called and orders received to send to emergency room for evaluation and treatment. 911 called at approximately 9:30 p.m., arrived at 9:40 p.m. and left with resident at approximately 10:00 p.m. All parties notified.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** -Resident #75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, senile d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** -Resident #75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, senile degeneration of brain, and major depressive disorder. Review of the physician order dated October 18, 2021 revealed the resident was with hospice, diagnosis senile degeneration of the brain. A review of the Care Plan initiated on October 18, 2021 revealed the resident had a terminal prognosis and was admitted to hospice. The goal was that the resident's comfort would be maintained. Interventions included coordinating care with hospice to provide activities of daily living care to the resident, and comfort and support to the resident and family. However, review of the quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] did not reflect the resident was receiving hospice services while a resident in the facility. An interview was conducted on January 7, 2021 at 12:23 PM with the MDS nurse (staff#7), the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #133) and Clinical Resource (staff #129). The MDS nurse stated that if a resident resides in the facility and has received hospice services in the last 14 days, section O of the MDS assessment should be marked Yes for hospice. The MDS nurse reviewed the resident's record and stated the resident started receiving hospice services on October 14, 2021 and that the quarterly MDS assessment did not included the resident was receiving hospice care which would indicate there was a discrepancy in the assessment. Staff #129 stated that there was an oversight from an MDS resource nurse that reviews and audits MDS assessments for accuracy and completion. Review of the facility's accuracy of MDS assessment policy, dated 5/2021, revealed that the policy of the facility is to ensure the assessment accurately reflect the resident's status. The procedure included that each resident receives an accurate assessment by staff that are qualified to assess relevant care areas and are knowledgeable about the resident's status needs, strengths, and areas of decline. The procedure included that a Registered Nurse (RN) must conduct or coordinate each assessment with the appropriate participation of health professionals. The policy included that the mental condition of the resident determines the appropriate level of involvement of physicians, nurses, therapists, activities professionals, social workers, dietitians, and other professionals. The policy included that on an assessment, the MDS coordinator is responsible for certifying the overall completion once all individual assessors have completed and signed their portions of the MDS. Review of the RAI manual revealed that the MDS assessment must accurately reflect the resident's status. The manual included that if the resident received hospice care while a resident in the facility and within the last 14 days, check hospice care while a resident. Based on clinical record reviews, staff interviews, review of facility policy, and the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) manual, the facility failed to ensure that Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were completed accurately for 8 residents (#27, #64, #75, #33, #52, #66, #63, and #37), by failing to conduct the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) and for one resident (#75) regarding hospice. The sample size was 25 residents. The deficient practice could result in not identifying necessary care needs and treatment. Findings include: -Resident #27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia without behavioral disturbance and major depressive disorder. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that the assessment was coded that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should be attempted with the resident, however, this section was not completed. The staff interview for mental status was also not completed. -Resident #64 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, major depressive disorder, and insomnia. Review of the resident's admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that the assessment was coded that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should be attempted with the resident, however, this section was not completed. The staff interview for mental status was also not completed. -Resident #75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia with behavioral disturbance, senile degeneration of brain, and major depressive disorder. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that the assessment was coded that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should be attempted with the resident, however, this section was not completed. The staff interview for mental status was also not completed. -Resident #33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease and dementia without behavioral disturbance. Review of the resident's significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that the assessment was coded that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should be attempted with the resident, however, this section was not completed. The staff interview for mental status was also not completed. -Resident #52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease, schizoaffective disorder, and anxiety disorder. Review of the resident's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that the assessment was coded that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should be attempted with the resident, however, this section was not completed. The staff interview for mental status was also not completed. -Resident #66 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and major depressive disorder. Review of the resident's significant change MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that the assessment was coded that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should be attempted with the resident, however, this section was not completed. The staff interview for mental status was also not completed. -Resident #63 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Huntington's disease, dementia with behavioral disturbance, and other specified mental disorders due to known physiological condition. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that the assessment was coded that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should be attempted with the resident, however, this section was not completed. The staff interview for mental status was also not completed. -Resident #37 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included paraplegia, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorder. Review of the resident's quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] revealed that the assessment was coded that the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) should be attempted with the resident, however, this section was not completed. The staff interview for mental status was also not completed. An interview was conducted with the MDS coordinator (staff #7) at 10:45 a.m. on 1/6/2022. She stated that she completes the MDS assessments as per the required MDS schedule including on admission, quarterly, annually, and also when residents have significant changes. She said that social services complete the cognition section of the MDS that includes the BIMS for the residents and she is not involved in this. She said that once this section and the rest of the MDS are complete, she will go into the assessment, ensure it is done and submit it. She said that regarding the BIMS and cognition part of the assessments, she has noticed that they are not always done and unfortunately, by the time she notices this, it is too late to complete it for the resident so she has to mark it as not assessed and move on. She said that she believed the issue was a change in social services with staffing, as about 4 months ago they went without a dedicated social worker for a while. She said that since a new one was hired, there were still a few issues because the new social worker did not quite understand the system, but this has improved. She said that the cognition section including the BIMS assessment should be completed for each resident. She said that even though she noticed the issue with the MDS assessments, she does not believe that it was ever addressed in Quality Assurance (QA). During an interview conducted with the social services manager (staff #29) at 10:58 a.m. on 1/6/2022, she said that she has only been in the facility for a few months and that things were kind of a mess. She said that she is responsible for completing the BIMS and cognition part of the MDS assessment. She further said that for a while she was not completing everything correctly per the facility's system and that she has since learned the right way to do it. An interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #133) at 11:29 a.m. on 1/6/22. She said that she does not have any role in the completion of the residents' MDS assessments in the building. She said she has an MDS coordinator who takes on that role. She said that it is her expectation that the assessments are done timely and accurately. She said she was not aware that some of the assessments were not being completed accurately. She said that normally, her MDS coordinator will bring any noted issues to her attention. She said she was not aware of any action items regarding this in QA and this was the first she had heard of the issue. Review of the RAI manual revealed that the MDS assessment must accurately reflect the resident's status. The manual included that the section for cognition is intended to determine the resident's attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall new information. These items are crucial factors in many care planning decisions. Further, the manual indicated that most residents are able to attempt the BIMS and the interview assists in identifying needed support.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, resident and staff interviews, and facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to en...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on clinical record reviews, resident and staff interviews, and facility policies and procedures, the facility failed to ensure adequate monitoring and supervision was provided for six residents (#s 107, 76, 41, 32, 83, and 82). The deficient practice could result in other residents being denied the right to privacy and personal space. Findings include: Resident #107 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety, and major depressive disorder. Review of the care plan for elopement risk/wanderer dated February 25, 2021 revealed the resident wanders on the unit. Interventions included to distract the resident from wandering by offering pleasant diversions, structured activities, food, conversation, television, book, provide structured activities: toileting, walking inside and outside, reorientation strategies including signs, pictures and memory boxes, and re-direct resident when he wanders. Review of progress notes revealed that resident #107 wandered into other residents' rooms continuously, such as: on March 14, 2021 continue intrusive wandering at all times and took off clothing often difficult to redirection, becomes physically aggressive up onto redressing for him. -on March 20, 2021 one episode of noted persistent intrusive wandering and physically aggressive. Resident is wandering into each room and takes things from peer all time difficult to redirection. Resisted with personal care and attempted to hit CNA. Need one to one at times. -on March 21, 2021 one episode noted of persistent intrusive wandering and increased in afternoon. Resident wandering into each room and takes things from peer all times as upset peer, difficult to redirect. -on May 11, 2021 episodes of wandering in and out of residents' rooms, urinating on the hallways, attempts to be physical when redirected. -on October 23, 2021 states resident observed with intrusive wandering and exit seeking. Keeps taking off his clothes, hard with redirection. -on December 13, 2021 states intrusive wandering, won't stay in bed. continually wandering into other residents' rooms. Difficult to redirect. The quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment dated [DATE] included a staff assessment for mental status indicating the resident was moderately impaired of cognitive skills for daily decision making. It also included that the resident wandered for 1 to 3 days during the look-back period. Continued review of progress notes revealed the following: -on December 19, 2021 states episodes of persisted intrusive wandering into peers' room and caused them agitation and damaged things. -on December 27, 2021 revealed that the resident continuously wondering unit, intrusive to peers, staff continuously redirecting resident throughout the night while resident is awake. -on January 1, 2022 states continue intrusive wandering as bothered peers all times, difficult to redirection. Review of behavioral progress notes revealed continuous wandering and removing clothing and wandering into other residents' rooms: -on May 10, 2021 resident wandering and stripping clothes. -on May 10, 2021 resident wandering all day rummaging through patients' rooms. -on May 25, 2021 wanders around and stripping off clothes. Review of a follow-up psych evaluation dated December, 15, 2021 stated the resident was being seen for psychiatric follow up. Staff notes that patient is frequently impulsive and intrusively wanders continuously. Review of the Nursing Home to Hospital Transfer Form dated January 1, 2022 revealed the resident was being transferred for behavioral symptoms (e.g. agitation, psychosis). Not accepting back due to behavioral issues affecting peers. Regarding residents #107, #76, #41, and #32 -Resident #76 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included sepsis, major depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and anxiety. A care plan dated August 27, 2021 stated the resident was at risk for Re-traumatization related to history of trauma Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Resident makes up stories about other residents, will have delusional thinking about other residents in the facility. The goal was that the resident would have no evidence of emotional, physical and psychological problems. Interventions included anticipate and meet needs. Review of the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) dated January 3, 2022 revealed a score of 9 indicating the resident had moderately impaired cognition During an interview conducted with resident #76 on January 3, 2022 at 9:00 a.m., she reported that she was asleep in her wheelchair and when she woke up, resident #107 was in her room. Resident #76 stated resident #107 had his penis out and was trying to put it in her roommate's mouth. Resident #76 stated that she screamed and her roommate (resident #41) woke up. Resident #76 stated that she did not remember the date of the incident, but stated that she did remember it was dark outside. Resident #76 said she wanted to call the Sheriff's department but was told by a female staff not to report it because it would cause trouble for the facility. Resident #76 also stated that another female resident (#32) has some stories about resident #107. -Resident #41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included alcohol use, unspecified with alcohol-induced persisting amnestic disorder, dementia, and adult failure to thrive. A BIMS dated January 3, 2022 indicated the resident has a moderate cognitive impairment with a score of 8. Resident #41 was interviewed after the interview with resident #76 on January 3, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. Resident #41 said that she did not remember waking up and finding resident #107 trying to put his penis in her mouth, but he does come into her room all the time. -Resident #32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder, delusional disorders, and cognitive communication deficit. The admission MDS assessment dated [DATE] included a BIMS score of 13 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The assessment also included that the resident did not hallucinate or have delusions during the look-back period. During an interview conducted with resident #32 on January 3, 2022 at 10:14 a.m., resident #32 stated that there are two guys that come into her room. She said one wears a red shirt, and one has hearing aids. She stated that she thinks they were both in the military. She said that one of the men came into her room the day before yesterday and tried to put his penis by her mouth. Resident #32 said that she reported it and staff told her that they do not mean what they are doing. She stated that she is afraid of them, emotional, challenged to not go crazy. Regarding residents #107, #83, and #82 -Resident #83 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder, dementia, and chronic kidney disease. The quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] included a BIMS with a score of 15 indicating the resident was cognitively intact. An interview was conducted on January 5, 2022 at 11:27 a.m. with resident #83, who stated that resident #107 and #82 are always coming into her room and going through her things. She said that she has reported this to staff, but they don't care. During the interview, a male resident, identified as resident #82, came to the door of the room in a wheelchair. Resident #82 started to roll in and resident #83 told him to go away. Resident #82 sat at the door and resident #83 repeated in a stronger/louder voice, get out. Resident #82 then backed up and left. Resident #83 stated that she yells up to 20 to 30 minutes before a staff will come to her room and redirect them. -Resident #82 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance, anxiety, and major depressive disorder. Review of the BIMS dated February 27, 2021 revealed a score of 5 indicating resident #82 has a severe cognitive impairment. The resident has a care plan for actual behavior problems related to unspecified dementia with behavioral disturbance dated February 20, 2021. Target behaviors included exit seeking/elopement risk, sexually inappropriate, and verbal/physical aggression. Interventions included to intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others and staff should be aware that the resident will attempt sexually inappropriate behaviors towards (peers and staff). Staff should provide care in pairs. Review of progress notes revealed multiple incidents where the resident entered other residents' rooms, such as: -On November 22, 2020 resident noted to be exhibiting intrusive behaviors this shift, wandering into other's rooms. -On September 26, 2021 resident continues to exit seek and continues with intrusive wandering goes through others belongings and hits staff at times. -On December 14, 2021 resident with noted behaviors of intrusive wandering times 3. An interview was conducted on January 5, 2022 at 10:07 a.m. with an activity's assistant (staff #73), who stated that resident #107 does wander in other residents' rooms and does touch their things, but she has not seen him take things. An interview was conducted on January 5, 2022 at 10:21 a.m. with a certified nursing assistant (CNA/staff #116). She stated that some of the male residents may wander into other residents' rooms and when this happens, she will redirect them immediately. She said there was an incident last week where resident #32 was in her room and she heard her screaming. Staff #116 stated that she went to the resident's room and the resident told her that the male resident (#107) was disrobing and exposing himself. Staff #116 stated that resident #107 was in the room, but he had his clothes on. She said resident #107 removes his clothing in the hallway, but she has not seen him do it in a resident's room, and he is not being sexual. The CNA stated that she thinks resident #107 does it because he is wet and uncomfortable, so he pulls his brief off. Staff #116 said that resident #32 screams when someone enters her room and she thinks it is because resident #32 gets confused about what is happening. The CNA stated that she will redirect the resident out of resident #32's room because the resident should not be in there. Staff #116 stated that she feels they are short staffed and it is difficult to monitor all the residents on the hall. During an interview conducted on January 5, 2022 at 10:51 a.m. with a licensed practical nurse (LPN/staff #28), she stated that some of the residents will disrobe because of behavior. The LPN said resident #107 is an intrusive wanderer and does disrobe, but it is usually because he is wet. An interview was conducted on January 5, 2022 at 1:02 p.m. with a CNA (staff #134), who stated that there are not enough staff to monitor the residents that wander into other residents' rooms. Staff #134 stated that they do the best they can and just try to redirect them. She said the female residents will usually press their call-light when another resident enters their room and staff will go to check why the call-light is on. On January 6, 2022 at 10:24 a.m., an interview was conducted with a CNA (staff #4), who stated that there are three CNAs on the South Hall and one is assigned to each hall to provide care and monitor residents. She stated that residents #82 and #107 and another resident wanders into other residents' rooms. She stated that she knows that resident #76 has complained of resident #107 coming into her room. Staff #4 stated that she was told by another staff, but she cannot remember which staff, that resident #32 reported resident #107 was in her room and attempting to show his penis. She stated that the CNAs do their best, but cannot monitor the residents who wander when they are in a resident's room providing care. The CNA stated that when she does see a resident go into another room, she will redirect and shut the resident's door, but knows that it is happening. She stated that resident #107 does remove his clothing. She said there are not enough staff to monitor the residents wandering and to provide care. She said that the CNA is supposed to remain in the hallway to monitor the residents, but cannot do that if in a room providing care for another resident. On January 7, 2022 at 10:16 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON/staff #133). She stated residents that wander into other residents' rooms should be redirected by any staff. The DON stated there should be constant redirecting and staff should be keeping the residents busy. The DON said she did not know resident #107, #82, and another resident were going into the female residents' rooms, prior to this week. The facility's policy, Nursing Services, Sufficient Staff , revised May 2021 stated it is the policy of this facility to have sufficient nursing staff with the appropriate competencies and skill sets to provide nursing and related services to promote resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable mental, psychosocial well-being of each resident, as determined by resident assessment and individual plans of care and considering the number, acuity and diagnosis of the facility's resident population in accordance with the facility assessment. The facility policy, Resident Rights. Reporting Reasonable Suspicion of a Crime, revised November 28, 2018 stated the facility will take action to protect and prevent abuse and neglect from occurring within the Facility by identifying, assessing, care planning for appropriate interventions, and monitoring of residents with needs and behaviors which might lead to conflict or neglect, such as: -Taking, touching, or rummaging through other's property; -Wandering into other's rooms/space.
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • $4,838 in fines. Lower than most Arizona facilities. Relatively clean record.
  • • 44% turnover. Below Arizona's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 15 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SUN WEST CHOICE HEALTHCARE & REHAB an overall rating of 5 out of 5 stars, which is considered much above average nationally. Within Arizona, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab Staffed?

CMS rates SUN WEST CHOICE HEALTHCARE & REHAB's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 44%, compared to the Arizona average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab?

State health inspectors documented 15 deficiencies at SUN WEST CHOICE HEALTHCARE & REHAB during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 14 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab?

SUN WEST CHOICE HEALTHCARE & REHAB is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by THE ENSIGN GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 140 certified beds and approximately 130 residents (about 93% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SUN CITY WEST, Arizona.

How Does Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab Compare to Other Arizona Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in Arizona, SUN WEST CHOICE HEALTHCARE & REHAB's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.3, staff turnover (44%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SUN WEST CHOICE HEALTHCARE & REHAB has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in Arizona. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab Stick Around?

SUN WEST CHOICE HEALTHCARE & REHAB has a staff turnover rate of 44%, which is about average for Arizona nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab Ever Fined?

SUN WEST CHOICE HEALTHCARE & REHAB has been fined $4,838 across 1 penalty action. This is below the Arizona average of $33,127. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Sun West Choice Healthcare & Rehab on Any Federal Watch List?

SUN WEST CHOICE HEALTHCARE & REHAB 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.