VILLA DEL RIO GARDENS

7004 EAST GAGE AVENUE, BELL GARDENS, CA 90201 (562) 927-6586
For profit - Corporation 84 Beds ROLLINS-NELSON HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
45/100
#942 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: February 2022

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

Overview

Villa Del Rio Gardens in Bell Gardens, California, has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance and several concerns. With a state rank of #942 out of 1155, the facility is in the bottom half of California nursing homes, and it ranks #257 of 369 in Los Angeles County, suggesting limited local options for better care. The facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with reported issues increasing from 9 in 2019 to 10 in 2022. Staffing is a weakness here, with a poor rating of 1 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is impressively low at 0%, meaning staff tend to stay long-term. While there have been no fines reported, which is positive, there are serious concerns, including a failure to prevent pressure ulcers in residents and issues with food safety that could lead to harmful bacteria growth.

Trust Score
D
45/100
In California
#942/1155
Bottom 19%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
9 → 10 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
RN staffing data not reported for this facility.
Violations
⚠ Watch
28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Staff Levels
☆☆☆☆☆
0.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2019: 9 issues
2022: 10 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Chain: ROLLINS-NELSON HEALTHCARE MANAGEMEN

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Feb 2022 10 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of eight sampled residents (Resident 76 an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of eight sampled residents (Resident 76 and 179) received care to prevent pressure ulcer (localized areas of injury that occur when skin and underlying tissue are compressed between a bony prominence and an external surface such as a mattress) development, by failing to: 1. Implement Resident 179's care plan which indicated staff were to check the resident's skin for presence of sores, breakdown, impairment, and skin trauma, and use pressure reducing devices. 2. Implement its policy which indicated to initiate a care plan to address Resident 76's newly developed deep tissue injury ([DTI] an injury to a residents underlying tissue below the skin's surface that results from prolonged pressure in an area of the body) to the left heel, obtain treatment orders, and monitor the effectiveness of the treatment. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 179 developing an unstageable pressure ulcer on the sacrococcygeal (base of the spine, tailbone) area and Resident 76 developing a DTI on the left heel. Findings: a. A review of Resident 179's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and last readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 179's diagnoses included status post left hip surgery, diabetes mellitus (high levels of sugar in the blood), polyneuropathy (damage to the nerves outside the brain and spinal cord), Alzheimer's disease (a type of brain disorder that causes problems with memory, thinking and behavior), dementia (disorder affecting memory, thinking and social abilities severely enough to interfere with your daily life), anemia (a condition in which you lack enough healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen to your body's tissues) and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 179's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and screening tool, dated January 23, 2022, indicated the resident had severe cognitive (ability to think and reason) impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 179 required limited assistance with transfer, dressing, toilet, personal hygiene and bathing. The MDS indicated Resident 179 was at risk for pressure ulcer development. A review of Resident 179's admission Body assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 179 had a surgical wound on her left hip, otherwise the resident's skin integrity was intact. A review of Resident 179's Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Ulcers dated January 29, 2022, indicated the resident scored a 12, indicating a high risk. A review of Resident 179's Physician's admission Order dated January 29, 2022, indicated that there were no pressure ulcer preventions ordered. A review of the facility's Change of Condition logbook dated from January 29, 2022, to February 6, 2022, indicated that there were no reported records that Resident 179 had skin breakdown. A review of the facility's Treatment Monitoring logbook for the month of February 2022, indicated there was no treatment monitoring documented for Resident 179's sacrum (base of the spine) and coccyx areas. During a concurrent observation and interview on February 9, 2022, at 11:46 a.m., in Resident 179's room, Resident 179 was lying in bed in a supine (face up) position with an abduction pillow (a device used to prevent your hip from moving out of the joint) in between the legs. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 and LVN 4 were observed performing a routine body skin assessment for Resident 179. Resident 179 was observed to have an unstageable wound (full thickness tissue loss) covered with slough (dead, separated tissue) and eschar (collection of dry, dead tissue within a wound) to the sacrococcygeal area measuring approximately three (3) centimeters (cm) by 3 cm. LVN 1 and LVN 4 stated they did not know Resident 179 had developed a pressure ulcer. LVN 4 stated a skin assessment should have been performed properly and thoroughly on a daily basis for Resident 179 who was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. During an interview on February 10, 2022, at 10:23 a.m., LVN 1 stated certified nurse assistants (CNAs) were supposed to inform the licensed nurses of any skin changes on the residents. LVN 1 stated registered nurses (RNs) performed resident skin assessment on admission, and CNAs performed skin assessments on every shower day and were to report any abnormal findings. During an interview on February 10, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 8 stated it was Resident 179's shower day but confirmed he did not shower Resident 179 on that day (2/10/22). CNA 8 stated the charge nurse and the supervisor told him not to touch Resident 179 because of the surgical wound on the resident's left hip. CNA 8 stated there were no other wounds on Resident 179 per his knowledge. CNA 8 stated the facility had a resident turning schedule that staff followed, but there was no documentation indicating Resident 179 was turned every two (2) hours. A review of Resident 179's Care Plan dated January 30, 2022, and titled Pressure Ulcer Risk, indicated a goal for Resident 179 was to minimize pressure ulcer risk daily for 3 months. The staff's interventions included to check skin for presence of sores, breakdowns, impairment, and skin trauma, notify physician if reddened areas, change in weight, change in intake or abnormal laboratory, assist with position changes, and use pressure reducing devices. A review of the Nurse Assistant Notes logbook dated February 1, 2022, to February 10, 2022, indicated there was no documentation Resident 179 had been repositioned every 2 hours and had no pressure reducing devices used during that timeframe. A review of the facility's Daily Skin Inspection Tool dated from January 29, 2022, to February 10, 2022, used by CNAs during the residents shower day indicated that Resident 179's skin integrity was not inspected. There was no record Resident 179 received a shower during this period. During an interview on February 10, 2022, at 11:24 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated for newly admitted and readmitted residents the licensed nurses were expected to perform a resident admission assessment which included a body assessment. The DON stated all licensed nurses were expected to perform a daily skin assessment during the residents' shower days. The DON was not able to explain why Resident 179's unstageable pressure ulcers at the sacrum and coccyx areas was not identified timely during the earlier stage. b. A review of Resident 76's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 76's diagnoses included diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 76's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 76 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, personal hygiene and total dependence with eating, toilet use, and bathing. The MDS indicated Resident 76 was at risk for pressure ulcer development. A review of Resident 76's readmission Body assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident's skin integrity was intact. A review of Resident 76's Physician's admission Orders dated January 2, 2022, indicated there was no preventative measures ordered to decrease the resident's risk of pressure ulcer development. A review of the facility's Change of Condition logbook dated from January 7, 2022, to February 6, 2022, indicated Resident 76 was reported to have a DTI with no specific location documented on January 20, 2022. A review of Resident 76's Change of Condition (COC) dated January 20, 2022, indicated a DTI was identified to the resident's left heel. There was no documentation that treatment was ordered. During a concurrent observation and interview with LVN 4 on February 10, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 76 was observed lying in bed with both knees in a bent position with a pillow underneath his knees and both heels were touching the mattress. Resident 76 was observed with a DTI on the left heel measuring approximately 2 cm by 2 cm. LVN 4 stated there was no care plan initiated for Resident 76's DTI of the left heel. LVN 4 confirmed that a wound specialist had not seen Resident 76 and there was no treatment ordered by the physician. LVN 4 stated the facility had issues with the wound care contractor. LVN 4 stated he followed up with the wound specialist multiple times but did not document. LVN 4 stated the facility did not have a wound care nurse at the time and that the charge nurses were responsible for the current wound care of residents. During an interview on February 10, 2022, at 9:48 a.m., CNA 6 stated she followed Resident 76's turning schedule every 2 hours, but she stated that there was no documentation of the repositioning in the resident's chart. A review of Resident 76's Nursing Notes from January 20, 2022, to January 25, 2022, indicated that LVN 6 noted the resident's DTI was reported by a CNA when a shower was given. Physician was notified and referred to a wound specialist, however, no follow up notes with wound specialist was documented. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, indicated that the facility shall promptly notify the resident, his or her attending Physician, and representative of change in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status. The Nurse Supervisor/Charge Nurse will notify the resident's Attending Physician or On-call Physician when there has been: 1. An accident or incident involving the resident. 2. A discovery of injuries of an unknown source. 3. A significant change in the resident's physical/ emotional/ mental condition. 4. A need to alter the resident's medical treatment significantly. 5. Refusal of treatment or medications two (2) or more consecutive times. 6. Instructions to notify the physician of changes in the resident's condition. A review of the facility's undated P/P titled, Pressure Ulcers Prevention Guidelines, indicated to implement evidenced-based interventions for all residents who are assessed at [NAME] or who have a pressure ulcer present. Preventive skin care: 1. Inspect skin while providing care, paying close attention to bony prominences. 2. Inspect skin underneath medical devices at least twice daily. Keep skin clean and dry underneath. Adjust devices as needed for proper fit. 3. Avoid positioning the resident on an area of redness whenever possible. 4. Keep the skin clean and dry. Manage incontinence with absorptive products. Check every 2 hours, and provide perineal care as needed after incontinent episodes. Diaper usage in bed is not recommended. Protect skin from exposure to excessive moisture with barrier products. 5. Moisturize dry skin. 6. Use positioning devices or folded linens to keep body surfaces from rubbing against one another. Nutrition/Hydration: Consult for nutritional screen for each resident who is at risk for a pressure ulcer or has a pressure ulcer present. Repositioning: Reposition all residents at risk of, or with existing pressure ulcers, unless contraindicated due to medical condition. Utilize small shifts in repositioning, if otherwise contraindicated. Pressure relieving devices: Support surfaces do not eliminate the need for turning and repositioning. Provide alternative support surfaces as needed. Considerations for utilizing specialized support surfaces. A review of the facility's undated P/P titled Wound Treatment Guidelines, indicated to promote wound healing of various types of wounds, the facility must provide evidence-based treatments in accordance with current standards of practice and physician orders. 1. Wound treatments will be provided in accordance with physician orders, including the cleansing method, type of dressing and frequency of dressing change. 2. In the absence of treatments orders the license nurse will notify physician to obtain treatment orders. This may be the treatment nurse, or the assigned licensed nurse in the absence of the treatments nurse. 3. Treatments will be documented on the Treatment Administration Record. 4. The effectiveness of treatments will be monitored through ongoing assessment of the wound.
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to enhance a resident's dignity and respect by failing t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to enhance a resident's dignity and respect by failing to ensure for one of eight residents (13) that Resident 13's wet clothes and bedding were changed timely to prevent strong urine odors. This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect the resident's psychosocial and physical wellbeing by feelings of being neglected and possible skin breakdown. Findings: During a review of Resident 13's admission record, the record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of, but not limited to overactive bladder (a condition that causes a frequent and sudden urge to urinate that may be difficult to control), stress incontinence (happens when physical movement or activity - such as coughing, laughing, sneezing, running or heavy lifting - puts pressure (stress) on your bladder, causing you to leak urine), major depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with your daily functioning) and schizoaffective (a mental health disorder that is marked by a combination of schizophrenia symptoms, such as hallucinations or delusions, and mood disorder symptoms, such as depression or mania. During a review of Resident 13's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and screening tool) dated January 24, 2022, the MDS indicated the resident had intact cognition (ability to think, understand and make decisions of daily living). The MDS indicated Resident 13 required supervision with personal hygiene and bathing. During concurrent observation and interview on February 8, 2022, at 9:45 a.m. in room [ROOM NUMBER] B., Resident 13's room had a strong urine odor. Resident 13 was lying in bed covered all over underneath blanket showing part of under pad sheet. Resident 13 stated that she was not wet (with urine), speaking in soft voice, however Resident 13 smelled of urine and her under pad, linen and pants had a yellow to brown stain. During a concurrent observation and interview on February 8, 2022, 10:45 a.m., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 5 stated that Resident 13 was scheduled for a shower that day. CNA 5 stated that she comes to work before 7 a.m. and she said that all residents occupying the B bed (in every room) were scheduled for showering. CNA 5 stated that since she started her shift at 7:00 a.m. until 11:00 a.m., she had not seen Resident 13, and she has no idea what was going on with the resident. CNA 5 then checked Resident 13's pants by hand touching and she stated that it was dry, however Resident 13 still smelled of urine. CNA 5 stated that Resident 13 had possibly been wet, but is dry now. CNA 5 stated she did not know how long it would take for Resident 13 clothing to dry out after she had an incontinent episode. CNA 5 stated that she should have checked Resident 13 at the start of the shift, during her morning rounds, since Resident 13 is schedule for showering. CNA 5 stated that leaving Resident 13 in urine-soaked undergarments and bedding, placed her at risk for skin breakdown due to prolong period of being wet with urine. CNA 5 acknowledged that an overactive bladder means resident cannot control their urination making them incontinent. During a review of the Resident 13's shower schedule, the schedule indicated Tuesdays and Saturdays as shower days for Resident 13. During a review of the care plan dated January 26, 2021, the care plan indicated Resident 13 had a potential for skin breakdown due to episodes of urinary incontinence secondary to diagnosis of overactive bladder. The care plan goal indicated the resident skin integrity will continue to be intact daily, developing skin impairment will be detected and treated upon onset if any by 90 days. The care plan intervention indicated to assess incontinence and clean after each episode of incontinence, remind to turn and reposition every 2 hours, assess skin condition daily, administer medication as prescribed and assess for effectiveness, and anticipate need to use the bathroom to void. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P/P) undated, titled Certified Nursing Assistant, the P/P indicated that the primary purpose of your job description is to provide each of your assigned residents with routine daily nursing care and service in accordance with the resident's assessment and care plan and as may you be directed by supervisors. As CNA, you are delegated the administrative authority, responsibility, accountability necessary for carrying out your assigned duties. Such duties and responsibilities: making resident comfortable, keep residents dry (i.e., change gown, clothing, linen, etc., when wet and soiled and assist with bowel and bladder functions. During a review of facility's P/P undated, titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), the P/P indicated that the facility ensures a resident's abilities in ADLs do not deteriorate unless deterioration is unavoidable. This includes the resident's ability to bathe, dress and groom, toilet use. A review of facility's P/P undated titled Quality of Life-Dignity, indicated each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances quality of life, dignity, respect and individuality. Treated with dignity means the resident will be assisted in maintain and enhancing his or her self-esteem and self-worth.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Assessments (Tag F0636)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to: a. Ensure the facility offered/implemented non-pharma...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to: a. Ensure the facility offered/implemented non-pharmacological interventions for one of one Residents 33, before starting Anti-Psychotic (a type of psychiatric medication which is used to treat psychosis [a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality]) medication. b. Ensure that Residents 33 was assessed for the appropriateness of anti-psychotic medication before starting the medications. These deficient practices had the potential to result in Resident 33 receiving unnecessary medications, and adverse effects from those medications. Findings: During a review of the admission record, the record indicated Resident 33 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included diabetes mellitus (irregular levels of blood sugar), hepatic failure (loss of liver function), Depression (a mood disorder resulting in feelings of sadness that can affect quality of daily life), and schizophrenia (a mental condition resulting in a break from reality, disorganized thoughts and speech). During a review of the MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 33 has clear speech usually understood and understand by others. Resident 33 required supervision with set up help for bed mobility and eating, limited assistance with one person assists on transfer, personal hygiene, locomotion (how resident moves) on/off unit, walking in the room and corridor, getting dressed, transfers, and toilet use. During a review of Resident 33's physicians orders dated 12/7/2021, the orders indicated: a. Lexapro (medication used to treat depression), 20 milligrams (m.g a unit of measure), 1 tablet daily for depression manifested by negative statements about self, complaints of sadness. b. Abilify (a medication used to treat disorders involving breaks with reality), 15 m.g, 1 tablet daily for schizophrenia manifested by hearing voices. During an interview on 02/10/2022 at 9:07 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN4), LVN 4 confirmed that there was no evidence of non-pharmacological interventions in Resident 33's clinical records, before residents were medicated with antipsychotics. LVN 4 stated that since staff were familiar with every resident, when a resident had behavioral changes, LVN's let the psychiatrists know, then it was up to the Psychiatrist if he/she wanted to initiate a pharmacological approach. During an interview and record review on 2/10/2022 at 10:10 a.m. with LVN1, LVN 1 stated that they do not assess Resident 33 before start of psychotropic medication, LVN 1 stated that she was not familiar with the psychotropic assessment form that was indicated in the medical chart. LVN 1 added there was no documentation that non- pharmacological interventions were documented on the medical record prior to start of the anti- psychotic medication. During an interview and record review on 2/11/2022 at 9:56 a.m. with Infection Preventionist(I/P), I/P stated that residents that are on Anti- Psychotic medication does not have an assessment prior to start of medication, when asked if non- pharmacologic interventions are documented in the chart, IP stated that staff do it but don't document anywhere in the chart. During an interview on 2/10/2022 at 11:15 a.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated that there is no psychotropic assessment done with any of the resident that are taking anti- psychotic medications, DON added that evaluation is made by the psychiatrist if medication is necessary for the resident to continue or discontinue medication. During a record review of policy and procedure(p/p) dated 01/22 title Medication monitoring medication management indicated when selecting medications and non-pharmacological approaches members of the IDT, including the resident participate in the care process to identify, assess address, advocate for, monitor and communicate the residents needs and changes in condition. Medication management is based on the care process and includes recognition or identification of the problem/need, assessment, diagnosis/cause identification, management/treatment, monitoring and revising interventions, as warranted as well as documenting management steps. During a review of the undated policy and procedure(P/P) titled admission assessment and follow up: Role of the nurse indicated, conduct supplemental assessment, activity level, pain assessment, fall risk assessment, neurological assessment, skin assessment, functional assessment, behavioral assessment. The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record, the date and time the assessment was performed.
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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a person- centered care plan for two of two sampled reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a person- centered care plan for two of two sampled residents (46 and 43), who were taking anti- psychotic (a type of psychiatric medication which is used to treat psychosis [a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality]) medication. This deficiency had the potential to result in a delay in delivery of care and services. Findings: During a review of the admission record, the record indicated Resident 46 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease (disorder of the central nervous system that affects movement, often including tremors) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), and schizophrenia (a mood and thought disorder that causes a break from reality). During a review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive assessment tool) dated 12/22/2021, indicated Resident 46 has unclear speech usually understood and understand by others. Resident 46 required limited assistance with one-person physical assistance for bed mobility and personal hygiene, extensive assistance locomotion (how resident moves) on/off unit, walking in the corridor, dressing, transfer, and toilet use. During a record review of the Physician's order dated February 2022 Resident 46 taking Seroquel 300 mg twice a day, for schizophrenia manifested by striking out with no cause. During a review of the admission record, the record indicated Resident 43 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), anxiety disorder( a feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease, typically about an imminent event or something with an uncertain outcome)/ During a review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive assessment tool) dated 12/20/2021, indicated Resident 43 has unclear speech usually understood and understand by others. Resident 43 required limited assistance with one-person physical assistance for bed mobility and personal hygiene, extensive assistance locomotion (how resident moves) on/off unit, walking in the corridor, dressing, transfer, and toilet use. During a record review of the physician's order dated February 2022, Resident 43's taking Risperadal 2 milligrams by mouth twice a day for schizophrenia manifested by physical aggression without a cause. During an interview on 02/10/2022 at 11:15 a.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated that care plan should be initiated upon admission, every time there is significant change of condition, or any update with medication or approaches with interventions. During an interview on 02/10/2022 at 3:02 p.m. with I/P, IP stated that Resident 43 was taking risperdal since 8/2/2021 care plan was not done until 9/20/2021, IP added that the care plan should reflect the exact physician order, or it was not resident specific. During a concurrent interview and record review on 02/10/2022 at 4:27p.m. with I/P, of Resident 43 and 46's medical records, IP stated that Physician's order should match the care plan. The care plan is important to give proper care or interventions for residents. I/P stated that Resident 46 was on psychotropic medication care plan, however the care plan was not initiated and updated when Resident 46 started taking the medications. IP stated that whoever gets the order should update the care plan. Resident 43's care plan did not reflect dosage or route of the psychotropic medication, I/P stated it was not specific for resident. During a review of the undated policy and procedure(P/P) titled Care Plans- Comprehensive, the P/P indicated an individualized comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychological needs is developed for each resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident 20 received the necessary care and s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident 20 received the necessary care and services needed to attain the highest practicable level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. These deficient practices had the potential to result in Residents 20 not receiving the quality of care that was needed. Findings: During a review of Resident 20's Face Sheet (admission record), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 20's diagnoses included essential hypertension (high blood pressure), history of falling, hyperlipidemia (high level of fat particles in the blood), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] a condition involving constriction of the airways and difficulty or discomfort in breathing, pressure-induced deep tissue damage of left buttock (injury caused by pressure to areas of skin when resting in a position for too long). During a review of Resident 20's Minimum Data Set (MDS a comprehensive assessment and care planning tool) dated 11/25/2021, the MDS indicated Resident 20 had intact cognitive function (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses). During review of Resident 20's Care Plan (CP) for compromised mobility, dated 01/22/2022 , the CP indicated to provide assistance with position changes as needed; CP for pain due to sacral wound, dated 01/23/2022 indicated to stay with the resident and provide one on one interaction; CP for assistance with activities of daily living (ADL's), dated 01/22/2022 indicated to keep resident clean and dry as much as possible; CP for wound dehiscence (splitting open of a wound) from previous surgery at the sacral area, dated 12/22/2022 indicated to keep skin clean and dry, protect skin from moisture and reposition every two hours as needed. During an observation on 02/09/2022 at 08:41 a.m., Resident 20 was lying in bed, on the top sheet, with foul smelling wound discharge from his sacral (lowest part of the spine, just above the tailbone) area. During an observation on 02/09/2022 at 10:11 a.m., Resident 20 was still lying in bed, on the top sheet with foul smelling wound discharge from his sacral area . During an observation on 02/09/2022 at 12:03 p.m., Resident 20 was lying to his left side with Sacro coccyx wound dressing saturated with foul smelling drainage and still dripping to the top sheet of the bed. During an observation on 02/09/2022 at 02:41 p.m., Resident 20 was lying to his left side with Sacro coccyx wound dressing saturated with foul smelling drainage and still dripping on the top sheet of the bed. During an interview on 02/10/2022 at 11:17 a.m., the certified nursing assistant (CNA 6) stated that Resident 20 must be turned from side to side every two hours as scheduled and ordered, but when CNA 6 were asked why Resident 20 were soaked with foul smelling wound discharges and was not cleaned, CNA 6 replied that she does not have any excuses for the incident. CNA 6 stated that the practice can make the wound get worse and can lead to a deeper wound infection. When CNA 6 were asked why there were small flies all over the wound drainage and top sheet of the bed, CNA 6 replied that foul smelling discharges attracts flies. During an interview on 02/10/2022 at 11:22 a.m., CNA 5 stated that Residents must be repositioned every two hours to prevent the wound from getting worsts and if I was the resident and was soaking with foul smelling wound discharge, it would make me very uncomfortable and affect my psychosocial being. During an interview on 02/10/2022 at 11:34 a.m., the licensed vocational nurse (LVN 1) acknowledged that it was a quality-of-care issue and stated that if the assigned CNA was turning Resident 20 every two hours, then the top sheet should have been clean and not soaked with wound drainage. During an interview on 02/10/2022 at 11:45 a.m., LVN 1 stated that if it was her or a family member then it would affect the psychosocial aspect of the resident, turning the resident every two hours as ordered is one of the ways to help promote wound healing by taking the pressure out of the way so that the wound can breathe. LVN 1 acknowledged that the reason why there's a lot of small flies on the top sheet was due to foul smelling drainage that attracted insects and it was also an infection control issue. During the review of facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled Provision of Quality Care undated, the P/P indicated: Based on comprehensive assessments, the facility will ensure that residents receive treatment and care by qualified persons in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plans, and the residents' choices. Each resident will be provided care and services to attain or maintain his/her highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0710 (Tag F0710)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's physician took an active role in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident's physician took an active role in supervising the skin impairment of one of eight sampled residents (Resident 76), who was admitted to the facility with intact skin integrity, as per their policy. This deficient practice had the potential for delay in necessary services, poor continuity of care and follow up on Resident 76's deep tissue injury ([DTI] an injury to a residents underlying tissue below the skin's surface that results from prolonged pressure in an area of the body) to the left heel. Findings: A review of Resident 76's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 76's diagnoses included diabetes mellitus (high levels of sugar in the blood), Alzheimer's disease (a type of brain disorder that causes problems with memory, thinking and behavior), dementia (disorder affecting memory, thinking and social abilities severely enough to interfere with your daily life), and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 76's Quarterly MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 76 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, personal hygiene and total dependence with eating, toilet use, and bathing. The MDS indicated Resident 76 was at risk for pressure ulcer development. A review of Resident 76's readmission Body assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident's skin integrity was intact. A review of Resident 76's History of Present Illness dated January 6, 2022, indicated Resident 76 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living ([ADLs] self-care activities performed daily) including eating, transfers, bed mobility and toileting. A review of the facility's Change of Condition logbook dated from January 7, 2022, to February 6, 2022, indicated Resident 76 was reported to have a DTI with no specific location documented on January 20, 2022. During a concurrent observation and interview with LVN 4 on February 10, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 76 was observed lying in bed with both knees in a bent position with a pillow underneath his knees and both heels were touching the mattress. Resident 76 was observed with a DTI on the left heel measuring approximately 2 centimeters ([cm] unit of measurement) by 2 cm. LVN 4 stated there was no care plan initiated for Resident 76's DTI of the left heel. LVN 4 confirmed that a wound specialist had not seen Resident 76 and there was no treatment ordered by the physician. LVN 4 stated the facility had issues with the wound care contractor. LVN 4 stated he followed up with the wound specialist multiple times but did not document. LVN 4 stated the facility did not have a wound care nurse at the time and that the charge nurses were responsible for the current wound care of residents. During an interview on February 10, 2022, at 9:48 a.m., CNA 6 stated she followed Resident 76's turning schedule every 2 hours, but she stated that there was no documentation of the repositioning in the resident's chart. A review of Resident 76's Nursing Notes dated January 20, 2022, indicated LVN 6 noted the resident's DTI was reported by a CNA when a shower was given. Physician was notified and referred to a wound specialist. A review of Resident 76's Nursing notes from January 20, 2022, to January 25, 2022, indicated there was no written notes that a wound specialist saw Resident 76 for her DTI to the left heel. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Wound Treatment Guidelines, indicated to promote wound healing of various types of wounds, it is the policy of the facility to provide evidence-based treatments in accordance with current standards of practice and physician orders. 1. Wound treatments will be provided in accordance with physician orders, including the cleansing method, type of dressing and frequency of dressing change. 2. In the absence of treatments orders the license nurse will notify physician to obtain treatment orders. This may be the treatment nurse, or the assigned licensed nurse in the absence of the treatments nurse. 3. Treatments will be documented on the Treatment Administration Record. 4. The effectiveness of treatments will be monitored through ongoing assessment of the wound. A review of the facility's undated P/P titled, Physician Visits and Physician Delegation, indicated to ensure the physician takes an active role in supervising the care of residents. A physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, or clinical nurse specialist must provide orders for the resident's immediate care and needs. A resident's attending physician may delegate the task of writing therapy orders to a qualified therapist who is acting within the scope of practice as defined by state of law and is under the supervision of the physician.
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** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess two of eight sampled residents' ski...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately assess two of eight sampled residents' skin integrity (Residents 76 and 179). Cross Referenced F686. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 179 developing an unstageable pressure ulcer (localized areas of injury that occur when skin and underlying tissue are compressed between a bony prominence and an external surface such as a mattress) on the sacrococcygeal (base of the spine, tailbone) area and Resident 76 developing a deep tissue injury ([DTI] an injury to a residents underlying tissue below the skin's surface that results from prolonged pressure in an area of the body) on the left heel. Findings: a. A review of Resident 179's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 179's diagnoses included status post left hip surgery, diabetes mellitus (high levels of sugar in the blood), polyneuropathy (weakness, numbness, and pain from nerve damage, usually in the hands and feet), Alzheimer's disease (brain disorder that causes problems with memory, thinking and behavior), dementia (group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities severely enough to interfere with your daily life), anemia (a condition in which you lack enough healthy red blood cells to carry adequate oxygen to your body's tissues), and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 179's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and screening tool, dated January 24, 2022, indicated the resident had severe cognitive (ability to think and reason) impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 179 required limited assistance with transfer, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and bathing. The MDS indicated Resident 179 was at risk for pressure ulcer development. A review of Resident 179's Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Ulcers dated January 29, 2022 indicated Resident 179 was a high risk for pressure ulcer development. A review of Resident 179's admission Body assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 179 had a surgical wound to the left hip, otherwise the resident's skin integrity was intact. A review of Resident 179's Physician's admission Order dated January 29, 2022, indicated that there were no pressure injury/ulcer preventative measures ordered. A review of the facility's Change of Condition logbook dated from January 29, 2022, to February 6, 2022, indicated that there were no reported records that Resident 179 had skin breakdown. A review of the facility's Treatment Monitoring logbook dated February 2022, indicated that there was no treatment monitoring recorded for Resident 179's sacrum and coccyx areas. During a concurrent observation and interview on February 9, 2022, at 11:46 a.m., in Resident 179's room, Resident 179 was lying in bed in a supine (face up) position with an abduction pillow (a device used to prevent your hip from moving out of the joint) in between the legs. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 and LVN 4 were observed performing a routine body skin assessment for Resident 179. Resident 179 was observed to have an unstageable wound (full thickness tissue loss) covered with slough (dead, separated tissue) and eschar (collection of dry, dead tissue within a wound) to the sacrococcygeal area measuring approximately three (3) centimeters (cm) by 3 cm. LVN 1 and LVN 4 stated they did not know Resident 179 had developed a pressure ulcer. LVN 4 stated a skin assessment should have been performed properly and thoroughly on a daily basis for Resident 179 who was at risk for developing pressure ulcers. During an interview on February 10, 2022, at 10:23 a.m., LVN 1 stated certified nurse assistants (CNAs) were supposed to inform the licensed nurses of any skin changes on the residents. LVN 1 stated the registered nurses (RNs) performed a resident skin assessment on admission, and CNAs performed skin assessments on every shower day and reported any abnormal findings to the charge nurse. During an interview on February 10, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 8 stated it was Resident 179's shower day but confirmed he did not shower Resident 179 on that day (2/10/22). CNA 8 stated the charge nurse and the supervisor told him not to touch Resident 179 because of the surgical wound on the resident's left hip. CNA 8 stated there were no other wounds on Resident 179 per his knowledge. CNA 8 stated the facility had a resident turning schedule that staff followed, but there was no documentation indicating Resident 179 was turned every two (2) hours. A review of Resident 179's Care Plan dated January 30, 2022, and titled Pressure Ulcer Risk, indicated a goal for Resident 179 was to minimize pressure ulcer risk daily for 3 months. The staff's interventions included to check skin for presence of sores, breakdowns, impairment, and skin trauma, notify physician if reddened areas, change in weight, change in intake or abnormal laboratory, assist with position changes, and use pressure reducing devices. A review of the Nurse Assistant Notes logbook dated February 1, 2022, to February 10, 2022, indicated there was no documentation Resident 179 had been repositioned every 2 hours and had no pressure reducing devices used during that timeframe. A review of the facility's Daily Skin Inspection Tool dated from January 29, 2022, to February 10, 2022, used by CNAs during the residents shower day indicated that Resident 179's skin integrity was not inspected. There was no record Resident 179 received a shower during this period. During an interview on February 10, 2022, at 11:24 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated for newly admitted and readmitted residents the licensed nurses were expected to perform a resident admission assessment which included a body assessment. The DON stated all licensed nurses were expected to perform a daily skin assessment during the residents' shower days. The DON was not able to explain why Resident 179's unstageable pressure ulcers at the sacrum and coccyx areas was not identified timely during the earlier stage. b. A review of Resident 76's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 76's with diagnoses included bronchitis (an inflammation of the lining of your bronchial tubes, which carry air to and from your lungs), diabetes mellitus, Alzheimer's disease, dementia, and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 76's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and screening tool) dated January 24, 2022, indicated the resident has Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score was 0 with interpretation of severe impaired cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 76 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, personal hygiene and total dependence with eating, toilet, bathing. The MDS indicated Resident 76 was at risk for pressure ulcer development. A review of Resident 76's readmission Body assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident's skin integrity was intact. A review of Resident 76's Physician's admission Orders dated January 2, 2022, indicated there was no preventative measures ordered to decrease the resident's risk of pressure ulcer development. A review of the facility's Change of Condition logbook dated from January 7, 2022, to February 6, 2022, indicated Resident 76 was reported to have a DTI with no specific location documented on January 20, 2022. During a concurrent observation and interview with LVN 4 on February 10, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 76 was observed lying in bed with both knees in a bent position with a pillow underneath his knees and both heels were touching the mattress. Resident 76 was observed with a DTI on the left heel measuring approximately 2 cm by 2 cm. LVN 4 stated there was no care plan initiated for Resident 76's DTI of the left heel. LVN 4 confirmed that a wound specialist had not seen Resident 76 and there was no treatment ordered by the physician. LVN 4 stated the facility had issues with the wound care contractor. LVN 4 stated he followed up with the wound specialist multiple but did not document. LVN 4 stated the facility did not have a wound care nurse at the time and that the charge nurses were responsible for the current wound care of residents. During an interview on February 10, 2022, at 9:48 a.m., CNA 6 stated she followed Resident 76's turning schedule every 2 hours, but she stated that there was no documentation of the repositioning in the resident's chart. A review of Resident 76's Nursing Notes from January 20, 2022, to January 25, 2022, indicated that LVN 6 noted the resident's DTI was reported by a CNA when a shower was given. Physician was notified and referred to a wound specialist, however, no follow up notes with wound specialist was documented. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, indicated that the facility shall promptly notify the resident, his or her attending Physician, and representative of change in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status. The Nurse Supervisor/Charge Nurse will notify the resident's Attending Physician or On-call Physician when there has been: 1. An accident or incident involving the resident. 2. A discovery of injuries of an unknown source. 3. A significant change in the resident's physical/ emotional/ mental condition. 4. A need to alter the resident's medical treatment significantly. 5. Refusal of treatment or medications two (2) or more consecutive times. 6. Instructions to notify the physician of changes in the resident's condition. A review of the facility's undated P/P titled, Charge Nurse, indicated that the primary purpose of the job position was to provide direct nursing care to the residents and to supervise the day-to day nursing activities performed by the CNAs. All care and supervision must be in accordance with the current federal, state, local standards, guidelines, regulations and laws that govern out facility. 1. Observe, report and record findings/changes in resident conditions to physician, and nursing personnel. 2. Report changes of condition to physician and families. Follow-up on orders and document. 3. Communicate resident's condition and nursing care to appropriate people (i.e. supervisor, administrator, physician, family, etc. A review of the facility's undated P/P titled, Resident Assessment, indicated that this facility makes a comprehensive assessment of each resident's needs, strengths, goals, life history and preferences using the resident assessment instrument (RAI) specified by CMS.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to perform psychotropic assessments and provide non-pharmacological in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to perform psychotropic assessments and provide non-pharmacological interventions to Residents 6, 33, 43, and 49 prior to start of psychotropic medications (medication that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) to ensure the use of psychotropics were necessary to treat a specific condition; and perform a gradual dose reduction ([GDR] an attempt to decrease or discontinue psychotropic medication after no more than three months after starting on the psychotropic medication) for Resident 49. These deficient practices had the potential to result in Residents 6, 33, 43, and 49 receiving unnecessary medications. Findings: A review of Resident 43's admission Record indicated Resident 43 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 43's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), anxiety disorder (feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease), and other lack of coordination. During a review of Resident 43's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 12/20/2021, the MDS indicated Resident 43 was usually understood by others and was able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 43 required limited assistance with one-person physical assistance for bed mobility and personal hygiene, and extensive assistance with locomotion (how resident moves) on/off unit, walking in the corridor, dressing, transfer, and toilet use. A review of Resident 49's admission Record indicated Resident 49 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 49's diagnoses included hyperlipidemia (elevated lipids in the blood), Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration due to generalized degeneration of the brain), and epilepsy unspecified (neurological disorder marked by sudden recurrent episodes of sensory disturbance, loss of consciousness, or convulsions). During a review of Resident 49's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 49 had unclear speech, was usually understood and able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 49 required supervision with set up help for bed mobility and eating, and limited assistance with a one-person physical assistance with transfer, personal hygiene, locomotion on/off unit, walking in the room and corridor, dressing, transfer, and toilet use. A review of Resident 33's admission Record indicated Resident 33 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 33's diagnoses included diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), hepatic failure (loss of liver function), and hypertensive heart disease (refers to heart conditions caused by high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 33's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 33 had clear speech, was usually understood and able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 33 required supervision with set up help for bed mobility and eating, and limited assistance with a one-person physical assist with transfer, personal hygiene, locomotion on/off unit, walking in the room and corridor, dressing, transfer, and toilet use. A review of Resident 6's admission Record indicated Resident 6 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 6's diagnoses included epilepsy unspecified, COPD, and hypothyroidism (condition in which the thyroid gland doesn't produce enough thyroid hormone). During a review of Resident 6's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 6 had clear speech, was understood by others and was able to understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 6 required supervision with set up help with bed mobility and eating, transfer, locomotion on/off unit, walking in the room and corridor, and a limited assistance with dressing, transfer, personal hygiene, and toilet use. During an interview on 2/10/2022 at 9:07 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse 4 (LVN 4), LVN 4 stated the staff did not document non-pharmacological interventions prior to the use of psychotropic medication because staff was familiar with every resident who had behavioral changes. LVN 4 stated the licensed nurses completed a change of condition (COC) form when the resident had behavioral changes, and the psychiatrist was to determine if they want to take a pharmacological approach. During an interview on 2/10/2022 at 10:10 a.m. with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated licensed nurses did not assess the residents before the start of psychotropic medication. LVN 1 stated she was not familiar with the psychotropic assessment form indicated in the resident's medical chart. LVN 1 stated there was no documentation that non- pharmacological interventions were documented in the resident's medical record prior to the start of the psychotropic medication. During an interview and record review of Resident 49's medical chart on 2/11/2022 at 9:56 a.m. with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IP), IP stated residents that were receiving psychotropic medication did not have an assessment prior to start of the medication. When asked if nonpharmacological interventions were documented in the chart, IP stated that staff did perform nonpharmacological interventions but did not document in the resident's chart. When asked when Resident 49 was last offered a GDR, IP stated there was no GDR since September of 2021. During an interview on 2/10/2022 at 11:15 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated there were no psychotropic assessments performed with any of the residents receiving psychotropic medication. The DON stated an evaluation was made by the psychiatrist if medication was necessary for the resident to continue or discontinue medication. During a record review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) dated January 2022 and titled, Medication Monitoring Medication Management, the P/P indicated when selecting medications and non-pharmacological approaches, members of the IDT included resident participation in the care process to identify, assess, address, advocate for, monitor and communicate the residents needs and changes in condition. The P/P indicated medication management is based on the care process and includes recognition or identification of the problem/need, assessment, diagnosis/cause identification, management/treatment, monitoring and revising interventions, as warranted as well as documenting management steps.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to prevent the spread of the coronavirus disease ([COVID-19 a disease caused by virus called SARs-CoV-2}) an illness caused by a virus that can easily spread from person to person) by failing to: 1. Ensure housekeeping that was assigned to clean the hallway at the green zone (a room or group of rooms designated for residents who do not have nor were exposed to Covid-19) was wearing an N-95 (a type of mask worn over the face to cover the nose and mouth that provides respiratory protections against aerosols [a suspension of fine solid particles or liquid droplets in air] and prevent infections). 2. Ensure one of one residents (229) was cohorted (creating distinct roommates or small groups of COVID-19 positive residents or Covid-19 exposed residents that stay together to ensure minimal or no interaction with residents who do not have COVID-19) at the yellow zone (an area housing covid 19 suspected, symptomatic or exposed residents) upon return from the hospital( re-admission). 3. Ensure two out of 2 Licensed vocational nurses performed hand hygiene in between resident's contact for three of three Residents (34, 53 and 57). Findings: 1. During an initial tour of the facility on 02/08/2022 at 10:19 am., housekeeping staff (HS) was in the hallway wearing a face shield without face mask. During an interview with HS on 02/08/2022 at 10:38 a.m., HS stated that he was responsible for cleaning all the hallways and he did it early morning. HS stated he usually wears an N95 mask and a face shield as personal protective equipment(PPE- equipment worn to minimize exposure to virus that cause serious infection/Covid-19 ). HS stated he forgot the N95 mask today and just used a face shield. During an interview on 02/08/2022 at 11:06 a.m. with Infection Preventionist (I/P), IP stated that HK should be wearing appropriate PPE like the rest of the staff in the facility, an N95 and face shield to prevent the spread of the virus. IP stated that HK spends more than 15 minutes cleaning the hallways and he cleans every 2 hours all the high touch surfaces in the facility. 2. During a review of the admission record, the record indicated Resident 229 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease (progressive mental deterioration that can occur in middle or old age, due to generalized degeneration of the brain) dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interfere with daily functioning),chronic obstructive pulmonary disease(COPD- a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe). During a review of the Resident 229's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated 11/15/2021, the MDS indicated Resident 229 had clear speech, made self-understood, and had the ability to understand others, needed limited assistance from one staff for bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, walking in the room, toilet use and personal hygiene, and extensive assistance for dressing and bathing. During an initial tour of the facility on 2/08/2022, around 10:19 a.m., there were no residents in the yellow zone of the facility. During a review of the census (number of residents in the facility) dated 02/06/2022, the census indicated that green zone had 81 residents. During an interview on 02/10/2022 at 4:12p.m. with I/P nurse, IP stated that Resident 229 came to the facility on 2/1/2022 and was assigned to the green zone, when asked about the new California Department of Public health (CDPH) guidance that new admission and re- admissions regardless of the vaccination status, should be placed in the yellow zone, IP stated that she was not aware of the update, IP stated that Resident 229 should have been in the yellow zone when she came to the facility on 2/1/2022. During a review of all facility letter ( AFL 20-87.1), the AFL indicated that regardless of vaccination status, residents who may have prolonged close contact (within 6 feet for a cumulative total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period) with someone with SARS-CoV-2 infection while outside the facility should quarantine in the yellow-observation area for 14 days and be tested immediately, at 5-7 days after exposure, and again prior to return to their usual room in green-unexposed/recovered area. During a review of the CDPH illustration titled, Cohorting dated 12/16/2021, indicated regardless of vaccination status; admissions and re admissions go straight to the yellow zone for 14 days. 3. During a medication administration observation on 02/09/2022 at 09:45 a.m., the licensed vocational nurse (LVN 1) administered oral medication for Residents 34, 53 and 57 and was observed not washing hands in between care of these three residents. During an interview on 02/09/2022 at 09:58 a.m., LVN 1 stated that hand washing must be done in between care, when passing medications and providing direct care to the resident. LVN 1 acknowledged that it was an infection control issue when staff does not wash hands or use hand sanitizer before providing care to the resident and the potential outcome is putting the residents at risk for getting infected with infectious disease such as COVID-19 infection and vice versa. During an interview on 02/11/2022 at 10:19 a.m., the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated that when a licensed nurses are passing medications, staff must wash hands or use hand sanitizer in between resident care to prevent cross contamination, if such practice are not followed, the potential is to spread the infection and putting the resident at risk or the staff for getting infected with any infectious disease the hand carries and IP acknowledged that it was an infection control issues. During a review of the facility policy (P/P) titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, the P/P indicated all staff will wash their hands when coming on duty, between resident contact, after handling contaminated objects. Staff shall wash their hands before and after performing resident care procedures. Hands shall be washed in accordance with facility's established hand washing procedure.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food preparation and storage practices were followed in the kitchen when: 1. The foods were not lab...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food preparation and storage practices were followed in the kitchen when: 1. The foods were not labeled with opened dates, there was no received dates, foods were stored in bins, refrigerator, and freezer without removing from original packaging. 2. The ice machine was not maintained in a clean and sanitary condition to ensure the ice was safe to consume. These failures had the potential to result in harmful bacteria growth and cross contamination that could lead to foodborne illnesses (illness caused by food contaminated with bacteria, viruses, parasites, or toxins) for 80 of 81 medically compromised residents who received food and ice from the kitchen. Findings. a. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview with Dietary Aide 1 (DA 1) on 2/8/22 at 9:11 a.m., there was one box of orange juice concentrate and one box of grape juice concentrate observed without received and opened dates. DA 1 stated both juice concentrates should be dated with the received date and use by date when they were opened. DA 1 stated he was responsible for labeling the items and missed labeling the two boxes. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview with the Dietary Service Supervisor (DSS) on 2/8/22 at 9:29 a.m., there was one opened box of baking soda with a received date of 4/22/2021 and a use by date of 12/28/2022. The opened date was 1/22/2022 however the box was left opened and uncovered. The DSS stated the box should have been covered with plastic wrap to prevent the baking soda from being contaminated. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview with DSS on 2/8/22 at 9:32 a.m., there was a bottle of nutmeg with a date received on 9/30/2021 and opened date on 10/4/2021. The use by date was 5/4/23 however the lid was left opened. The DSS stated the lid should always be kept closed to prevent possible contamination. The DSS stated it was important to ensure foods were free from possible contamination as harmful bacteria may grow that could lead to foodborne illness. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview with the DSS on 2/8/22 at 9:35 a.m., the white rice, powdered milk, brown sugar, brown rice, oatmeal, and white sugar were observed stored in plastic bins with no label indicating the received date, use by date, and opened date. The white sugar was observed in the plastic bin with its original packaging. The DSS stated all foods should be stored with labels indicating the received date, used by date and open date. The DSS stated the white sugar should have been removed from the original packaging prior to placing in the bin. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview with the DSS on 2/8/22 at 9:45 a.m., there were boxes of graham crackers, salt, sugar, pepper, chips, and cans of pureed chicken stored with its original packaging in the storage rack. There were also boxes of wheat roll dough, egg rolls, and pork sausages that were stored in its original packaging. The DSS stated the graham crackers, salt, sugar, pepper, chips, pureed chicken cans, wheat roll dough, egg rolls, and pork sausages should have been removed from the original carton boxes or packaging it was delivered in because the carton boxes could possibly be contaminated during transport and might cause the residents to become sick or be source of pest problem. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Food Receiving and Storage, indicated foods shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices. The P/P indicated dry foods that are stored in bins will be removed from original packaging, labeled, and dated (use by date). Opened containers must be dated and sealed or covered during storage. b. During an initial tour of the kitchen on 2/8/2022 at 8:34 a.m. with Dietary Aide 1 (DA 1), a black substance approximately 4 (four) inches in length was noted on the plastic in the upper, inner, right corner of the interior of the ice machine. This finding was photographed. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 2/8/2022 at 3:10 p.m., with the Maintenance Manager (MM) and Assistant Maintenance Manager (AM), the photograph taken of the interior of the ice machine was reviewed. The MM acknowledged the black substance noted on the ice machine. The MM stated the ice machine was supposed to be cleaned daily by the dietary aid, but the MM could not verbalize why the ice machine had black dirt in it. The MM stated the ice machine should be clean all the time and cannot have a black substance. During an interview with Dietary Service Supervisor 2 (DSS 2) on 2/8/2022 at 3:45 p.m., DSS 2 stated that it was the responsibility of DA 1 to clean the ice machine daily, but staff did not log who completed the task. DSS 2 stated that it would be obviously dirty because we hold the ice scooper every time which means that it needs cleaning. During a review of the facility's P/P titled, Ice Machines and Ice Storage Chests, revised 2021, indicated ice-making machines, ice storage chest/containers, and ice can all become contaminated by: unsanitary manipulation by employees, residents, and visitors. Waterborne microorganisms naturally occurring in the water source, colonization by microorganisms and/or improper storage or handling of ice. Facility has established procedure for cleaning and disinfecting ice machines and ice storage chests which adhere to the manufacturer's instructions.
Aug 2019 9 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to report a change of condition to the attending physician for one of...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to report a change of condition to the attending physician for one of 19 sampled residents (23), when the saturation levels (oxygen level in the blood) registered below the average normal range of between 95 to 100 percent (%). This deficient practice had the potentially caused a delay of medical treatment for Resident 23. Findings: A review of Resident 23's face sheet indicated an original admission date of 11/19/18 and a readmission date of 04/18/19 with diagnoses including chronic respiratory failure (a long-term condition that happens when your lungs can not get enough oxygen into your blood) with hypoxia (a condition in which the body or a region of the body is deprived of adequate oxygen supply at the tissue level, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), and respiratory tuberculosis (a contagious infection caused by bacteria that mainly affects the lungs but also can affect any other organ). A review of Resident 23's History and Physical assessment from the physician dated 04/22/19 indicated the resident was hospitalized for acute chronic hypoxemia, hypercapneic (a condition of abnormally elevated carbon dioxide levels in the blood), and COPD. A review of Resident 23's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated for 02/28/19 indicated the resident had intact level of cognition (process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) for daily decision making. A review of Resident 23's Physician Orders dated 03/25/19 included the following: - Monitor oxygen saturation every shift, maintain oxygen saturation to 90 % and or above at all times. - Advair Diskus (medicine used for COPD) aerosol powder 250-50 microgram (mcg) dose, 1 puff, twice a day (BID) - Singulair (medicine to prevent the wheezing and shortness of breath) 10 milligram (mg), at bedtime, and - Oxygen (O2) at 2 liters per minute (LPM) for O2 less than 90 %. A review of Resident 23's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for April 2, 2019 indicated the resident had an O2 saturation of 80 % on 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. The MAR further indicated Resident 23's O2 saturation was 86 % at 6 a.m., while receiving oxygen. A review of Resident 23's MAR for April 8, 2019 indicated the resident had an O2 saturation of 80 % on 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. The MAR further indicated the resident's O2 saturation was 88 % at 6 a.m., while receiving oxygen and the resident was redirected to breath through the nose. On 08/14/19 at 9:17 a.m., during a concurrent interview and record review, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) stated the nurse should have contacted the physician when the resident had an oxygen level of 86 % and 88 % on 4/2/19 and 4/8/19, respectively. LVN 1 also stated there was no documentation in the resident's records indicating the facility notified the attending physician. LVN also stated, I would have called as soon as it reached less than that. On 08/14/19, at 9:27 a.m., during an interview, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the physician should have been contacted as soon as the nurse had to use the supplemental oxygen to increase Resident 23's blood oxygen saturation levels. A review of Resident 23's medical record indicated the resident was sent to the hospital on [DATE] for respiratory distress with a low oxygen saturation of 68 % while receiving supplemental oxygen at 2 liters per minute. A review of Resident 23's care plan dated 3/26/19 indicated under concerns and problems, Resident at risk for shortness of breath (SOB), anxiety from dyspnea, diminished ability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs) due to: COPD. The care plan listed the resident's goals as Resident will display optimal breathing pattern daily. Will minimize signs and symptoms of acute respiratory insufficiency: anxiety, confusion, restlessness, SOB, cyanosis, and somnolence. The approaches on the plan of care included, Monitor for symptoms of acute respiratory insufficiency and notify MD promptly. A review of Resident 23's care plan dated 3/26/19 indicated under concerns and problems, Resident requires oxygen use related to history of COPD. The care plan listed the resident's goals as Resident will be able to participate/perform ADLS without signs and symptoms of SOB on a daily basis. The approach of the care plan included, Provide O2 at 2 liters per minute by nasal cannula. Monitor for episodes of SOB. Check oxygen saturation every shift. Teach resident breathing techniques purse lip, cough and deep breathing. Monitor labs and notify MD. A review of Resident 23's interdisciplinary team (professionals who assess, coordinate, and manage each resident's comprehensive health care, including his or her medical, psychological, social, and functional needs) meeting conference form dated 3/27/19 indicated, .He was recently re-admitted from hospital following treatment for COPD exacerbation. Resident continues to require the use of O2 .O2 sat continues to decline with minimal exertion . A review of Resident 23's nurses notes for 4/14/19 at 7 a.m. indicated, Vital signs (V/S) 140/70 milligram per deciliter, pulse 77, respiration 23, temp 99.3, O2 stat was 68% on continuous 2L of oxygen via NC (nasal cannula; device used to deliver oxygen thru the nose); sent out 911 per MD order because of desaturation; skin was pale, and clammy; no SOB noted; resident denied pain, no s/s (signs and symptoms) of distress noted. A review of Resident 23's face sheet from the emergency room (ER) dated 4/15/19 indicated the reason of the visit, Acute chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation with hypoxemia/hypercapnia. A review of Resident 23's history and physical from the acute hospital, dated 4/15/19, indicated under history of present illness: As per patient, for the last 2 or 3 days, he has been having progressive worse shortness of breath with significant wheezing as well as a cough which is predominantly dry, but occasionally productive of whitish to tan colored sputum. Upon presentation in the ER, he was found to be hypoxemic requiring high flow nasal cannula to maintain his saturation above ninety percent. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure titled, Notification of Changes, indicated, .The purpose of this policy is to ensure the facility promptly informs the resident, consults the resident's physician; and notify, consistent with his or her authority, resident's representative when there is a change requiring notification .Compliance Guidelines .Circumstances requiring notification include .Significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial condition such as deterioration in health, mental or psychosocial status . This may include .life-threatening conditions, or clinical complications .
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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a plan of care for the use of Depakote (medication used as...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a plan of care for the use of Depakote (medication used as a mood stabilizer), for major depression disorder manifested by self-isolation for one of 19 sampled residents (66). This deficient practice placed Resident 66 at increased risk for adverse reactions for the use of Depakote and psychological harm related to isolation. Findings: A review of Resident 66's face sheet indicated the resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (chronic brain disease that usually starts slowly and gradually worsens over time characterized by difficulty in remembering recent events, problems with language, disorientation and mood swings), major depressive disorder (a mental disorder characterized by low mood, accompanied by low self-esteem, loss of interest in normally enjoyable activities), and dementia (memory loss) with behavioral disturbance. A review of Resident 66's Physician Orders dated 7/16/19 indicated an order of Depakote, 125 milligram by mouth two times a day for major depression disorder manifested by self-isolation. A review of Resident 66's Psychotherapy Progress notes dated 07/09/19 indicated a therapeutic goal of decreased social Isolation/withdrawal and decreased depression. A review of Resident 66's Social Service Assessment notes dated 7/13/2019, indicated the resident was withdrawn. However, a review of Resident 66's Care plans did not show a plan of care developed for the identified behavior of social isolation/withdrawn, and to identify interventions to decrease the episodes for the use of Depakote. On 8/13/2019 at 3:55 p.m., during an interview the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated all psychotropic medications should have a care plan to help staff identify, and prevent adverse reactions from psychotropic medications. The ADON also stated a plan of care was not developed for Resident 66 related to the identified behavior of isolation. The ADON also state there are no interventions to prevent further episodes of isolation. A review of an undated facility's policy and procedure titled, Care Plan -Comprehensive, indicated each resident's comprehensive care plan is designed to incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems and aid in preventing or reducing declines in the resident's functional status and/or functional level.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was on duty, for at least eight consecutive hours a day, for three consecutive days (August 11, 12 and 13, 201...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was on duty, for at least eight consecutive hours a day, for three consecutive days (August 11, 12 and 13, 2019). This deficient practice had the potential for the residents not be provided with the appropriate nursing observations, and assessments, which could only be performed by an RN. Findings: A review of the Daily Nursing hours' projection sheet that included the day shift, evening shift, and night shift, dated August 11, 12, and 13, 2019 did not indicate an RN, who was scheduled to work in the facility. On 8/14/19 at 10:01 a.m., during an interview, the Administrator stated the facility did not have a waiver for nurse staffing (to assure that sufficient qualified nursing staff are available on a daily basis to meet residents' needs for nursing care in a manner and in an environment which promotes each resident's physical, mental and psychosocial well-being, thus enhancing their quality of life). The Administrator stated the facility did not have a required RN, for at least eight hours per day, which usually happens on the weekends. The Administrator stated the facility needed to have a RN at least 8 hours a day, 7 days a week, because they usually have 70 or more residents in the facility. The Administrator further stated they were in the process of screening applicants for an RN staff position. A review of an undated facility's policy and procedure titled, Nursing Services and Sufficient Staff, indicated it was the policy of the facility to provide sufficient staff with appropriate competencies and skill sets to assure resident safety and attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial wee-being of each resident. The policy further indicated that except when waived, the facility must use the services of a registered nurse for at least eight consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare the appropriate consistency of a breaded chicken for a residents who was on a mechanical soft diet (a diet that invol...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare the appropriate consistency of a breaded chicken for a residents who was on a mechanical soft diet (a diet that involves only foods that are physically soft, with the goal of reducing or eliminating the need to chew the food), per the menu, and the physician order. This deficient practiced of not grinding, but cutting the breaded chicken in to one-inch or bigger size, had the potential to place the residents who was to receive mechanical soft diet, at increased risk for choking. Findings: On 8/13/2019 at 12:07 p.m., during the tray line observation, kitchen staff cut the breaded chicken with a spatula into one-inch or bigger cuts. During observation the kitchen staff placed the cut breaded chicken on the tray of a resident that had an order for mechanical soft diet. A review of the facility's Summer Menus spreadsheet dated 8/13/19 indicated on the same day, the residents were to be served baked chicken with cordon bleu cheese sauce for lunch. However, the Summer Menus spreadsheet indicated to grind the baked chicken for mechanical soft diet orders, and not cut it into one-inch or bigger cuts. A review of the facility's Recipe for baked chicken with cordon bleu cheese sauce indicated to grind and serve to the residents who had a physician order for mechanical soft diet. On 8/13/2019 at 12:09 p.m., during an interview, the Assistant Dietary Supervisor (ADS 2) also acknowledged cut pieces of baked chicken were assessed to be too big for a resident who had an order for mechanical soft diet. The ADS 2 stated the cut pieces of baked chicken were not the proper consistency for the resident who was to be served a mechanical soft diet. A review of an undated facility's policy and procedure, titled Therapeutic Diet Orders, indicated therapeutic diets will be provided to residents in the appropriate form and/or the appropriate nutritive content as prescribed by the physician and/or assessed by the interdisciplinary team to support the treatment and plan of care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its protocols for antibiotic stewardship program (a program...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its protocols for antibiotic stewardship program (a program designed to optimize the use of antibiotics and reduce the adverse events usually associated with antibiotic use), when administering ciprofloxacin (an antibiotic used to treat infections), to one of 19 sampled residents (47), who did not meet the criteria for antibiotic use while being treated for a urinary tract infection ([UTI] an infection in any part of the urinary system). This deficient practice had the potential to place Resident 47 at risk for the developing antibiotic-resistant organisms (a strain of infectious organisms that developed resistance to antibiotics), and suffer side effects of unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic use. Findings: A review of the admission Records indicated Resident 47 was admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including asthma (a condition in which the tubes that carry air in and out of the lung narrow and swell causing obstruction) with exacerbation (getting worst), major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), and anxiety (characterized by excessive, uncontrollable and irrational worry about events or activities). A review of Resident 47's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated 6/25/19 indicated Resident 47 was severely cognitively (ability to make decisions of daily living) impaired for daily decision making. The MDS assessment indicated Resident 47 required assistance in activities of daily living such as getting dressed, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A review of a physician order dated 7/9/19 indicated an order for ciprofloxacin (an antibiotic used to treat infections) by mouth every 12 hours for 10 days, to be administered to Resident 47 for UTI. A review of the medication administration records dated July 2019 indicated Resident 47 received the ciprofloxacin at 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on July 9, 10, 11, 13, 14 and on July 15 at 9:00 p.m. During a concurrent interview, and record review on 8/13/19, at 8:31 a.m. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) stated she was responsible for the antibiotic stewardship program. LVN 1 stated as part of the facility antibiotic stewardship program, she documents the date of admission, any signs and symptoms, where the infection was, the medications the resident was on, and whether the resident met the criteria for antibiotic use. LVN 1 stated the facility used the McGeer Criteria. A review of National Institute of Health (a governmental bio-medical research agency), McGeer Criteria was used as a standard of practice that included categories that must be met to determine if a resident was a candidate for antibiotic use. A review of the McGeer's criteria indicated a resident must meet at least two of the following criteria of signs and symptoms of infection to be treated with antibiotics for a suspected urinary tract infection: Positive urine culture, and acute dysuria (pain or discomfort when urinating) or a fever (greater than 100 degrees Fahrenheit) and lower abdominal pain, urinary frequency, blood in the urine, and incontinence). During a concurrent interview, and record review on 08/13/19 8:31 a.m., LVN 1 stated according to McGeer's Criteria, Resident 47 did not meet the criteria for getting antibiotics for a UTI. LVN 1 stated Resident 47 had a urine culture test (a test performed to grow and identify organisms that may cause a urinary tract infection) that showed positive for bacteria. However, when compared to McGeer Criteria, a review of Resident 47's medical record indicated the resident did not have fever, urinary urgency, pain, frequency, incontinence, or blood in the urine to qualify and justify the use of ciprofloxacin. During an interview on 8/13/19 at 8:58 a.m., LVN 1 acknowledged Resident 47 did not meet the criteria for antibiotic use according to McGeer's Criteria, so the resident should not have been on ciprofloxacin. LVN 1 stated use of antibiotics exposed the resident to side effects and possible antibiotic resistance bacteria. A review of the facility's policy titled Infection Control, dated 1/2017 indicated it was the policy of the facility to implement an antimicrobial stewardship program which will promote appropriate use of antimicrobials while optimizing the treatment of infections at the same time reducing the possible adverse events associated with antibiotic use. This policy has the potential to limit antimicrobial resistance in the facilities environment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain Refrigerator #2 in safe operating condition. This deficient practice placed the foods kept in Refrigerator #2 at in...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain Refrigerator #2 in safe operating condition. This deficient practice placed the foods kept in Refrigerator #2 at increased risk for spoiling and the resident's at increased risk of foodborne illness (illness caused by food contaminated with bacteria, viruses, parasites, or toxins). Finding: On 08/08/19 at 8:17 a.m., during the initial kitchen tour, Refrigerator # 2 had damaged and torn gasket on the upper edge of the right door. On 08/08/2019 at 8:20 a.m., during an interview, the Assistant Dietary Supervisor (ADS 1) stated the kitchen staff was unaware of the broken gasket and may have missed it during routine cleaning. ADS 1 stated she will notify maintenance immediately to have the refrigerator gasket repaired. A review of facility's policy dated 2018, tilted, Refrigerator and Freezer, indicated to keep refrigerator working efficiently. Periodically, check door gaskets and replace if damaged.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to identify risks, and hazards by providing a safe living environment for the resident residing in rooms 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to identify risks, and hazards by providing a safe living environment for the resident residing in rooms 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81, that had long television (TV) cords, that extended down the wall in to an outlet. This failure had the potential for the residents in rooms 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79, and 81 to cause accidents, or to induce harm to themselves. Findings: During the initial tour observation on 08/08/19 at 10:00 a.m., the following resident rooms were equipped with long TV cords, that extended down the wall into an outlet: Resident rooms 70, 72, 76, 77, 78, 79, 81. During a concurrent observation and interview on 08/13/19 at 08:56 a.m. the Maintenance Supervisor acknowledged the resident rooms, 70, 72, 76,77, 78, 79, 81 had a long TV cord, that extended down the wall, into an outlet. Maintenance Supervisor stated the long TV cords are not safe for the residents, especially with the specific population at the facility, and I will speak to the administrator to fix this, make the cords less visible to the residents. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure titled, Accidents and Supervision, indicated, There resident environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible; and each resident receives adequate supervision and as free of accident hazards as is possible; and each resident receives adequate supervision and assistive devices to prevent accidents. This includes: 1. Identifying hazard(s) and risk(s). 2. Evaluating and analyzing hazard(s) and risk(s). 3. Implementing interventions to reduce hazard(s) and risk(s).
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: a. Maintain the correct concentration of chlorine (a chemical sanitizing agent) sanitizing agent used in the low-temperature...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: a. Maintain the correct concentration of chlorine (a chemical sanitizing agent) sanitizing agent used in the low-temperature dishwasher, according to the manufacturer's guidelines. b. Ensure one Kitchen Staff performed hand washing before starting work, and prior to handling foods, when in the kitchen area. These deficient practices had the potential to increase the risk of food contamination, which could cause foodborne illnesses (illness caused by food contaminated with bacteria, viruses, parasites, or toxins) for the residents. Findings: a. On 08/08/2019 at 8:24 a.m., during a concurrent observation and interview in the initial kitchen tour, Assistant Dietary Supervisor (ADS 2) checked the concentration of sanitation on the newly washed dishes with a chlorine test strip. The test strip measured less than 10 parts per million ([ppm] unit of concentration). ADS 2 repeated the test process five times on various dishes that came out of the automated dish washer. All five test strip resulted in less than 10 ppm reading. ADS 2 placed a new load of dishes and completed the dish washing cycle. ADS 2 acknowledged the manufacturer's guidelines for proper concentration of chlorine sanitation solution on the dishes was to be 50 ppm. A review of the facility's Kitchen Dishwashing Monitoring log on 08/08/2019 at 9:00 a.m., did not indicate the chlorine chemical sanitizing agent was checked prior to using the automated dishwasher. On 8/08/2019 at 10:20 a.m., during an interview, ADS 2 stated she called the manufacturer help line to trouble shoot the dishwasher sanitation cycle. ADS 2 stated she thought there was a kink in the line that dispensed the chemical sanitizer on the dishes. ADS 2 stated the recommended concentration of sanitizing solution was not properly dispensing into the dish washer, that was why it registered a 10 ppm. ADS 2 also stated staff were improperly trained on how to check for the proper concentration of sanitizer on the dishes. ADS 2 stated that all of the dishes that were washed that morning would be rewashed manually until the problem was corrected. b. On 8/13/2019 at 12:10 p.m., during a tray line observation, Kitchen Staff 2 did not perform hand washing technique, prior to observing the following: Kitchen Staff 2 exited the kitchen into the resident dining area, returned into the kitchen, obtained a bagged package of cup lids from storage room, exited the kitchen, returned into the kitchen, walked to the food preparation area area, and picked up a container of strawberries. On 8/13/2019 at 12:15 p.m , during an interview, Kitchen Staff 2 stated he went in and out of the kitchen without having performed hand washing. Kitchen staff 2 stated he picked up a container of strawberries at the food preparation station. Kitchen Staff 2 stated he we rushing and did not think about it but should have washed his hand upon entering the kitchen. On 8/13/2019 at 12:21 p.m., during an interview, Assistant Dietary Supervisor (ADS 2) stated kitchen staff are trained, with no exceptions, were to wash their hands upon entering the kitchen. ADS 2 stated Kitchen staff 2 will be in serviced concerning the hand washing policy. A review of facility's policy, dated 2018, titled Hand Washing Procedure, indicated hands need to be washed before starting work in the kitchen.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper handling of clothes were followed, when clothes was dropped on the floor, folded, and then placed in the reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper handling of clothes were followed, when clothes was dropped on the floor, folded, and then placed in the resident's closet. This failure had the potential to cause spread of infection to the residents of the facility. Findings: During a concurrent observation, and interview on 08/08/19 at 09:46 a.m., a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 20) folded a resident's clothes that was dropped on the floor. CNA 20 folded the clothes, and then placed the resident's clothes in the closet. During an interview CNA 20 stated she was organizing the clean clothes but acknowledged the clean clothes should not be placed on the floor, and or put in the resident's closet. During an interview on 08/13/19 at 9:27 a.m., the Director of Staff Development stated CNAs were taught that neither clean nor dirty linen or clothes should be left on the floor. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure titled, Handling Soiled Linen, indicated, .Staff shall handle, store, and transport clean linen in a manner to prevent contamination .Guidelines for handling, storage, processing, and transporting linens include, but are not limited to, the following .Linen should not be allowed to touch the uniform or floor .
Aug 2018 9 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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment ([POLST] approach to improving end-of-life care in the United States, encouraging providers to speak with patients and create specific medical orders to be honored by health care workers during a medical crisis) form was completely filled out for one of 17 sampled residents (47). The failure to provide the necessary services did not show communication between individuals and their healthcare agents to understand, reflect on, discuss, and plan for future healthcare decisions for a time when individuals are not able to make their own healthcare decisions. Findings: On 7/27/18 at 8 am Resident 47 was observed while conducting general rounds. During attempts to converse Resident 47 could not respond or express himself verbally. A review of the medical records indicated Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizophrenia (sever mental disorder with an abnormal interpretation of reality) and psychosis (loss of contact with reality). A review of the POLST form dated 2/6/18 revealed that it had not been signed by the resident or a recognized decision-maker. A signature from the aforementioned would have acknowledged the resident's known desires regarding resuscitative measures. A review of a History & Physical form dated 3/8/18 indicated Resident 47 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. On 7/31/18 at 3:50 pm upon reviewing the POLST the social service designee (SSD) stated, I think that's my handwriting, I think I wrote that Resident 47 could not sign the POLST due to his altered condition. The SSD stated when she wrote on the POLST she meant the resident could not physically sign the form. She stated Resident 47 could understand simple things but she did not think he could understand the entirety of the POLST. The SSD stated she could have/should have reached out to Resident 47's family member or considered a conservator to act as the recognized decision-maker.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan with concerns/proble...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan with concerns/problems, including measurable goals and interventions for one of 17 sampled residents (26), receiving Tylenol #3 with codeine, without including location of the pain. This deficient practice had the potential of contributing to further pain leading to mismanaged, when the location of the pain was not identified by the staff. Findings: On July 30, 2018 at 2:39 p.m., during clinical record review revealed Resident 26's care plan did not indicate the location of the pain as a concern, nor included Tylenol #3 with codeine at 300 - 30 milligram (mg) one tablet in the intervention section of the care plan. Moreover, the care plan did not reflected the pain assessment sheet, and the physician current order. According to the admission records Resident 26 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hypothyroidism (decrease function of thyroid gland), anemia (low red blood cells), and and loss of consciousness. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated November 24, 2017, indicated Resident 26 had the cognitive ability to make self understood and understand others. The resident required total dependence from the staff for activities of daily living. The resident MDS was triggered for pain requiring the staff to do frequent monitoring. A review of the physician's order dated July 27, 2018 indicated Tylenol #3 with codeine at 300 - 30 mg tablet: give one tablet every six hours as necessary for moderate to severe pain. A review of Resident 26's current care plan dated February 26, 2018 indicated alteration in comfort due to motor vehicle accident but did not included where the pain was located nor the specific pain medication, Tylenol #3 with codeine, as necessary have been administered since November 11, 2014. A review of the physician's current order dated July 27, 2014 indicated Tylenol #3 with Codeine at 300 - 30 mg: give one tablet every six hour as necessary. On July 30, 2018 at 2:39 p.m., during an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 20) was asked why Resident 26's revised care plan did not reflected the pain locations, and the name of current pain medication. LVN 20 stated care plan was not specifically related to the locations of the resident's pain, and the revised care plan did not reflected the current order. According to the facility's undated policy titled Care Plan Comprehensive, an individualized comprehensive care plan that includes measurable objective and timetables to meet the resident's medical needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 17 sampled residents (47) splint was app...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 17 sampled residents (47) splint was applied to the right upper extremity on a daily basis as ordered by the physician and that his fingernails were cleaned, trimmed and well groomed. The failure to provide the necessary care created the potential for the resident to have increased contractures of his fingers. Findings: a 1. On 7/25/18 at 3:30 pm, during an initial tour of the facility Resident 47 did not have a splint on to the upper extremities. Resident 47 was observed again on 7/26/18 at 8:45 am, at 11:25 am and at 2:20 pm without a splint on. Other observations conducted on 7/27/18 at 8:10 am, 10:50 am, 1:45 pm and 3:15 pm, revealed Resident 47 did not a have any splint on. A review of the medical records indicated Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including contractures (loss of joint motion) of the right and left hands. A physicians order dated 4/9/18 indicated Resident 47 was to have a hand splint for contracture management applied daily, seven times a week, for four to six hours. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated 7/3/18 indicated Resident 47 was totally dependent on the staff for his activities of daily living. The MDS indicated Resident 47 had limitation in his range of motion to his upper and lower extremities. A resident care plan titled Activities of Daily Living/Residents with Splints dated 7/3/18 indicated Resident 47 was at risk for further contractures. The nursing approaches included applying the splint to the affected extremity per the physicians orders. A review of the Restorative Record notes for July 2018 indicated RNA services had been provided for Resident 47 on 7/25/18, 7/26/18 and 7/27/18. Further review of the records indicated the initials for the RNA applying the splint to Resident 47 had been crossed out for 7/26/18 and 7/27/18. On 7/27/18 at 3:20 pm during an interview the restorative nursing assistant stated the splint was taken to the laundry on Monday, 7/23/18. The splint was in the laundry room washed and ready however, the laundry staff had not returned it to Resident 47, nor had nursing picked it up from the laundry. There were no clear instructions on who was responsible for getting the splint back to the resident in a timely manner. On 7/31/18 at 1:45 pm, during an interview RNA 1 stated Resident 47's splint went to the laundry on Wednesday (7/25/18), not Monday (7/23/18). RNA 1 stated after the splint was washed it took at least two days for it to dry. RNA 1 stated either the laundry staff brought the splint to the resident's room or the nursing staff picked it up from the laundry. RNA 1 stated she was aware Resident 47 was supposed to wear the splint daily. The nursing staff was aware Resident 47 was at risk for worsening of his contractures without use of the splint. A review an undated facility's policy and procedure titled Restorative Nursing Program indicated residents are to be assisted with use of any assistive device. Services will be provided by the RNA's including splint or brace application per the physicians orders. a 2. On 7/27/18 at 2 pm Resident 47 was observed during incontinence care. Resident 47 had contractures to both hands and his fingernails were long, dirty and unkempt. The resident's fingernails were approximately 1/8 of an inch or more over the nail bed with food particles, dirt and debris underneath them. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated 7/3/18 indicated Resident 47 was totally dependent on the staff for his activities of daily living (ADL), including personal hygiene. A resident care plan titled Activities of Daily Living dated 7/3/18 indicated Resident 47 was unable to do his own care. The nursing approaches included cleaning the resident's fingernails daily during morning care and as needed. On 7/27/18 at 3:15 pm the director of staff development (DSD) and CNA 9 observed Resident 47's fingernails and agreed that they were long, dirty and unkempt. The DSD stated nail care should be included in the resident's daily grooming. A review of a facility's policy and procedure titled Care of Fingernails dated 10/10 indicated the purpose is to clean the nail bed, keep the nails trimmed and to prevent infections. Nail care was to include daily cleaning and regular trimming.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to identify drug irregularities (rationale) during the monthly Medicat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to identify drug irregularities (rationale) during the monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR), when two anticonvulsant ([seizure] a sudden surge of electrical activity in the brain, a seizure usually affects how a person feels or acts) medications Carbanazepine and Levetiracetam without a documented clinical rationale for one of 17 sampled residents (18). Findings: According to the admission records Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included altered mental status, and toxic encephalopathy (a diseased of one's brain). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated May 15, 2018 indicated Resident 18's cognition was intact and total dependent on staff for activities of daily livings (ADLs) such as transferring, eating, and dressing. A review of the physician's order for Resident 18 dated July 20, 2018, indicated to administer Levetiracetam 1500 mg by mouth twice a day, and Carbamazepine 200 milligram (mg) 1.5 tablet (300 mg) by mouth three times a day for seizure disorder. A review of the physician's order dated December 15, 2014, indicated to administer both Carbamazepine 200 mg 1.5 tablets (300 mg) by mouth three times daily as ordered, and Levetiracetam 1500 mg by mouth twice a day. A review of the Medication Administration Records (MARs) for the month of July 2017, indicated Resident 18 received both Carbamazepine 200 mg 1.5 tablets (300 mg) by mouth three times daily as ordered, and Levetiracetam 1500 mg by mouth twice a day. A review of the monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR) dated the for the months of June and July 2018 did not indicate the identification of drug irregularities when two anticonvulsant medication from the same category Carbamazepine also known as Tegretol, and Levetiracetam also known as Keppra was used for Resident 18's treatment of seizure. On August 1, 2018 at 12:30 p.m., during an interview the Director of Nursing (DON) was unable to provide information if there was recommendation made during by the pharmacist consultant for Resident 18's drug irregularities during the monthly Medication Regimen Review (MRR) in June and July 2018. The DON also agreed the irregularity should have been addressed by the pharmacist to the physician because two anticonvulsant was used to treat the seizure. On August 1, 2018 at 12:40 p.m., an attempted to reach the pharmacist by telephone for an interview was unsuccessful. According to the facility's policy and procedures titled MMRR and Reporting dated 2017 indicated that the consultant pharmacist reviews the medication regimen and medical chart of each resident at least monthly to appropriately monitor the medication regimen and ensure that the medication each resident received are clinically indicated. Identification of irregularities may occur by the consultant pharmacist utilizing a variety of sources including medication administration records (MAR) and prescribed orders.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0772 (Tag F0772)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor one of 17 sampled residents (18) baseline tegretol levels (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor one of 17 sampled residents (18) baseline tegretol levels (medication to treat seizure disorder [ sudden surge of electrical activity in the brain, a seizure usually affects how a person feels or acts]). This deficient practice had the potential for adverse consequences that includes dizziness, fatigue, depression including suicide and worsening of seizures. Findings: According to the admission records Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included altered mental status, and toxic encephalopathy (a diseased of one's brain). The admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated May 15, 2018 indicated Resident 18's cognition was intact and total dependent on staff for activities of daily livings (ADLs) such as transferring, eating, and dressing. A review of the physician's order for Resident 18 dated June 12, 2015, indicated Carbamazepine 200 milligram (mg) 1.5 tablet (300 mg) by mouth three times a day for seizure disorder, and Levetiracetam 1500 mg by mouth twice a day. A review of the Medication Administration Records (MARs) for the month of July 2017, indicated Resident 18 had received both Carbamazepine 200 mg 1.5 tablets (300 mg) by mouth three times daily as ordered. On July 30, 2018 at 12:30 p.m., during an interview the director of nursing (DON) was asked did the facility obtain a baseline level before starting Resident 18 on another anti-seizure mediation (Carbamazepine 200 mg 1.5 tablet (300 mg) by mouth three times a day). The DON stated no and agreed a baseline should have been done before starting the Carbamazepine. The DON stated the facility received noticed for the labs to be drawn on August 1, 2018. According to the facility's drug reference book Nursing Drug Book, page 272 dated 2018 indicated to obtain baseline determinations of urinalysis, iron level, liver function and complete blood count blood uremia nitrogen BUN (to determine kidney function), and monitor these values periodically thereafter.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to wash hands while providing incontinence care for one o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to wash hands while providing incontinence care for one of 17 sampled residents (59), that had a bowel movement. The failure to provide care in a sanitary manner created the potential for the spread of harmful bacteria and the development of disease and/or infection. Findings: On 7/26/18 9:15 am Resident 59 was observed during incontinence care after urinating and having a bowel movement. Two certified nursing assistants (CNA 7, 8) and one restorative nursing assistant (RNA 1) were at the resident's bedside. RNA 1 wore gloves to clean the resident, and did not change her gloves after cleaning the stool. RNA 1 did not change her gloves until the entire procedure was complete. However, during the procedure RNA 1 picked up approximately four clean wash cloths and handled a bottle of peri-wash on four to five different occasions. On 7/27/18 at 3:05 pm, during an interview RNA 1 stated she should have changed her gloves and washed her hands during incontinence care. RNA 1 stated it was an infection control issue by touching other items with the soiled gloves. A review of the medical records indicated Resident 59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (a disease process that destroys memory and thinking). A resident care plan dated 1/9/18 addressed Resident 59's impaired activities of daily living (ADL) and physical functioning. The care plan goals included meeting the resident's ADL needs by being clean, dry and free of odor. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated 7/15/18 indicated Resident 59 was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder function. The MDS indicated Resident 59 was totally dependent on the staff for toilet use. A review of a facility's policy and procedure titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene dated 4/12 indicated hand hygiene is the primary means to prevent the spread of infection. Employees must wash their hands after handling soiled linens or coming into contact with a resident's excretions.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents were treated with respect and dignity for four to five residents sitting at the same table during meals, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents were treated with respect and dignity for four to five residents sitting at the same table during meals, by being served at the same time. The failure to provide the necessary care left the residents hungry for extended periods of time while looking at others eat, picking at other residents foods, making them anxious, and frustrated. Findings: a. On 7/26/18 at 7:40 am, five residents at four different tables waited more than 30 minutes to receive their meals while the other three to four other resident's at the same table were already eating and/or finished with their food. One resident loudly yelled out three times, Where's my food, however, he continued to wait twenty five more minutes before he was served. Another resident asked the certified nursing assistant on two different occasions where his food was and continued to wait twenty to twenty five more minutes before his food was served. A third resident was observed taking food and eating it from the plate of the resident directly across from him, he continued to wait approximately twenty five more minutes for his food. On 7/27/18 11:35 am Resident 117 stated he eats off of other peoples (residents) plates because he's hungry and it takes a long time to get his food. On 8/1/18 at 7:50 am the licensed vocational nurse (LVN 15) stated she was fairly new and was not sure of the system in place for running the dining room. LVN 15 stated had noticed some of the residents had to wait a while to be served while other residents at their table were already eating. LVN 15 stated she had heard some of the residents complain about being hungry and having to wait so long for their food. LVN 15 stated she had noticed some of the residents became anxious and frustrated after waiting so long for their food. LVN 15 stated nursing and the dietary department have been communicating to come up with a better way to serve the residents in a timely manner. b. On 7/27/18 at 10 am, during the group meeting, three of eight residents stated the facility needs to improve on the timeliness of when the food was served. They agreed it takes a long time for them to get their food in the dining room. One resident stated he has to wait thirty minutes or more to get his tray. Another resident stated when he ask the staff for his tray they say It's coming. The resident stated he did not like that because he was hungry when he went to the dining room. The resident stated it happens almost everyday.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 17 sampled residents (59) was covered an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 17 sampled residents (59) was covered and not exposed during incontinence (accidental or involuntary loss of urine from the bladder or bowels) care, skin care and a wound treatment. The failure to provide the necessary care created the potential to make the resident feel embarrassed, uncomfortable and disrespected. Findings: a 1. On 7/26/18 at 9:15 am Resident 59 was observed during incontinence care with two certified nursing assistants (CNAs 7 and 8), and one restorative nursing assistant (RNA 1) at the bedside. After the bed covers and Resident 59's clothing was removed, her peri-area and buttocks were left uncovered/exposed during the entire procedure. During a concurrent interview, Resident 59 was not exactly sure what care was provided by the nurses earlier that day. The resident could not recall if she was covered or uncovered during incontinence care. On 7/27/18 at 3:05 pm CNA 7, 8 and RNA 1 stated someone should have closed the privacy curtain while providing care for Resident 59. Additionally, CNA 7, 8 and RNA 1 stated the resident should have been covered as much as possible during incontinence care. A review of the medical records indicated Resident 59 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (a disease process that destroys memory and thinking). A resident care plan dated 1/9/18 addressed Resident 59's impaired activities of daily living (ADL) and physical functioning. The nursing approach plan included ensuring the resident wore appropriate attire daily. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated 7/15/18 indicated Resident 59 was occasionally incontinent of bowel and bladder function. The MDS indicated Resident 59 was totally dependent on the staff for toilet use. A review of a facility's policy and procedure titled Dignity dated 10/09 indicated each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances dignity and respect. a 2. On 7/26/18 at 9:15 am Resident 59 was observed during a wound treatment and skin care. While providing care to Resident 59 the licensed vocational nurses (LVN 16, 17) left the peri-area uncovered and exposed. Additionally, Resident 59's privacy curtain remained opened during the entire procedure. Resident 59 was located in the A bed, closest to the door. While Resident 59's wound treatment/skin care was being done the resident in bed C attempted to leave the room, however, the door to the room was closed. The resident in bed C stood by the foot of the bed, facing Resident 59 waiting for the door to be opened, as Resident 59 lay in the bed with the privacy curtain wide opened and her entire peri-area exposed. A review of a resident care plan dated 7/24/18 addressed concerns with Resident 59's skin. The nursing approaches included providing protective wears of clothing for the resident. A review of the physicians orders dated 7/24/18 indicated Resident 59 had redness to the right and left inguinal (groin) area. The order indicated to apply Nystatin (antifungal) cream with triamcinolone (steroid to reduce redness, swelling, itching), left open to air over a 21 day period. The orders indicated the same treatment was to be applied to the resident's right and left buttocks. A review of a facility's policy and procedure titled Dignity dated 10/09 indicated the staff shall promote, maintain and protect a resident's privacy including bodily privacy during personal care and treatment procedures.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain one of 17 sampled residents (31) safety by: ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain one of 17 sampled residents (31) safety by: The resident overhead bed light cover was not left open to prevent the residents from removing the electrical light bulbs from the light socket. This deficient practice had the potential of causing physical harm to the resident. Findings: On July 25, 2018, at 3 p.m., during the initial tour observed that Resident 31's room [ROOM NUMBER] Bed - C light cover panel above the head of bed (HOB) that was used to protect the resident from removing the glass light bulbs from the inlet socket had been removed. According to the admission records Resident 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included hemiplga (stroke one side of body) diabetes mellitus (high sugar level in blood) without complications. The annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated December 15, 2017, indicated Resident 31 had the cognitive ability to make self understood and understand others. The resident independence from the staff for activities of daily living. On July 27, 2018 at 3:15 p.m., during an interview with the Maintenance Director about the the light cover panel having been left open, Maintenance Director stated the cover panel was to protect Resident 31 from removing the electrical light bud from the socket. The Maintenance Director stated the facility will have do inservices for the staff that the light cover panels, or not to be left open but close for the residents' safety. According to the facility's policy titled Maintenance Inspection, dated 2017 indicated it is the policy of this facility to maintain compliance with maintenance services. The Director of Maintenance will perform random and or routine inspections using the maintenance checklist. The maintenance supervisor will explain or demonstrate the optimal function of an equipment or items inside a resident unit/room such as the over bed light fixture's appropriate placement etc.
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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
Concerns
  • • 28 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade D (45/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 45/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Villa Del Rio Gardens's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns VILLA DEL RIO GARDENS an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Villa Del Rio Gardens Staffed?

CMS rates VILLA DEL RIO GARDENS's staffing level at 1 out of 5 stars, which is much below average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Villa Del Rio Gardens?

State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at VILLA DEL RIO GARDENS during 2018 to 2022. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 25 with potential for harm, and 2 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Villa Del Rio Gardens?

VILLA DEL RIO GARDENS 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 ROLLINS-NELSON HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 84 certified beds and approximately 0 residents (about 0% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in BELL GARDENS, California.

How Does Villa Del Rio Gardens Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, VILLA DEL RIO GARDENS's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1 and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Villa Del Rio Gardens?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can you walk me through typical staffing levels on day, evening, and night shifts?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the below-average staffing rating.

Is Villa Del Rio Gardens Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, VILLA DEL RIO GARDENS 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in California. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Villa Del Rio Gardens Stick Around?

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

Was Villa Del Rio Gardens Ever Fined?

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

Is Villa Del Rio Gardens on Any Federal Watch List?

VILLA DEL RIO GARDENS 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.