FAIR OAKS HEALTHCARE CENTER

11300 FAIR OAKS BLVD., FAIR OAKS, CA 95628 (916) 965-4663
For profit - Corporation 149 Beds CYPRESS HEALTHCARE GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
61/100
#345 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Fair Oaks Healthcare Center has received a Trust Grade of C+, indicating that it is slightly above average but still has room for improvement. It ranks #345 out of 1,155 nursing homes in California, placing it in the top half of facilities, and #12 out of 37 in Sacramento County, meaning there are only 11 local options that are better. The facility is on an improving trend, having reduced its issues from 19 in 2024 to 5 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 5/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 29%, which is lower than the state average. However, there have been some concerning incidents, including a resident suffering burns due to inadequate assistance during meals and another resident not receiving proper foot care, resulting in a partial foot amputation. Additionally, the facility has an average of $8,990 in fines and lacks adequate infection prevention oversight, which could affect resident safety.

Trust Score
C+
61/100
In California
#345/1155
Top 29%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
19 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
○ Average
$8,990 in fines. Higher than 62% of California facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 39 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for California. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
53 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 19 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (29%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (29%)

    19 points below California average of 48%

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

The Bad

Federal Fines: $8,990

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: CYPRESS HEALTHCARE GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 53 deficiencies on record

2 actual harm
Sept 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to investigate a complaint of mistreatment for one of five sampled residents (Resident 1), when Resident 1's Family Member (FM) notified facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to investigate a complaint of mistreatment for one of five sampled residents (Resident 1), when Resident 1's Family Member (FM) notified facility staff of Resident 1's complaint and facility did not conduct an investigation including resident and staff interviews and, staff education.This failure had the potential to place Resident 1 and other residents at risk for mistreatment leading to psychosocial distress. A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in August 2025 with multiple diagnoses including malignant neoplasm of the cauda equina (a cancerous tumor affecting nerves at end of the spinal cord), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease that blocks airflow and makes it difficult to breathe), neuromuscular dysfunction of the bladder (nerves and muscles that control bladder function are impaired), and anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety or fear that interfere with daily life). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- federally mandated assessment tool), Cognitive Patterns, dated 8/28/25, indicated Resident 1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- tool to assess cognition) score of 15 out of 15 that indicated Resident 1 was cognitively intact. A review of Resident 1's MDS, Functional Abilities, dated 8/28/25 indicated Resident 1 required maximal assistance for toileting hygiene. Further review of Resident 1's MDS, Bladder and Bowel, dated 8/28/25, indicated Resident 1 was always incontinent of bowel.A review of Resident 1's Bowel and Bladder Elimination Task document indicated Resident 1 had a bowel movement on 8/25/25 at 1:58 p.m. A review of Resident 1's Nursing Daily Skilled Charting, dated 8/25/25 at 3:39 p.m., indicated .Pt [patient] A&0 [alert and oriented] x 4 [person, place, time, situation], no changes in LOC [level of consciousness] . Able to make needs known .Call light within reach . A review of Resident 1's Nursing Daily Skilled Charting, dated 8/25/25 at 9:50 p.m., indicated .Compliant with care. Cooperative with staff .Call light within reach .A review of Resident 1's Nursing Daily Skilled Charting, dated 8/26/25 at 11:13 p.m., indicated .Call light within reach and personal items within reach . A review of Resident 1's Nursing Daily Skilled Charting, dated 8/27/25 at 5:21 p.m., indicated .Call light and personal items in reach . Care staff Assisted with ADL'S [Activities of Daily Living] .A further review of Resident 1's nursing daily skilled charting and progress notes did not reflect any documentation that Resident 1 or Resident 1's FM reported concerns regarding inappropriate or rough handling of Resident 1 to staff. During an interview on 9/5/25 at 12:21 p.m. with Licensed Nurse (LN) 1, LN 1 stated she was familiar with Resident 1 but had not heard about any complaints she had regarding rough treatment by staff. During an interview on 9/5/25 at 12:26 p.m. with LN 2, LN 2 stated she was familiar with Resident 1 but was not aware of any complaints of rough treatment by a CNA (Certified Nursing Assistant).During an interview on 9/5/25 at 1:10 p.m. and a subsequent interview on 9/5/25 at 1:30 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated she was not aware of any complaint from Resident 1 or Resident 1's FM regarding rough treatment by a CNA. The DON stated she had not heard anything from the staff or Resident 1's FM. During an interview on 9/5/25 at 1:28 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated she manages the wing where Resident 1 was. The ADON stated she had not heard of any reports of rough treatment to Resident 1. During a telephone interview on 9/3/25 at 2:27 p.m. with CNA 2, CNA started she had worked with Resident 1 and does not recall her reporting any incidents with other CNAs. CNA 2 stated she works the night shift. During a telephone interview on 9/9/25 at 11:03 a.m. with Resident 1's FM1, FM 1 stated she visited Resident 1 on 8/27/25 and Resident 1 reported to her that she had been handled roughly on 8/25/25 by a staff member when being cleaned up after a bowel movement. FM 1 stated Resident 1 reported incident to CNA 2 on 8/25/25 or early morning 8/26/25. FM 1 stated that CNA 2 said she would report the incident. FM1 stated she reported the incident to the Social Services Director (SSD) on 8/27/25. FM 1 stated she reported the incident to the RN Case Manager (CM) on 8/29/25. The CM notified FM 1 that the CNA would not be working with Resident 1 again. During a telephone interview on 9/9/25 at 11:28 a.m. with Resident 1's FM 2. FM 2 stated she visited Resident 1 on 8/25/25. FM 2 stated she pushed call button between 2 p.m. and 3 p.m. to call CNA after Resident 1 had a bowel movement. FM 2 stated CNA was rough turning Resident 1, turned her hard, yanked the blanket, and lifted her legs. FM 2 stated CNA was very rough with [Resident 1]. FM 2 stated she did not notify any staff of the incident. During an interview on 9/10/25 at 10:10 a.m. with the SSD, the SSD stated Resident 1's FM 1 reported that Resident 1 did not like one of the CNAs and FM 1 did not want that CNA to work with Resident 1. The SSD stated she does not recall what day she spoke with FM 1. The SSD stated she notified FM 1 that the CNA would not be working with Resident 1. The SSD stated she followed up with the CM, the Director of Staff Development (DSD), and the Staffing Scheduler (SS) to make sure CNA would not work in that hall. The SSD stated she did not interview Resident 1 regarding the incident. The SSD stated that there was no documentation in the chart of the incident, the reporting of the incident, or what follow up was done. The SSD stated she did not make a note in the chart. During an interview on 9/10/25 at 10:24 a.m. with the CM, the CM stated Resident 1 had a complaint that a CNA was rough with her while being changed. The CM stated she found out who the employee was and notified the DSD. The CM stated she believed the DSD talked with the CNA. The CM stated she did not interview Resident 1 regarding the incident. The CM acknowledged that she did not document in the chart Resident 1's complaint, discussion with FM 1, follow up with the DSD, or any follow up with Resident 1 or FM1. During an interview on 9/10/25 at 10:37 a.m. with the DSD, the DSD stated she had been informed about 2 weeks ago that a CNA was a little rough while changing Resident 1. The DSD stated the decision was to not have that CNA work Resident 1 anymore. The DSD stated no one talked to the CNA about the incident. When asked if any disciplinary counseling, education, or in-service had been conducted with the CNA, the DSD stated nothing was done regarding this incident. The DSD stated someone should have talked with the CNA about the incident.During an interview on 9/10/25 at 11:04 a.m. with the DON, when asked if Resident 1's complaint of rough treatment warranted an investigation, the DON stated if the SSD or the CM had determined it was abuse, there would have been an investigation. The DON stated the investigation was done when the CNA was removed from Resident 1's hall. During a subsequent telephone interview on 9/10/25 at 11:58 a.m. with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated Resident 1 had asked her if she knew the name of the CNA that worked with her earlier in the day on 8/25/25. CNA 2 stated she told the resident that she would try and find out the CNA's name. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 reported the prior CNA had treated her roughly but did not provide details. CNA 2 stated the next night she asked Resident 1 if she still needed the name of the CNA, but Resident 1 reported her FM had taken care of it. During a joint interview on 9/10/25 at 12:30 p.m. with the DON and Administrator (ADM), the DON acknowledged that Resident 1 or the CNA had not been interviewed. The DON stated the incident was investigated and followed up by removing the CNA from working with Resident 1. During a telephone interview on 9/10/25 at 12:50 p.m. with CNA 4, CNA 4 confirmed she worked the pm (evening) shift on 8/25/25 and Resident 1 was assigned to her. CNA 4 stated she changed Resident 1's brief while FM was present. When asked if Resident 1 stated she was in pain while being changed, CNA 4 stated she would have stopped if Resident 1 had stated she had pain. When asked if the facility notified her of Resident 1's complaint of rough treatment, CNA 4 stated she was not aware of any complaints and This is the first time I heard about it. No one told me I wouldn't work on that wing.A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Grievances/Complaints, Filing, revised 4/17, indicated .Residents and their representatives have the right to file grievances, either orally or in writing, to the facility staff .The administrator and staff will make prompt efforts to resolve grievances to the satisfaction of the resident and/ or representative .Any resident, family member, or appointed resident representative may file a grievance or complaint concerning care, treatment .staff members . All grievances, complaints or recommendations stemming from resident or family groups concerning issues of resident care will be considered. Actions on such issues will be responded to in writing, including a rationale for the response .Grievances and/or complaints may be submitted orally or in writing . Upon receipt of a grievance and/or complaint, the grievance officer will review and investigate the allegations and submit a written report of such findings to the administrator within five (5) working days of receiving the grievance and/or complaint .The resident or person filing the grievance and/or complaint on behalf of the resident, will be informed (verbally and in writing) of the findings of the investigation and the actions that will be taken to correct any identified problems .The administrator, or his or her designee, will make such reports orally within___ working days of the filing of the grievance or complaint with the facility .A written summary of the investigation will also be provided to the resident, and a copy will be filed in the business office .
Sept 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

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 a safe and protective environment to be free fr...

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 a safe and protective environment to be free from physical abuse was provided for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), when Resident 1 was hit in the back of the head by Resident 2. This failure resulted in Resident 1's feeling scared of Resident 2 and had the potential to expose Resident 1 and other residents from further possible physical abuse from Resident 2. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (AR) dated 5/2018, the AR indicated Resident 1 had diagnoses which included major depression. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 7/29/25, the MDS indicated Resident 1's memory was intact.During a review of Resident 2's AR dated 5/2018, the AR indicated Resident 2 had diagnoses which included dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities). During a review of Resident 2's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2's cognition was moderately impaired. During a review of Resident 2's Nursing Care Plan (NCP), dated 8/23/25, the NCP indicated, Physical altercation with fellow residents related to dementia, poor impulse control, and anger as evidenced by resident hits other resident at random times. Resident to be supervised by staff when in the dining room. During a review of Resident 2's Psychiatric Consultation Notes (PCN) dated 8/12/25, the PCN indicated, Aggressive behavior towards other patients.During a review of Resident 1's Change of Condition Evaluation (COCE) dated 8/23/25, the COCE indicated at 6:35 in the morning, Resident 1 was in the dining room and carried a chair toward a friend to sit together in the same table when Resident 2 came and started hitting Resident 1 on her back. During a review of Resident 2's Interdisciplinary Team (IDT, group of professionals with distinct expertise who work collaboratively and interdependently to achieve a common goal) notes, dated 8/25/25, the IDT notes indicated Resident 2 was in the dining area with two other residents when Resident 2 kicked and hit Resident 1. The IDT notes indicated the cause of the altercation was when Resident 1 took a chair from Resident 2's table that caused Resident 2 to get agitated and hit Resident 1 on the back of her head.During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/9/25 at 11:11 a.m. with the Licensed Nurse (LN), Resident 2's record was reviewed. The LN stated the incident was not the first time that Resident 2 got involved in resident altercation. The LN stated Resident 2 easily got mad and irritated and he needed frequent supervision throughout the shift. During an interview 9/9/25 at 11:37 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated the incident was not the first time Resident 2 was involved with altercation, and stated, He had the tendency to hit and to aggravate. CNA 1 stated she did not supervise Resident 2 while he was at the dining area. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/9/25 at 12:52 p.m. in Resident 1's room, Resident 1 was alert and verbally responsive, and stated she was in the dining area with another female resident, picked up a chair and brought the chair to her friends table to have coffee. Resident 1 stated, [Resident 2] turned around, hit me in the arm and I dropped the chair, and [Resident 2] hit me in the back of my head. I did not drop on the floor when [Resident 2] hit me, but I dropped the chair, and so I yelled for help. Resident 1 added, I told [Resident 2] stay away from me. This was not the first time that [Resident 2] attacked me. Resident 1 confirmed she felt scared of [Resident 2]. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/9/25 at 1:19 p.m. in Resident 2's room with the Treatment Nurse (TN), Resident 2 made a fist of both hands, and stated, Come here and I will hit you in the face. The TN witnessed the behavior and redirected Resident 2.During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/9/25 at 1:51 p.m. with the Social Services Director (SSD), Resident 2's clinical record was reviewed. The SSD confirmed Resident 2 had aggressive behavior and got agitated for no reason at all. The SSD confirmed Resident 2 had incidents of being abusive and stated when Resident 2 remained abusive, other residents could isolate themselves for fear and could stop attending activities. The SSD stated that when other residents were fearful of roaming around the facility freely, the residents could become more depressed and lonelier and remained in their rooms for fear of Resident 2's aggressive/abusive behavior. The SSD stated, No resident should be subjected to any kind of abuse.During an interview on 9/9/25 at 2:30 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated no one should be subjected to any kind of abuse. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Resident Rights and Abuse Prevention Policy and Procedure Manual dated 4/2021, the P&P indicated, Residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. This includes but is not limited to freedom from corporal punishment, involuntary seclusion, verbal, mental, sexual or physical abuse, and physical or chemical restraint not required to treat the resident's symptoms.
May 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect one of four sampled residents (Resident 1) from injury when Resident 1 slid off the edge of the bed to the floor when...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect one of four sampled residents (Resident 1) from injury when Resident 1 slid off the edge of the bed to the floor when a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was assisting with dressing. This failure resulted in Resident 1 sustaining a right hip fracture causing pain, decreased mobility and functional level. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in December 2019 with multiple diagnoses including senile degeneration of the brain (progressive decline in cognitive abilities that occurs with aging characterized by loss of memory and thinking skills), fibromyalgia (a condition causing widespread body pain), hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (stroke- interrupted blood flow to the brain causing brain tissue death), and osteoporosis (a condition in which bones become weak and brittle). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated resident assessment tool), Cognitive Patterns, dated 3/5/25, indicated Resident 1 had long and short-term memory problem and was severely cognitively impaired for daily decision making. A review of Resident 1's MDS, Functional Abilities, dated 3/5/25, indicated Resident 1 required maximal assist or was dependent for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs- routine tasks such as bathing, dressing, toileting) and was dependent for bed mobility including lying to sitting on side of bed. A review of Resident 1's Fall Risk Eval, dated 3/6/25, indicated Resident 1 was at high risk for falls. A review of Resident 1's Care Plan, revised 3/10/25, .risk for falls r/t [related to] h/o [history of] stroke .impaired mobility .osteoporosis .cognitive impairment .Goal .will not have any falls through next 90 day review . A review of Resident 1's Change in Condition Evaluation, dated 4/30/25, indicated .CNA reported to the charge nurse that while he was helping bed A, he saw bed B patient slide from her bed and sat on the floor next to her bed with legs facing the door .Denies pain or discomfort. Patient stated she did not hit her head. Patient was wearing non skid socks. Bed was low position. No injury noted .Assisted patient back to bed . A review of Resident 1's Post Fall Assessment, dated 4/30/25 indicated .Fall Summary .Intercepted fall (resident eased to the floor) . A review of Resident 1's IDT Clinical Review, dated 5/1/25, indicated .Witnessed fall .Did any injury (minor or major occur due to incident .? .no .around 16:00 [4:00 p.m.] resident stated she has sharp pain on the right hip this writer administered prn [as needed] dilaudid [Hydromorphone HCL-pain medication] around 16:07 [4:07 p.m.] tried to do ROM [range of motion] to LE [lower extremity] but unable to perform ROM due to sharp pain. Around 17:30 [5:30 p.m.] [Family member] came to this writer and stated [Resident 1] is still c/o [complaining of] pain and requested have her send [sic] to hospital for evaluation . A review of Resident 1's History and Physical Note, 5/1/25, from the hospital, indicated .presents with R [right] hip pain .Patient had unwitnessed fall at 1100 [11:00 a.m.] off bed today .R hip pain since .R hip xray: Impression Minimally displaced right intertrochanteric fracture [right hip fracture] .RIGHT FEMUR INTEROCHANTERIC FX [fracture] .sustained after presumed accidental fall from bed, though no witnesses noted . A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 4/1/25 to 4/30/25, indicated Resident 1 was administered: Hydromorphone HCL (Dilaudid-opioid pain medication) 2 mg (milligram) for pain level 6 out of 10 on 4/30/25 at 11:56 a.m., and Hydromorphone HCL 1 mg for pain level of 7 out of 10 on 4/30/25 at 4:07 p.m. A review of Resident 2's admission Record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility in October 2021 with multiple diagnoses including diabetes (disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control), cerebral infarction, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing). A review of Resident 2's MDS, Cognitive Patterns, dated 3/20/25, indicated Resident 2 had Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-tool to assess cognition) score of 15 out of 15 that indicated Resident 2 was cognitively intact. During a telephone interview on 5/7/25 at 5:11 p.m. with Family Member (FM) 1 and a subsequent telephone interview on 5/8/25 at 2:02 p.m. with FM 2, FM 1 stated Resident 1 fell on 4/30/25 at 11:00 a.m. FM 1 stated the family received a voicemail message from the facility at 3:00 p.m. notifying them of the fall but stating there were no injuries. FM 1 stated family saw Resident 1 at 5:30 p.m. and heard her yell out in pain when they tried to sit her up for dinner. FM1 stated facility staff reported Resident 1 was found on the floor but Resident 1's roommate, Resident 2, stated staff was with her when she fell. FM 2 stated nurse administered pain medication at 11:30 a.m. and at 4:00 p.m. FM 2 stated nurse told her first dose at 11:30 a.m. was given just in case she had pain from the fall. FM 2 stated she wanted Resident 1 sent to the emergency room due to the pain. FM 2 stated Resident 1 had a right hip fracture, surgery was not done and was placed on hospice care. FM 2 stated Resident 1's dementia (a condition characterized by memory loss and impaired judgement) had worsened since the fall. During an interview on 5/9/25 at 9:39 a.m. with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated Resident 1 slid out of bed while a CNA was in room assisting another resident at approximately 10:30 a.m. or 11:00 a.m. on 4/30/25. The ADM stated Resident 1 did not have pain initially but had pain later and sustained a hip fracture. During a joint interview on 5/9/25 at 9:57 a.m. with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) 1 and ADON 2, ADON 1 stated Resident 1 had a witnessed fall while CNA was in the room with another resident. ADON 1 stated the CNA saw that Resident 1 had slid to the floor and was in a sitting position and then notified the charge nurse. ADON 1 stated Resident 1 did not complain of pain initially but began to complain of pain at approximately 3:30 p.m. or 4:00 p.m. ADON 1 stated the physician was notified and Resident 1 was sent to the emergency department. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/9/25 at 11:48 a.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 was in a low bed, head of bed raised thirty degrees, call light in reach. When asked if Resident 1 remembered recent fall, Resident 1 replied yes. Resident 1 stated she did not remember how it happened but did remember being assisted by a CNA. During an interview on 5/9/25 at 11:54 a.m. with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated she was Resident 1's CNA the day of the fall. CNA 1 stated she was getting Resident 1 dressed and had put her pants on while Resident 1 was lying in bed. CNA 1 stated she then sat Resident 1 at the edge of bed with a Chux (incontinence pad with waterproof plastic on one side and absorbent material on the other) underneath her to put on Resident 1's top. CNA 1 stated Resident 1's bed was in a low position, and she was squatting at the bedside. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 began to slide out of bed with the Chux underneath her. CNA 1 stated she was not able to push Resident 1 back on the bed because she was off balance while squatting next to the low bed and Resident 1 slid to the floor. CNA 1 stated, It was my mistake to sit her [Resident 1] at the side of the bed .It was my mistake to have Chux pad underneath her. It didn't work out well this time. It caused her to slide out of bed. During an interview on 5/9/25 at 12:14 p.m. with Resident 2, Resident 2 stated she was Resident 1's roommate at the time of the fall. Resident 2 stated Resident 1 was in a very low bed and saw CNA 1 with her. Resident 1 was sitting at the edge of the bed and went down to the floor. Resident 2 stated Resident 1 yelled out My hips hurt. Resident 2 stated Resident 1 was also calling out later that day that her hip hurt. During a telephone interview on 5/9/25 at 1:24 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated Resident 1 had an assisted fall when CNA 1 was providing care. The DON stated Resident 1 was slowly lowered to floor because CNA 1 could not support her. The DON stated Resident 1 began complaining of pain several hours later. When asked why pain medication was given at 11:56 a.m. if Resident 1 did not complain of pain, the DON stated pain medication was given in case Resident 1 had pain from fall. The DON stated it was a problem with documentation and is trying to get nurses to document better. The DON stated Resident 1 was on a low bed and the Chux on the bed makes it slippery. The DON stated CNA 1 may not have used good judgement as she was a new CNA and will be retrained. During a telephone interview on 5/9/25 at 1:47 p.m. with Licensed Nurse (LN) 3, LN 3 stated she assessed Resident 1 after the fall before moving her back to bed. LN 3 stated she did not observe any injuries and Resident 1 did not complain of pain at that time. LN 3 stated she gave Resident 1 pain medication, Dilaudid, in case she had pain. Reviewed with LN 3 Resident 1's MAR for 4/30/25 at 11:56 a.m. and that pain was documented at level 6 out of 10. LN 3 stated that Resident 1 did not necessarily have pain level of 6 but had an ongoing order for pain medication so she gave it. During an interview on 5/9/25 at 2:14 p.m. with LN 4, LN 4 stated she was notified of Resident 1's fall when she started her shift at 2:30 p.m. LN 4 stated she began her rounds at 3 p.m. and Resident 1 was not having any acute pain. LN 4 stated Resident 1's roommate, Resident 2, informed her later that Resident 1 was having pain. LN 4 stated she gave a dose of pain medication, Dilaudid, at 4 p.m. and tried to reposition Resident 1 but was unable due to pain. LN 4 stated at dinner time family was present and could not raise the head of the bed due to pain. LN 4 stated she contacted the physician and sent Resident 1 to the emergency department. During an interview on 5/9/25 at 2:28 p.m. with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated she was notified, when she started her shift at 2:30 p.m., of Resident 1's fall while being assisted with dressing by CNA 1. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 was always in a low bed and was on the edge of the bed when she slid to the floor. CNA 2 stated the staff should not have bed in low position when performing patient care. CNA 2 stated staff should raise bed up to approximately hip height to have better balance and positioning to control resident's movements. A review of the facility's P&P titled Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, revised 3/18, indicated Based on previous evaluations and current data, the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try and to minimize complications from falling .Fall Risk Factors .incorrect bed height or width .Resident conditions that may contribute to the risk of falls include: .cognitive impairment .functional impairments . A review of the facility's P&P titled Fall Risk Assessment, revised 3/18, indicated The nursing staff, in conjunction with the attending physician, consultant pharmacist, therapy staff, and others, will seek to identify and document resident risk factors for falls and establish a resident-centered falls prevention plan based on relevant assessment information .Assessment data shall be used to identify underlying medical conditions that may increase the risk of injury from falls (such as osteoporosis) .The staff .will evaluate functional and psychological factors that may increase fall risk, including ambulation, mobility, gait, balance .activities of daily living (ADL) capabilities .and cognition . A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Falls - Clinical Protocol, revised 3/18, Indicated .The staff will evaluate and document falls that occur while the individual is in the facility; for example, when and where they happen, any observations of the events, etc .Falls should be categorized as: .Other circumstances such as sliding out of a chair or rolling from a low bed to the floor .Falls should also be identified as witnessed or unwitnessed events .For an individual who has fallen, the staff and practitioner will begin to try to identify possible causes within 24 hours of the fall .Often multiple factors contribute to a falling problem . A review of the facility's P&P titled Assessing Falls and Their Causes, revised 3/18, indicated .Falls are a leading cause of morbidity and mortality among the elderly in nursing homes .After an observed or probable fall, clarify the details of the fall, such as when the fall occurred and what the individual was trying to do at the time the fall occurred .distinguish falls in the following categories: .Rolling, sliding, or dropping from an object (e.g., from bed or chair to floor .Evaluate chains of events or circumstances preceding a recent fall, including: .Whether the resident was among other persons or alone .Whether any environmental risk factors were involved
Jan 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide nursing services in accordance with professional standards of practice to meet the needs of one of four sampled residents (Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide nursing services in accordance with professional standards of practice to meet the needs of one of four sampled residents (Resident 1), when the facility did not follow a physician order to perform laboratory blood tests. This failure had the potential to result in worsening of Resident 1 ' s bladder infection and subsequent need to transfer to a hospital. Findings: A review of the facility ' s policy titled, Request for Diagnostic Services, with the last revision date of 2007, indicated, All orders for diagnostic services must be entered into the resident ' s medical record .Orders for diagnostic services will be promptly carried out as instructed by physician ' s order .Emergency requests must be labeled stat [now] to assure that prompt action is taken. A review of Resident 1 ' s admission record indicated the facility admitted the resident in 2023 with multiple diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus (DM, a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control), lung and heart diseases. A review of Resident 1 ' s clinical records contained a document SBAR notification (Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendations - a document to communicate with physician) dated 12/16/24 which indicated that the resident had been diagnosed with dehydration (a condition that occurs when the body loses too much water) and urinary tract infection (UTI, a bladder infection). Resident 1 ' s clinical records indicated the resident was prescribed treatment with antibiotics (medications to treat the infection). A review of the nursing progress notes dated 12/26/24, at 1:10 p.m., indicated that Resident 1 was very sleepy and refused to get up. The nurse documented that the resident ' s family were concerned that something was wrong with [Resident 1]. The nurse documented that the physician was notified, and the physician ordered two blood tests. A review of Resident 1 ' s physician order dated 12/26/24, at 1.08 p.m., contained a physician order for two blood tests. One of the ordered tests was to evaluate if the resident responded to treatment for UTI or if she still had the bladder infection. According to physician order, both blood tests were ordered to be completed STAT (a medical term that means immediately, without delay). A review of facility document titled, Patient Service Log dated 12/27/24 contained name of three residents, including Resident 1 ' s name. The left side of the document contained residents ' names and the blood tests that were to be done for the residents. The right side of the document indicated the dates the tests were performed. Resident 1 ' s blood tests had no documentation if they were completed, cancelled, or rescheduled. A review of Resident 1 ' s clinical record indicated there was no documented evidence the ordered blood tests were carried out on 12/26/24 or at a later date. Resident 1 ' s medical records contained no results of blood tests ordered on 12/26/24. A review of the clinical records contained SBAR notification dated 12/30/24, at 12:52 p.m., indicating that Resident 1 was experiencing a change of condition. The nurse documented that the resident had altered level of consciousness (a change of awareness and alertness, manifested by confusion, disorientation, and lethargy). Resident 1 ' s records indicated that the resident was sent to emergency department for further evaluation. A review of Resident 1 ' s hospital records dated 12/30/24 contained a diagnosis of, Acute encephalopathy [a serious neurological disorder of altered brain function] secondary to acute urinary infection. Per hospital records Resident 1 received treatment with multiple antibiotics and was hospitalized for 9 days. During an interview on 1/8/25, at 4 p.m., Licensed Nurse (LN 1) explained that if the blood test was ordered STAT, the nurse had to enter the order into computer immediately to notify the laboratory and follow up with a phone call to make sure the laboratory was aware the test(s) must be done without delay. During an interview on 1/8/25, at 4:25 p.m., LN 2 stated the STAT order means right away, immediately and added that the staff had to follow up with the laboratory to inform them of STAT blood tests. LN 2 stated that the physician had to be notified right away if the resident refused the blood tests and the test was not completed. During an interview with the Infection Control Nurse (ICN) on 1/8/25, at 4:50 p.m., the ICN validated that Resident 1 was hospitalized for UTI after she was treated for the same infection in the facility. The ICN was asked how the facility assured that the antibiotic treatment was effective and the resident no longer had the infection. The ICN stated that sometimes the physician would order another urine test after the treatment was completed. The ICN stated that Resident 1 had blood tests ordered on 12/26/24 after the resident had completed her treatment for UTI but had no follow up urine test ordered. The ICN was unable to find the results of the tests ordered on 12/26/24 and mentioned that the results might not have been uploaded into resident ' s electronic chart yet. During a telephone interview on 1/9/25, at 4:43 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 1 ' s clinical records did not contain blood tests results ordered on 12/26/24. The DON stated the tests should have been performed on 12/26/24 because it was ordered STAT. The DON validated that the ' Patient Service Log ' dated 12/27/24 did not show if Resident 1 ' s blood tests were done. The DON stated that she was not sure if the tests were carried out and if the nursing staff followed up with laboratory staff addressing Resident 1 ' s laboratory tests. The DON stated the facility called the laboratory clinic and were waiting for the clinic ' s call back. A review of the undated document provided by the facility and titled, LABORATORY PROCEDURES, indicated, STAT requests must be made through the 24 hour call center .A call to the 24 hour call center will prevent delays. These requests are reserved for CRITICAL LIFE THREATENING REQUESTS ONLY .When the phlebotomist [a medical professional who draws blood for testing] is unable to draw or there is a refusal or other condition which prevents the completion of the lab test(s) requested, the phlebotomist will obtain the charge nurse initials on the requisition slip to verify the facility has been notified of these circumstances .STATS are given top priorities. During a follow up telephone interview on 1/10/25, at 10:30 a.m., the DON confirmed that the blood tests that were ordered to be completed STAT on 12/26/24 for Resident 1 were not carried out. The DON explained that per the facility ' s policy, all STAT blood tests were required to be performed in 4 -6 hours. The DON stated that per laboratory clinic, Resident 1 refused the blood draw on 12/26/24. The DON stated the nurse notified the physician but did not document the notification and did not document that the blood tests were rescheduled for 12/31/24. The DON stated her expectation was that the nurse documented the physician notification in the progress notes. The DON acknowledged that Resident 1 ' s clinical records had no documented evidence to support facility ' s notification of physician of Resident 1's refusal of the laboratory tests and there was no documented evidence that the tests were rescheduled for 12/31/24. The DON was asked if not carrying physician ' s order and not completing blood tests contributed to Resident 1 ' s continuing having bladder infection and hospitalization and the DON did not provide any answer.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1), when there was documentation that the blood ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain complete and accurate medical records for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1), when there was documentation that the blood tests ordered by physician were performed and there was no documentation the physician was notified of resident's refusal of the lab tests. In addition, the order to reschedule blood tests for later date was not entered into Resident 1 ' s records. These failures resulted in the confusion among the facility ' s staff whether the tests were performed as ordered and had the potential to result in Resident 1's continued deterioration of health. Findings: A review of Resident 1 ' s admission record indicated the facility admitted the resident in 2023 with multiple diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus (DM, a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control), lung and heart diseases. A review of Resident 1 ' s clinical records contained documentation dated 12/16/24 which indicated that the resident had been diagnosed with urinary tract infection (UTI, a bladder infection). A review of Resident 1 ' s physician order dated 12/26/24, at 1.08 p.m., contained a physician order for two blood tests. One of the ordered tests was to check if the resident responded to treatment for UTI or if she still had the bladder infection. According to physician order, both blood tests were ordered to be completed STAT (a medical term that means immediately, without delay). A review of facility document titled, Patient Service Log dated 12/27/24 contained name of three residents, including Resident 1 ' s name. The left side of the document contained residents ' names and the blood tests that were to be done for the residents. The right side of the document indicated the dates the tests were performed. Resident 1 ' s blood tests had no documentation if they were completed, cancelled, or rescheduled. A review of Resident 1 ' s clinical record indicated there was no documented evidence the ordered blood tests were performed on 12/26/24 and the resident ' s medical records did not contain results of the blood tests ordered on 12/26/24. During an interview on 1/8/25, at 4:25 p.m., Licensed Nurse (LN 2) explained that the STAT order means right away, immediately and added that the staff had to follow up with the laboratory to inform them of STAT blood tests. LN 2 stated that the physician had to be notified right away if the resident refused the blood tests and the test was not completed. LN 2 stated resident ' s refusal and communication with the physician should be documented in the progress notes. A review of the facility ' s ' Telephone Orders ' policy dated 2/2017, indicated, Verbal telephone orders .must be .recorded in the resident ' s medical records .The entry must contain the instructions from the physician, date, time, and the signature and title of the person transcribing the information. During a telephone interview on 1/9/25, at 4:43 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 1 ' s clinical records did not contain blood tests results ordered on 12/26/24. The DON stated the tests should have been done on 12/26/24 because it was ordered STAT. The DON validated that the ' Patient Service Log ' dated 12/27/24 did not show if Resident 1 ' s blood tests were done. The DON went on to say that she was not sure if the tests were carried out and if nursing staff followed up with laboratory staff addressing Resident 1 ' s laboratory tests. The DON stated the facility called the laboratory clinic and were waiting for the clinic ' s call back. During a follow up telephone interview on 1/10/25, at 10:30 a.m., the DON confirmed that the blood tests that were ordered to be completed STAT on 12/26/24 for Resident 1 were no carried out. The DON stated that the laboratory clinic reported that Resident 1 refused the blood draw. The DON stated the nurse notified the physician but did not document the notification and did not document that the blood tests were rescheduled for 12/31/24. The DON stated her expectation was that the nurse documented the physician notification in the progress notes. The DON acknowledged that Resident 1 ' s clinical records had no documented evidence to support facility ' s notification of physician of the laboratory tests refusal and there was no documented evidence that the tests were rescheduled for 12/31/24. A review of the facility ' s policy titled, Charting and Documentation, dated 2/2017, indicated, All services provided to the resident .or any changes in the resident ' s medical, physical, functional or psychosocial conditions, shall be documented in the resident ' s medical record. The medical record should facilitate communication between the interdisciplinary team regarding the resident ' s condition and response to care .Documentation in the medical record will be .complete and accurate .Documentation .will include .the date and time the procedure/treatment was provided .whether the resident refused the procedure/treatment .notification of .physician or other staff.
Oct 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool used to guide care) assessment for one out of 28 sampled residents (Resident 131...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to have an accurate Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool used to guide care) assessment for one out of 28 sampled residents (Resident 131) when Resident 131's admission MDS pain management was inaccurate. This failure caused the facility to have inaccurate health status data for Resident 131 and potential for Resident 131 to not achieve his highest practicable well-being. Findings: A review of Resident 131's clinical record indicated Resident 131 was admitted September of 2024 and had diagnoses that included encounter for other orthopedic aftercare (a care provided after a surgery that involves bones, muscles, and joints), pain in right lower leg, and diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition causing too much sugar in the blood). A review of Resident 131's MDS Cognitive Patterns, dated 9/9/24, indicated Resident 131 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- a tool to assess cognition) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated Resident 131 had intact cognition. A review of Resident 131's MDS Health Conditions, dated 9/9/24, indicated Resident 131 did not receive scheduled and PRN (as needed) pain medication regimen in the last 5 days. During an interview on 10/14/24 at 9:35 a.m. with Resident 131, Resident 131 stated he has pain and has been receiving pain medication since he was admitted . A review of Resident 131's active physician's order with start date of 9/4/24 indicated, Norco [a medication for pain which contains a combination of Hydrocodone; a controlled pain medication, and Acetaminophen; a potent pain reliever that increases the effects of hydrocodone] Oral Tablet 5-325 MG [milligrams- unit of measurement] .Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for AS NEEDED FOR [sic] MODERATE TO SEVERE PAIN. A review of Resident 131's Medication Administration Record (MAR, a legal document used to record medications given to the residents) for the month of September 2024 indicated Resident 131 received Norco on 9/6/24, 9/8/24, and 9/9/24. A review of Resident 131's physician's order with start date of 9/4/24 and discontinued on 9/5/24 indicated, Tylenol [a pain medication] Oral Tablet 325 MG . Give 2 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for MILD PAIN . A review of Resident 131's MAR for the month of September 2024 indicated Resident 131 received Tylenol on 9/4/24. A review of Resident 131's active physician's order with start date of 9/5/24 indicated, Tylenol Extra Strength Oral Tablet 500 MG . Give 1 tablet by mouth three times a day for PAIN MANAGEMENT. A review of Resident 131's MAR for the month of September 2024 indicated Resident 131 received Tylenol 2 times on 9/5/24, 3 times on 9/7/24, 3 times on 9/8/24, and 3 times on 9/9/24. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/15/24 at 1:30 p.m. with the MDS Coordinator (MDSC), Resident 131's clinical records were reviewed. The MDSC confirmed that Resident 131's admission MDS pain management assessment was inaccurate and stated, I might have missed it [pain management questions]. The MDSC also stated she would expect the MDS assessment to be accurate. The MDSC further stated, .It's [MDS assessment] patient [residents] information and about the patient's [resident's] health so we [facility staff] can meet their [residents] needs. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 2:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated she would expect the MDS assessment to be accurate so the facility would have an accurate resident health status. A review of the facility's policies and procedures titled, Certifying Accuracy of the Resident Assessment, revised 11/2019, indicated, Any person completing a portion of the Minimum Data Set/MDS (Resident Assessment Instrument) must sign and certify the accuracy of that portion of the assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of 28 sampled residents (Resident 396) was provided with appropriate care and services with enteral feeding (a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of 28 sampled residents (Resident 396) was provided with appropriate care and services with enteral feeding (also referred to as tube feeding/ feeding tube- the delivery of food and nutrients through a feeding tube directly into the stomach or part of the intestines) when Resident 396's physician's order for intake and output monitoring for tube feeding was not consistently followed. This failure increased the potential for inadequate monitoring of Resident 396 intake and output, failure to recognize early signs of fluid imbalance, and for Resident 396 to not achieve the highest practicable well-being. Findings: A review of Resident 396's clinical record indicated Resident 396 was admitted October of 2024 and had diagnoses that included cerebral infarction (damage to a part in the brain due to a disrupted blood flow), muscle weakness, and aphasia (a language disorder that affects a person's ability to understand and express written and spoken language). A review of Resident 396's Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool used to guide care) Cognitive Patterns, dated 10/14/24, indicated Resident 396 was rarely or never understood, and had short-term and long-term memory impairment. A review of Resident 396's MDS Swallowing/Nutritional Status, dated 10/14/24, indicated Resident 396 has feeding tube while a resident in the facility. During an observation on 10/14/24 at 12:31 p.m. of Resident 396, in Resident 396's room, Resident 396 was observed to have an NG tube (Nasogastric tube- a tube that is inserted through the nose and into the stomach to deliver food, liquid, or medication, or to remove substances from the stomach) on her left nostril. A review of Resident 396's active physician's order, dated 10/10/24, indicated, Intake and Output monitoring for Enteral Nutrition .every shift. A review of Resident 396's Medication Administration Record (MAR, a legal document used to record medications given to the residents and to monitor intake and output) for the month of October 2024 indicated the intake and output monitoring was not done on the night shift of 10/10/24, and day shift of 10/13/24. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/16/24 at 9:16 a.m. with Licensed Nurse (LN) 1, Resident 396's clinical records were reviewed. LN 1 confirmed that Resident 396 had an order of intake and output monitoring every shift but it was not done on the night shift 10/10/24 and day shift of 10/13/24. LN 1 stated Resident 396's intake and output monitoring should be done every shift. LN 1 further stated that staff monitor Resident 396's fluids so they would know Resident 396's current fluid balance status. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 2:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it is important to always follow the physician's order for intake and output monitoring every shift to measure if the intake is adequate for the resident. A review of the facility's policies and procedures titled, Enteral Nutrition, revised 11/2018, indicated, .9. The nursing staff and provider monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of inadequate nutrition, altered hydration .and altered electrolytes [minerals in the blood and other body fluids] .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of 28 sampled residents (Resident 69) received appropriate pain management services consistent with professional standards o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of 28 sampled residents (Resident 69) received appropriate pain management services consistent with professional standards of practice, facility's policy and procedure (P&P), and physician's order when Resident 69's physician's order of pain medication was not followed. This failure had the potential for Resident 69 to not achieve relief from pain and not attain her highest practicable well-being. Findings: A review of Resident 69's clinical record indicated Resident 69 was admitted August of 2024 and had diagnoses that included cerebral infarction (damage to a part in the brain due to a disrupted blood flow), muscle weakness, Parkinson's disease (a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking, stiffness, and difficulty with balance and coordination), and osteoarthritis (a disease that causes the cartilage and bone in joints to break down over time causing pain). A review of Resident 69's Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool used to guide care) Cognitive Patterns, dated 8/15/24, indicated Resident 69 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- a tool to assess cognition) score of 13 out of 15 which indicated Resident 69 had intact cognition. A review of Resident 69's MDS Mood Status, dated 8/15/24, indicated Resident 69 experienced feeling down, depressed, or hopeless for several days. During an interview on 10/14/24 at 1:35 p.m. of Resident 69, Resident 69 stated she sometimes would experience pain and takes pain medications for it. A review of Resident 69's active physician's order, dated 8/9/24, indicated, Acetaminophen [pain medication] Oral Tablet 325 MG [milligrams- unit of measurement] .Give 2 tablets via G-Tube [gastrostomy tube- a tube that is placed directly into the stomach through an abdominal wall incision for administration of food, fluids, and medications) every 6 hours as needed for Pain - Mild . A review of Resident 69's active physician's order, dated 8/9/24, indicated, Acetaminophen-Codeine [a medication for pain which contains a combination of Acetaminophen; a potent pain reliever, and Codeine; a controlled pain medication] Oral Tablet 300-30 MG [mg, milligram, a unit of measurement] . Give 1 tablet via G-Tube every 12 hours as needed for Pain - Moderate; Pain - Severe . A review of Resident 69's Medication Administration Record (MAR, a legal document used to record medications given to the residents) for the month of September 2024 indicated Resident 69 was given Acetaminophen on 9/1/24 when her pain was at 5 out of 10 (a numeric pain scale where 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest), and on 9/16/24 when her pain was at 5 out of 10. A review of Resident 69's MAR for the month of October 2024 indicated Resident 69 was given Acetaminophen on 10/7/24 when her pain was at 4 out of 10, and on 10/8/24 when her pain was at 5 out of 10. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/16/24 at 9:16 a.m. with Licensed Nurse (LN) 1, Resident 69's clinical records was reviewed. LN 1 confirmed that the physician's order of pain medication was not followed on 9/1/24, 9/16/24, and 10/8/24. LN 1 stated the facility staff would consider 4 out of 10 as mild pain. LN 1 further stated, For moderate pain .I would give the other one [Acetaminophen-Codeine] .We [facility staff] have to verify pain scale and follow the doctor's order. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 2:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it is important to always follow the physician's order for pain management to control the resident's pain. A review of Resident 69's care plan intervention for pain, initiated 8/9/24, indicated, Administer medication as ordered and observe for side effects and effectiveness of medication . A review of the facility's P&P titled, Pain - Clinical Protocol, revised 03/2018, indicated, .b. Pain level intensity will be assessed based on a numeric scale 1- 10 (1-3=Mild pain, 4-6=Moderate pain, 7-10=Severe pain) . A review of the facility's P&P titled, Administering Medications, revised 04/2019, indicated, 4. Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders .
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy services were maintained to ensure a system that will account for and maintain accurate reconciliation (count ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy services were maintained to ensure a system that will account for and maintain accurate reconciliation (count of pills matches documentation for administration of medication) of all pharmaceutical products for a census of 134 residents when: 1. Loose medication found in the bottom of the medication drawer. 2. Packaged medication with a resident label found in the back of medication drawer. 3. The controlled medication (drug that is regulated by the government for its manufacture, possession, and use) audit for Resident 131 did not reconcile. The medications were signed out of the Controlled Drug Record (CDR, an inventory sheet in the narcotic book that keeps record of the usage of controlled medications) but was not documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR, a legal document used to record medications given to the residents) on two occasions to indicate it was given to Resident 131. These failures resulted in the potential risk for diversion of the loose medication (use of medication for purposes not intended by prescriber/physician) and the facility failing to ensure non-controlled (medication that the use and possession of are not controlled by the federal government) and controlled drugs were accounted for accurate medication administration and medication reconciliation for a total of four medication carts and two treatment carts managed by the facility staff of which 2 medication carts and 2 treatment carts were inspected alongside Licensed Nurse (LN) staff members during survey. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview of medication cart 1 in D-wing on 10/14/24, with LN 4 at 4:02 p.m., there was 1 loose white pill found in the back of the controlled medication drawer and 1 loose white pill found in the back of the non-controlled medication drawer. LN 4 verified these findings. LN 4 stated, these loose pills should not be there. LN 4 took the 2 loose tablets, placed them in a plastic bag, crushed them, and stated she would take the crushed medications to the Director of Nursing (DON) for destruction and disposal. During concurrent observation and interview of medication cart 1 in A-wing on 10/15/24, at 9:42 a.m., there was 1 loose white pill found in the back of the non-controlled medication drawer. LN 5 verified this finding. LN 5 stated the loose pill should not be there. LN 5 stated she would take it to the bin (medication collection container for medication destruction and disposal) for disposal, which was in the A-wing locked medication storage room. During concurrent observation and interview in the DON's office, on 10/16/2024 at 4:08 p.m., the DON demonstrated and described the medication retrieval and destruction process. The DON stated the staff should have removed the loose pills from the storage medication cart to prevent medication errors. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Labeling and Storage, dated 2/23, indicated, Medications are stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, drawers, cart . and Each resident's medications are assigned . area to prevent the possibility of mixing medication of several residents. 2. During concurrent observation and interview of medication cart 1 in D-wing on 10/14/24, at 4:02 p.m., with LN 4, LN 4 verified there was a medication blister pack (a form of tamper -evident packaging where an individual pushes individually sealed tablets through the foil in order to take the medication) that had slipped to the back and bottom of the non-controlled medication cart drawer. LN 4 stated the blister pack should not be kept at the back of the medication drawer. During an interview with the DON on 10/16/2024 at 4:08 p.m., the DON stated she removed the medication blister pack from cart 1 in D-wing and stated the non-controlled medication should not have been stored in this manner per policy and procedure. The DON said, The medication blister pack in the back of the drawer was [brand name of medication used to treat or prevent blood clots] and belonged to a patient. They couldn't find it, so they had to order another blister pack. The DON further stated the pharmacist said it was too early to order more medication, however the staff explained location of the blister pack could not be found. The DON stated, another order for medication was processed. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Labeling and Storage, dated 2/23, indicated, Medications are stored in an orderly manner in cabinets, drawers, cart . and Each resident's medications are assigned . area to prevent the possibility of mixing medication of several residents. 3. A review of Resident 131's clinical record indicated Resident 131 was admitted September of 2024 and had diagnoses that included encounter for other orthopedic aftercare (a care provided after a surgery that involves bones, muscles, and joints), pain in right lower leg, and diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition causing too much sugar in the blood). A review of Resident 131's MDS Cognitive Patterns, dated 9/9/24, indicated Resident 131 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- a tool to assess cognition) score of 15 out of 15 which indicated Resident 131 had an intact cognition. During an interview on 10/14/24 at 9:35 a.m. with Resident 131, Resident 131 stated he has pain and has been receiving pain medication since he was admitted . A review of Resident 131's active physician's order with start date of 9/4/24 indicated, Norco [a medication for pain which contains a combination of Hydrocodone; a controlled pain medication, and Acetaminophen; a potent pain reliever that increases the effects of hydrocodone] Oral Tablet 5-325 MG [milligrams- unit of measurement] .Give 1 tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for AS NEEDED FOR [sic] MODERATE TO SEVERE PAIN. A controlled medication uses audit of Resident 131's MAR and the CDR for Norco, for the month of October 2024, indicated nursing staff did not document Norco administration on the MAR when signed out from CDR as follows: 1 tablet on 10/4/24 at 8:28 p.m., and 1 tablet on 10/8/24 at 8:50 p.m. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/16/24 at 10:13 a.m. with LN 2, Resident 131's CDR and MAR were reviewed. LN 2 confirmed the finding of Norco being signed out of the CDR but was not accurately documented on the MAR on two separate occasions. The LN stated, For narcotics [controlled pain medications such as Norco], as soon as I sign the MAR, I would sign the sheet [CDR] too .both [CDR and the MAR] should be matching, if its given, it should be signed here [MAR] .It's [signing both CDR and MAR] being accountable for the narcotics. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 2:45 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated both CDR and the MAR should reconcile as part of the controlled medication accountability. The DON agreed that it would be a risk of controlled medication diversion when the CDR and MAR do not reconcile. During an interview on 10/17/24 at 10:33 a.m. with the Nurse Consultant (NC) 2, the NC 2 stated the facility's policy required the documentation of the quantity of the remaining medication which is only found in the CDR. The NC 2 further stated that it is implied in the facility's policy that both the CDR and MAR should be signed upon administration of the controlled medication. A review of the facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled, Controlled Substances, revised 04/2019, indicated, .9. Upon Administration: a. The nurse administering the medication is responsible for recording: (1) name of the resident receiving the medication; (2) name, strength and dose of the medication; (3) time of administration; (4) method of administration; (5) quantity of the medication remaining; and (6) signature of nurse administering medication. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Administering Medications, revised 04/2019, indicated, .22. The individual administering the medication initials the resident's MAR on the appropriate line after giving each medication and before administering the next ones.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate labeling and storage of drugs for a census of 134 residents when: 1. An expired medication was stored in a tre...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate labeling and storage of drugs for a census of 134 residents when: 1. An expired medication was stored in a treatment cart with all active medications. 2. An emergency medication did not have a label with resident's name affixed to medication. 3. An open date label (a label that captures the date a new bottle was opened) was not affixed to an open bottle of glucose test strips (small, disposable plastic strips that collect a blood sample to measure blood sugar levels). These failures increased the risk to administer medication that had lost its potency due to being expired or give medication to the wrong resident and to have inaccurate readings of glucose. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview of medication cart 1 in D-wing on 10/14/2024, at 4:02 p.m., with Licensed Nurse (LN) 4, 1 glucagon emergency kit (a medication kit used to treat severe low blood sugar containing one vial with dry glucagon powder and a prefilled syringe with liquid to mix with the powder) was found in the medication drawer without a resident specific pharmacy label. LN 4 stated the glucagon pen should have the resident's name label affixed to medication. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 4:08 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated all prescribed medications should have applicable resident name labels affixed to the medications. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Labeling and Storage, dated 2/23, indicated, The medication label includes, at a minimum, medication name, prescribed dose .resident's name .appropriate instructions . 2. During a concurrent observation and interview of treatment cart 1 in D-wing on 10/14/24, at 4:14 p.m., with Licensed Nurse (LN) 4, a 75 ml (milliliters, unit of measure) multi-dose bottle of liquid lidocaine (medication used to treat pain) medication found in a treatment drawer with an expiration date of 1/24. LN 4 verified the medication had an expiration date of 1/24 and stated the medication should have been discarded and not kept in the treatment cart. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 4:08 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated expired medications should not have been found in medication treatment carts and expired medications should have been disposed of per policy and procedure. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Labeling and Storage, dated 2/23, indicated, Multi-dose vials that have been opened or accessed .are dated and discarded within 28-days unless the manufacturer specifies a shorter or longer date for the open vial. 3. During a concurrent observation and interview of medication cart 1 in A-wing on 10/15/24, at 9:42 a.m., with LN 5 an open bottle of glucose test strips did not have an open date label affixed to the bottle. LN 5 verified the bottle of glucose test strips was opened and there was no open date label affixed to the bottle. LN 5 stated the bottle should be labeled with the opened date and verified that the glucose test strip bottle did not have and open date label. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 4:08 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated an opened bottle of glucose test strips should have an open date label affixed to the bottle to ensure expired strips are not used on residents requiring blood glucose level checks. A review of the bottle of test strip manufacture label, located on the bottle of test strip, stated, glucose stirps should be, used within six months after first opening or before the given expiration date. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Administering Medications, dated 4/19, indicated, The expiration/beyond use date on the medication label is checked .When opening a multi-dose container, the date opened is recorded on the container.
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 properly store raw meat and dry foods in accordance with safe food practices and failure to wear hair restraints in the kitche...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to properly store raw meat and dry foods in accordance with safe food practices and failure to wear hair restraints in the kitchen for a census of 134 residents when: 1. raw ground beef was found stored above the vegetables; 2. uncooked lasagna pasta, polenta powder and chocolate chips stored unsealed; 3. Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) did not wash his hands, wear a hair and facial hair restraint before entering the kitchen; and 4. Dietary Aide's (DA) facial hair was not covered with hair restraints. This deficient practice had the potential to cause cross contamination of harmful bacteria; attract pests or rodents to unsealed dry foods; and transfer harmful germs onto food. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview with the Dietary Manager (DM), in the kitchen's walk-in freezer on 10/14/24 at 9:10 a.m., raw ground beef was observed on a shelf, stored above the vegetables. The DM acknowledged and stated, the raw meat should be stored with other meats below the vegetables to avoid contamination from the drips from the raw meat. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview with the DM, in the dry pantry on 10/14/24 at 9:35 a.m., it was observed that there were open and unsealed boxes of uncooked lasagna pasta, polenta powder and chocolate chips [brand name]. The DM acknowledged and stated, once staff open a box or package, the dietary staff must use the food grade plastic bags to seal and store the food to avoid bugs or pests. 3. During a concurrent observation and interview in the kitchen on 10/15/24 at 1:40 p.m., with a RNA and the DM, the RNA was observed to have entered the kitchen, without washing his hands, or put on a hair net and facial hair restraint. The RNA then walked towards the stainless counter near the steam table to pick up a meal tray. The RNA confirmed and stated, I did not wash my hands and wear hair restraints before entering the kitchen which I should have done to promote infection control. The RNA acknowledge he should have rung the doorbell to alert the kitchen staff that he was outside waiting for his meal tray. The DM stated, the RNA staff should not enter the kitchen, only the kitchen staff are allowed inside the kitchen. The RNA should have rung the doorbell and wait for the kitchen staff to give him his meal tray. 4. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/16/24 at 10:30 a.m., the DA was observed with a long mustache and beard not wearing a facial hair restraint while working in the kitchen. The DA confirmed and stated, Yes, my mustache and beard are long, and I'm not wearing a hair net. I should be wearing it. The DM acknowledge the DA must wear facial hair restraints at all times when working in the kitchen. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Food Receiving and Storage, revised 10/2022, indicated, . Foods shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling practices ., 9. Uncooked and raw animal product and fish are stored separately in drip-proof containers and below fruits, vegetables and other ready-to-eat food to prevent meat juices from dripping onto these foods. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Food Preparation and Service, revised 10/2022, indicated, . 5. Food and nutrition services staff, including nursing services personnel, wash their hands ., 8. Food and nutrition services staff wear hair restraints (hair net, hat, beard restraint, etc.) so that hair does not contact food .
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 follow and maintain an effective infection prevention...

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 follow and maintain an effective infection prevention and control program for a census of 134 residents when: 1. Two facility staff removed their N95 mask respirators (a type of mask that filters up to 95% of particles in the air) inside a droplet isolation precaution room (an isolation precaution implemented when a patient infected with a pathogen which is transmittable through air droplets by coughing, sneezing, talking, and close contact with an infected patient's breathing) before exiting the room; 2. Two resident visitors entered a COVID (an infectious disease) isolation precaution room without using all the required personal protective equipment (PPE); 3. Four out of five sampled facility staff did not have a current N95 mask fit test (a test protocol conducted to verify that the specific type and model of N95 mask is both comfortable and provides the wearer with the expected protection) done. 4. Resident 395's nasal cannula (a medical device with two prongs that is connected to an oxygen source used to deliver supplemental oxygen directly into the nostrils) was observed on the floor and not covered. 5.Resident 120's urinary bag (a bag attached to a thin, hollow tube that is inserted into the bladder to drain urine and is left in place for a period of time), was observed laid on the floor on two separate instances. 6. A facility staff provided care to Resident 42 who was on Enhanced Barrier Precaution (EBP) without wearing all the required PPE. These failures resulted in an increased risk for cross-contamination (movement or transfer of harmful bacteria from one person, object, or place to another), potential exposure of Resident 395, Resident 120, and Resident 42 to germs, and may cause infection among residents, staff, and visitors. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/14/24 at 9:51 a.m. with Licensed Nurse (LN) 2, LN 2 was observed coming out of Unit C room [ROOM NUMBER] not wearing an N95 mask. LN 2 confirmed the observation. LN 2 stated a resident in the room tested positive for COVID, so the room is on COVID-isolation precaution. During an observation on 10/14/24 at 9:52 a.m., Unit C room [ROOM NUMBER] had a RED ZONE sign posted on the wall on the left side of the door which indicated, N95 mask required to care staff working on this area .Googles or face shield must be worn when providing care to all residents .Gowns required when providing care too residents on isolation precaution .N95 AND EYE PROTECTION REQUIRED!. Next to the RED ZONE sign was a signage from The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC- the national public health agency of the United State) which indicated, HOW TO SAFELY REMOVE PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) .Remove all PPE before exiting the patient room except a respirator, if worn. Remove the respirator after leaving the patient room and closing the door. Remove PPE in the following sequence: 1. GOWN AND GLOVES .2. GOGGLES OR FACE SHIELD .3. MASK OR RESPIRATOR .4. WASH HANDS OR USE AN ALCOHOL-BASED HAND SANITIZER IMMEDIATELY AFTER REMOVING ALL PPE . During an interview on 10/14/24 at 1:06 p.m. with LN 2, LN 2 stated, We [facility staff] remove everything [all PPE] inside the [COVID- isolation] room. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/14/24 at 1:27 p.m. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 3, CNA 3 was observed coming out of Unit C room [ROOM NUMBER] without wearing an N95 mask. CNA 3 confirmed the observation. CNA 3 stated a resident in the room tested positive for COVID. CNA 3 further stated he removed all his PPE inside the room including his N95 mask. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 12:21 p.m. with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated their practice in the facility is to remove all the PPE, including the N95 mask, inside the resident's room before going out. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 2:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the N95 mask should be removed after going out of the room and closing the door of a COVID isolation room. The DON stated they have to follow the CDC guidelines. The facility's guidelines for properly removing PPE after entering an isolation room was requested from the DON. A review of the guidelines provided titled, SEQUENCE FOR REMOVING PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE), undated, indicated, Except for respirator, remove PPE at doorway or in anteroom. Remove respirator after leaving patient room and closing the door 2. During an observation on 10/14/24 at 9:58 a.m. in Unit C room [ROOM NUMBER], two resident visitors entered the room only using surgical masks (a type of mask that protects the mouth and nose from splashes, sprays, and large droplets that may include microorganisms). During an observation on 10/14/24 at 9:59 a.m., Unit C room [ROOM NUMBER] had a RED ZONE sign posted on the wall on the left side of the door which indicated, N95 mask required to care staff working on this area .Googles or face shield must be worn when providing care to all residents .Gowns required when providing care to residents on isolation precaution .N95 AND EYE PROTECTION REQUIRED!. Next to the RED ZONE sign was a signage from CDC which indicated, SEQUENCE FOR PUTTING ON PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT (PPE) .1. GOWN .2. MASK OR RESPIRATOR .3. GOGGLES OR FACE SHIELD .4. GLOVES . During an interview on 10/14/24 at 9:51 a.m. with LN 2, LN 2 stated resident visitors entering a COVID isolation room should also wear everything the staff wears before entering the room including an N95 mask and gown. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/14/24 at 10:12 a.m. with Certified Occupational Therapist Assistant (COTA), COTA confirmed that two resident visitors entered unit C room [ROOM NUMBER] only using surgical mask. COTA stated a resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] tested positive with COVID. COTA further stated, .As far as I know, they're [visitors] encourage to wear mask .Both of them [room [ROOM NUMBER]'s visitors] are wearing regular mask . During an interview on 10/14/24 at 10:50 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated everybody going inside Unit C room [ROOM NUMBER]- including visitors, should wear PPE. The IP further stated, .They [resident's visitors] have to cross the threshold [starting point of isolation precaution], they should wear PPE . During an interview on 10/16/24 at 12:21 p.m. with the IP, the IP stated she cannot force visitors to wear the proper PPE. The IP further stated visitors going inside a COVID isolation room should follow the proper use of PPE. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 2:45 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated her expectation is that staff should inform the visitors on the use of required PPE when going inside a COVID isolation room. The DON further stated that not wearing the proper PPE could spread infection to the visitors, staff, or other residents in the facility. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Visitation, Infection Control During, revised 08/2019, indicated, Visiting a resident who is under transmission-based precautions is permitted. a. Family members and visitors who are providing care or have very close contact with the resident are trained regarding the appropriate use of infection control barriers such as personal protective equipment. b. Adherence to transmission-based precautions by visitors is required. 3. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/14/24 at 9:51 a.m. with LN 2, LN 2 was observed wearing a white 3M N95 mask and entered a COVID isolation room. LN 2 confirmed the observation. LN 2 stated she started working in the facility 03/2024 and was not fit tested with N95 mask in the facility prior to her start date. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/14/24 at 10:12 a.m. with COTA, COTA was observed wearing a white N95 mask and entered a COVID isolation room. COTA confirmed the observation. COTA stated she started working in the facility 01/2024. During an interview on 10/14/24 at 10:50 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated that N95 mask fit testing is done upon hiring of the staff and then annually. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/14/24 at 12:24 p.m. with Unit Secretary (US), US was observed wearing a white N95 mask and was working at Unit C. US confirmed the observation. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/14/24 at 1:27 p.m. with CNA 3, CNA 3 was observed wearing a white N95 mask and entered a COVID isolation room. CNA 3 confirmed the observation. CNA 3 stated he has been working in the facility for 5 months already. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/16/24 at 12:21 p.m. with the IP, the employee files of LN 2, COTA, US, and CNA 3 were reviewed. The IP confirmed that the N95 fit testing upon hire for LN 2, COTA, US, and CNA 3 was not done. The IP stated N95 fit testing should be done upon hire of the staff. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 2:45 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated facility staff should have a current N95 fit test. The DON also stated that N95 fit testing is done upon hiring of the staff. The DON further stated N95 fit testing is done to make sure the N95 fits properly to that staff and to make sure the staff wearing the N95 is protected. A review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention document titled, Fit test FAQs [Frequently Asked Questions], dated 9/3/21, indicated, Are fit tests required? Yes. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (29 CFR 1910.134) requires respirator users to be fit tested to confirm the fit of any respirator that forms a tight seal on your face before using it in the workplace. Fit testing is important to ensure the expected level of protection is provided by minimizing the total amount of contaminant leakage into the facepiece through the face seal . https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npptl/topics/respirators/disp_part/respsource3fittest.html 4. A review of Resident 395's clinical record indicated Resident 395 was admitted October of 2024 and had diagnoses that included intracerebral hemorrhage (a type of stroke that occurs when a blood vessel in the brain ruptures and bleeds into the brain tissue), moyamoya disease (a disease in which blood vessels in the brain are constricted which blocks blood flow into the brain), and diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition causing too much sugar in the blood that can affect lung function and breathing). A review of Resident 395's active physician's order, dated 10/11/24, indicated, Resident .does not .have the capacity to understand choices &make [sic] health care decisions. A review of Resident 395's active physician's order, with start date of 10/12/24, indicated, O2 [oxygen] 2L/min [liters per minute- unit of measurement for oxygen administration flow rate] when she sleeps at bedtime for Sleep apnea [a sleep disorder that causes people to stop breathing or breathe shallowly while they sleep]. During an observation on 10/14/24 at 12:21 p.m., in Resident 395's room, Resident 395 was observed lying on her bed, awake, and was not currently using oxygen. Resident 395's nasal cannula was observed on the floor, on the bottom of her bed, and was not covered. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/14/24 at 12:23 p.m. with CNA 1, in Resident 395's room, CNA 1 confirmed that Resident 395's nasal cannula was on the floor, on the bottom of her bed, and was not covered. CNA 1 acknowledged that the nasal cannula should not be on the floor. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 12:21 p.m. with the IP, the IP stated, .That's [nasal cannula on the floor and not covered] gross. The IP further stated the nasal cannula should be kept inside a black bag when not being used by the resident. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 2:45 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated, That [nasal cannula on the floor and not covered] needs to be discarded .That [nasal cannula on the floor and not covered] would be contaminated. The DON further stated that a nasal cannula should be clean. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Departmental (Respiratory Therapy) - Prevention of Infection, revised 11/2011, indicated, The purpose of this procedure is to guide prevention of infection associated with respiratory therapy tasks and equipment .among residents and staff .Infection Control Considerations Related to Oxygen Administration .6. Keep the oxygen cannula and tubing used PRN [as needed] in a plastic bag when not in use. 5. A review of Resident 120's clinical record indicated Resident 120 was admitted August of 2024 and had diagnoses that included hemiplegia (complete loss of the ability to move one side of the body) and hemiparesis (partial weakness of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (damage to a part in the brain due to a disrupted blood flow) affecting left non-dominant side, retention of urine, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (the nerves and muscles in the urinary bladder don't work together properly). A review of Resident 120's Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool used to guide care) Cognitive Patterns, dated 8/29/24, indicated Resident 120 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- a tool to assess cognition) score of 9 out of 15 which indicated Resident 120 had a moderately impaired cognition. A review of Resident 120's MDS Mood Status, dated 8/29/24, indicated Resident 120 experienced feeling down, depressed, or hopeless nearly every day. A review of Resident 120's MDS Bladder and Bowel Status, dated 8/29/24, indicated Resident 120 had indwelling catheter (a thin, hollow tube that is inserted into the bladder to drain urine and is left in place for a period of time). A review of Resident 120's active physician's order, dated 10/11/24, indicated, Indwelling (FOLEY .catheter [a type of indwelling catheter] Fr [French- unit of catheter seize measurement] 16 .10_CC [cubic centimeter- unit of volume] (Gravity drainage bag or leg bag) duet to Dx [diagnosis] of .NEUROMUSCULAR DYSFUNCTION OF BLADDER CHECK PLACEMENT AND FUNCTION .every shift. During an observation on 10/14/24 at 11:33 a.m., in Resident 120's room, Resident 120 was observed lying on his bed, awake, and half of his urinary drainage bag was laid on the floor. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/14/24 at 11:36 a.m. with LN 2, in Resident 120's room, LN 2 confirmed that Resident 120's urinary drainage bag was laid on the floor. LN 2 stated the urinary drainage bag should be hanging and off the floor for infection control. LN 2 further stated a urinary drainage bag laid on the floor could cause the urine to back flow. During an observation on 10/15/24 at 9:35 a.m., in Resident 120's room, Resident 120 was observed lying on his bed, awake, and his urinary drainage bag was laid on the floor. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/15/24 at 9:37 a.m. with CNA 2, in Resident 120's room, CNA 2 confirmed that Resident 120's urinary drainage bag was laid on the floor. CNA 2 stated the urinary drainage bag should be hanging for infection control. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 12:21 p.m. with the IP, the IP stated, .No, they [urinary catheter bag] should be hanging and never be on the floor. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 2:45 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated, Ideally, it [urinary catheter bag] should not be touching the floor. The DON further stated that a urinary catheter bag touching the floor poses infection control issues. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Catheter Care, Urinary, revised 08/2022, indicated, Infection Control .2. Be sure the catheter tubing and drainage bag are kept off the floor. 6. Resident 42 was admitted to the facility in 2023 with a diagnoses that included open wounds to the right hip and sacrum (a large triangular bone at the base of the spine). A review of Resident 42's, Plan of Care dated 10/17/24, indicated Resident 42 required, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP) related to the presence of wounds. The Plan of Care further indicated, to wear a gown and gloves when providing direct resident care. During an observation on 10/17/24 at 10:57 a.m., CNA 4 was observed going into Resident 42's room without a gown or gloves and provided care to Resident 42. Next to the entrance to Resident 42's room, signage was posted for EBPs. The sign indicated, to wear a gown and gloves for high contact resident care activities prior to entering the room. During an interview with CNA 4 on 10/17/24 at 11:06 a.m., CNA 4 verified she did not wear a gown or gloves to provide care for Resident 42. CNA 4 stated, she should have put on a gown and gloves to provide care for Resident 42. During an interview with LN 6 on 10/17/24 at 11:11 a.m., LN 6 verified, Resident 42 is on EBPs for wounds. LN 6 stated, If staff go into a EBP room and are providing direct resident care they need to wear gloves and gown. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Nurse Consultant (NC 1) on 10/17/24 at 11:27 a.m., the NC 1 verified Resident 42 is on EBP for wounds. The NC 1 stated, a resident can be placed on EBPs based on nursing judgement and does not require an order, only a plan of care. The NC further stated, If a staff member goes into the room to provide direct patient care and the resident is on EBPs, the staff must wear a gown and gloves. A review of the facility policy titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated June 2024 indicated, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBPs) are used as an infection prevention and control intervention to reduce the spread of multi-drug resistant organisms (MDROs) to residents. EBPs employ targeted gown and glove use during high contact resident care activities when contact precautions do not otherwise apply. Gloves and gown are applied prior to performing the high contact resident care activity. EBPs are indicated for residents with wounds .
Jul 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1's) rights were exercised timely when the facility discontinued an antipsychotic medicatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1's) rights were exercised timely when the facility discontinued an antipsychotic medication (used for treating psychosis or disconnection from reality) for Resident 1 without notifying the resident's representative (RR). This failure resulted in Resident 1's family members being frustrated and baffled by the resident's change in behaviors. Findings: Review of Resident 1's medical record, admission Record , indicated Resident 1 was a long term resident in the facility with diagnoses that included memory problem with agitation, anxiety disorder and legal blindness. In the admission Record, three family members were listed as the emergency contacts, one of them being the RR for Resident 1. In a telephone interview on 7/15/24 at 1:36 p.m., Resident 1's family member stated that the facility discontinued Seroquel, an antipsychotic medication, that had worked well for the resident without notifying the RR or any of the resident's family members. He stated the resident changed in behaviors in the absence of Seroquel administration: screaming to the extent of losing her voice and refused to listen to him when he visited the resident. The family member stated he was frustrated and did not understand why the resident changed in behaviors until the facility contacted him when they reinstated Seroquel back to the resident in June. The family member stated Seroquel had worked well for the resident and indicated the discontinuation of the medication caused the resident's screaming behavior. He voiced that had the facility notified the discontinuation of Seroquel, the family would not have consented because the medication had been working fine for the resident. Review of Resident 1's medical record, Physician Order History , indicated Seroquel was discontinued on 4/23/25 and reinstated 6/25/24, with the target behavior for yelling and screaming out loud. There was no documented evidence in the medical record that Resident 1's RR and/or family member was notified when Seroquel administration was stopped. In an interview on 7/16/24 at 10:18 a.m. in the hallway, Licensed Nurse (LN 1) stated Resident 1 had behaviors of yelling and screaming and stated the resident did not stop screaming until she got tired. LN 1 stated Resident 1 was really screaming and staff were unable to stop the resident when she started to scream. LN 1 indicated Resident 1 had a medication for the behavior and stated when the resident took the medication, the resident was fine. Review of the facility's revised 2/2021 policy and procedure, Change in a Resident's Condition or Status , stipulated, Our facility promptly notifies the resident .and the resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status (e.g., changes in level of care .resident rights, etc.). In a concurrent interview and record review on 7/16/24 at 1:36 p.m., in the foyer of the facility, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated it was the facility policy to notify RR when there was change in resident's care. The DON explained this included resident's change in medications either discontinuation or reinstatement of the medication. The DON stated Resident 1's RR should have been notified when Seroquel was discontinued. In a telephone interview on 7/16/24 at 3:27 p.m., Resident 1's RR expressed the same concerns as the family member who reported over the phone on 7/14/24 regarding the resident's behaviors and medications and stated she was not aware that Seroquel had been discontinued because the facility did not notify her.
Jun 2024 5 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the safety for one resident (Resident 1) when ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review the facility failed to ensure the safety for one resident (Resident 1) when Resident 1 did not receive adequate supervision and assistance during breakfast. This failure resulted in burns and blisters to two of Resident 1's fingers and pain to the affected area. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in May 2020 with diagnoses which included parkinsonism (brain conditions that cause tremors) and ataxia (loss of muscle control in arms and/or legs). A review of a nurse progress note dated 4/22/24 at 2:33 p.m. indicated, [Resident 1] was attempting to feed self this AM [morning] without CNA assistance. Due to tremors [Resident 1] spilled hot cereal over and burn 2 fingers to left hand. Index finger blister measuring apprx [approximately] 2.5x1 .middle finger 2x2. [Resident 1] was advised to wait for staff to assist w [with] feeding. NP [Nurse Practitioner] .wrote new orders to monitor site. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/5/24 at 9:50 a.m. with Resident 1, in Resident 1's room, Resident 1 was observed sitting up in bed, with tremors noted to her right hand. Resident 1 stated she needed assistance with eating due to her tremors because she was not able to hold the utensils steady. Resident 1 stated the Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1) was assisting her the day of the incident and had taken the hot cereal to heat it in the microwave. When the CNA 1 returned with the hot cereal, Resident 1 stated the CNA 1 then stepped away from the bedside. Resident 1 stated she picked up her fork to check the temperature of the hot cereal, brought the hot cereal to her lips, dropped the fork because the cereal was so hot, the hot cereal spilled on her left hand and the bowl fell to the floor. Resident 1 stated, I screamed bloody murder, it was the most painful thing. I let out a blood curdling yell, but I don't think staff took it seriously. The charge RN (Registered Nurse) never came to evaluate me or the wound nurse until a few days later. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 10:22 a.m. with CNA 1, the CNA 1 stated she was not familiar with Resident 1's care, although she did know Resident 1 needed assistance with her meals. On the day of the incident, it was the second time CNA 1 had been assigned to care for Resident 1. The CNA 1 stated she microwaved Resident 1's hot cereal that morning. The CNA 1 stated, I put the cereal in the microwave and set the timer for one minute, but I took it out before the timer went off. I admit it, it was my fault, it was probably too hot. The CNA 1 stated she placed the hot cereal on Resident 1's tray and then stepped away, approximately four feet, behind the curtain to get Resident 1's coffee. Resident 1 yelled out and CNA 1 turned back around to check on Resident 1. The CNA 1 stepped around the curtain and noticed Resident 1's left hand between the third and fourth fingers were red. The CNA 1 stated she reported the incident immediately to the Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1). The CNA 1 stated, I assumed she would wait to let me help her with the cereal, I'm supposed to help her. She [Resident 1] was screaming, I noticed her hand immediately, her fingers blistered between one to two hours after [the spill]. During an observation on 6/5/24 at 11:35 a.m. the microwave across from the nursing station on D unit was observed. Taped to the top of the microwave was a laminated sign which stated, Re-Warming Liquids, Temperature Should Not Exceed 145 Degrees. Test all liquids with a thermometer before giving to your resident/patient. To the left of the microwave a digital thermometer was hanging in a black pouch on the wall. A cup from the kitchen with approximately 1.5 in (inches, a unit of measure) of water was placed inside the microwave and the microwave was set to one minute. At 41 seconds the cup, which did not feel hot, was removed from the microwave. The thermometer was placed into the cup of water and was held in place for 15 seconds. When the thermometer was removed the temperature on the thermometer read 166.4 degrees Fahrenheit (F, a unit of measurement). During an interview on 6/5/24 at 12:05 p.m. with CNA 2, the CNA 2 stated, There's a thermometer in there [room next to nursing station] but I don't use it. The cereals in the morning are already nice and warm, there's no reason to reheat them. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 12:43 p.m. with CNA 3, the CNA 3 stated, Resident 1 will end up spilling her food because she shakes, she gets food everywhere, we [CNAs] have to assist her. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 attempts to use her spoon or fork, but she shakes and the food drops everywhere. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/5/24 at 12:57 p.m. with CNA 2 and CNA 3 (CNA 1 was unavailable) the microwave and thermometer was observed. The CNA 2 and CNA 3 confirmed they were aware of the sign and the thermometer, and they have received education in the past on how to use the microwave and thermometer. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 1:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON confirmed CNA 1 should not have left Resident 1 unattended during breakfast. The DON stated Resident 1 needed assistance and supervision with meals, she has tremors and is unable to feed herself. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Safety and Supervision of Residents, revised July 2017, the P&P indicated, Resident supervision is a core component of the systems approach to safety. The type and frequency of resident supervision is determined by the individual resident's assessed needs and identified hazards in the environment.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to promptly notify Resident 1's Responsible Party (RP) or Family Member (FM) when Resident 1 experienced burns to two fingers. This failure r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to promptly notify Resident 1's Responsible Party (RP) or Family Member (FM) when Resident 1 experienced burns to two fingers. This failure resulted in Resident 1 feeling as if the facility did not take her injury seriously. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in May 2020 with diagnoses including parkinsonism (brain conditions that cause tremors) and ataxia (loss of muscle control in arms and/or legs). A review of a nurse progress note dated 4/22/24 at 2:33 p.m. indicated, [Resident 1] was attempting to feed self this AM [morning] without CNA assistance. Due to tremors [Resident 1] spilled hot cereal over and burn 2 fingers to left hand. Index finger blister measuring apprx [approximately] 2.5x1 .middle finger 2x2. [Resident 1] was advised to wait for staff to assist w [with] feeding. NP [Nurse Practitioner] .wrote new orders to monitor site. There was no documented evidence Resident 1's RP or FM was notified of Resident 1's injury when it occured. During a review of Resident 1's change of condition evaluation (eCOC) dated 4/26/24 at 11:42 a.m., completed by LN 1, the eCOC indicated Resident 1 had a, boil to index (left hand) finger 2.5 x 1, middle finger 2 x 2, burn with hot cereal. Family Member 1 (FM 1) notified on 4/26/24 at 11:25 a.m. During a review of Resident 1's progress Note dated 4/26/24 at 12:15 p.m. indicated Resident 1's FM 1 was concerned Resident 1's fingers were burned and the facility had not notified FM 1 of the incident. During an interview on 6/5/24 at 1:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the resident's RP or FM was expected to be notified when an accident or change of condition occurs for the resident. During a telephone interview on 6/11/24 at 12:40 p.m. with the LN 1, the LN 1 confirmed he did not notify Resident 1's FM about the accident with injury. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, revised February 2021, indicated, Our facility promptly notifies .the resident representative of changes in the resident's medical/mental condition and/or status .A nurse will notify the resident's representative when: the resident is involved in any accident or incident that results in an injury .
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0642 (Tag F0642)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of assessments for one resident (Resident 1) when Resident 1 did not receive timely and adequate assessments of her inj...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure the accuracy of assessments for one resident (Resident 1) when Resident 1 did not receive timely and adequate assessments of her injuries. This failure resulted in Resident 1's inaccurate and inconsistent assessments of her injuries, a lack of diagnosis for her injuries, and a delay in appropriate treatment. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in May 2020 with diagnoses including parkinsonism (brain conditions that cause tremors) and ataxia (loss of muscle control in arms and/or legs). A review of a nurse progress note dated 4/22/24 at 2:33 p.m. written by Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) indicated, [Resident 1] was attempting to feed self this AM [morning] without CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] assistance. Due to tremors [Resident 1] spilled hot cereal over and burn 2 fingers to left hand. Index finger blister measuring apprx [approximately] 2.5x1 .middle finger 2x2. [Resident 1] was advised to wait for staff to assist w [with] feeding. NP [Nurse Practitioner] .wrote new orders to monitor site. A review of Resident 1's nurse progress notes indicated the following: On 4/26/24 at 12:15 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) who is a Registered Nurse, documented, Informed by Social service director that family member of [Resident 1] had some issues and concern .The writer followed up and did talk to the nurse schedule am [morning] shift on 4/22/24. The writer called the [Family Member] and explained .on 4/22/24 resident was attempting to feed self .without CNA assistance. Due to tremors resident spilled hot cereal over and burn 2 fingers to left hand .The writer update [sic] .the son for the new tx [treatment] to apply .dressing and cover with gauze due to blister already open . On 4/26/24 at 5:11 p.m., the LVN 2 documented, monitoring for left hand boil, no c/o [complaint of] pain or any discomfort, kept clean and dry, will cont. [continue] to monitor. On 4/27/24 at 2:45 p.m., the LVN 3 documented, Patient has a wound on left hand on two fingers due to spilling hot cereal over and burned index finger blister measuring apprx [approximately] 2.5x1 and middle finger 2x2 .Will continue to monitor per order. On 4/29/24 at 6:07 a.m., the LVN 4 documented, pt [Patient] cont monitor for boil to l [left] index hand. Dressing is clean dry and intact, no signs of infection noted at this time . On 4/29/24 at 2:03 p.m., Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1) documented, .No c/o pain or other discomfort. Afebrile [without fever], VSS [vital signs stable]. Wound care completed as ordered by treatment nurse. No s/s [signs and symptoms] of infection noted. On 4/29/24 at 6:34 p.m., the LVN 5 documented, .Pt monitored for left land/finger burned by oatmeal. Pt has bandades [sic] on 2 fingers Pt skin pink moist mucous membranes . On 4/30/24 at 6:52 a.m., the LVN 4 documented, Pt cont monitor for boil to L [left] index hand. On 5/17/24 at 4:21 p.m., the LVN 6 documented, left 2ndand 3rd finger popped blisters have resolved. On 5/19/24 at 8:48 a.m., the LVN 6 documented, written NP [Nurse Practitioner] updated tx order for left 2nd and 3rd fingers. There was no documented assessment or evaluation of Resident 1's injuries on the day Resident 1 obtained the injuries to her left hand by an RN, NP or Physician. During a telephone interview on 6/11/24 at 12:40 p.m. with LVN 1, LVN 1 confirmed performing a physical assessment was not within an LVN's scope of practice. The LVN 1 stated assessments are supposed to be completed by the RN. The LVN 1 also stated LVNs cannot diagnose an injury or condition. The LVN 1 stated he was responsible for gathering information of what occurred and providing his findings to the NP or Physician. The LVN 1 verified there was no documented assessment as to the type of burn (first, second or third degree) Resident 1 had received from the hot cereal. During a telephone interview on 6/11/24 at 1 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, The RN completes the assessments, it would be expected that the RN would come to the floor and complete the assessment. A review of the Nursing Practice by the California Nurses Association, undated, stipulates, The RN is legally responsible for analyzing, synthesizing and evaluating data collected on patients through the RN direct observation .only the RN can perform assessments, which includes analysis and formulation of a nursing diagnosis .this responsibility cannot be delegated or assigned to an LVN. A review of the Vocational Nursing Practice Act, undated, stipulates, The LVN may use and practice ' basic assessment (data collection)' .the LVN is required to report and/or refer abnormal values to the RN .the LVN cannot analyze, synthesize and evaluate data.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to revise Resident 1's care plan within a timely manner after Resident 1 sustained an injury after an accident. This failure decreased the fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review the facility failed to revise Resident 1's care plan within a timely manner after Resident 1 sustained an injury after an accident. This failure decreased the facility's potential to ensure residents receive appropriate and person-centered care. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in May 2020 with diagnoses including parkinsonism (brain conditions that cause tremors) and ataxia (loss of muscle control in arms and/or legs). A review of a nurse progress note dated 4/22/24 at 2:33 p.m. indicated, [Resident 1] was attempting to feed self this AM [morning] without CNA assistance. Due to tremors [Resident 1] spilled hot cereal over and burn 2 fingers to left hand. Index finger blister measuring apprx [approximately] 2.5x1 .middle finger 2x2. [Resident 1] was advised to wait for staff to assist w [with] feeding. NP [Nurse Practitioner] .wrote new orders to monitor site. During a review of Resident 1's care plan initiated on 4/26/24 indicated, [Resident 1] has actual impairment to skin integrity of the left index and middle finger r/t [related to] burn with hot cereal. During a interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and concurrent record review on 6/5/24 at 1:45 p.m. of Resident 1's care plan regarding the burns she obtained on 4/22/24, the DON confirmed the care plan had not been revised in a timely manner. The DON stated, I expect the care plans to be updated the day of or the next day at the latest; this one [care plan] was updated late. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised March 2022, indicated, Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed when Resident 1 did not rece...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews the facility failed to ensure physician orders were followed when Resident 1 did not receive wound care treatment as ordered. This failure decreased the facility's potential to assist Resident 1's wound to heal. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including open wounds to right and left lower legs, diabetes mellitus (inadequate control of sugar in the blood stream) and atherosclerosis of arteries (narrowing and hardening of the blood vessels) in the legs and feet. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report (OSR, physician orders) printed on 6/5/24, Resident 1 had orders for the following wound care: 1. Starting on 4/15/24, licensed nurses were to monitor Resident 1's left and right lower extremities, lower leg to toes, diabetic foot ulcer for sing or symptoms of infection, every shift. 2. Starting on 4/16/24, licensed nurses were to clean Resident 1's left lower extremity to toes with normal saline, pat dry, paint with betadine (antiseptic used for skin disinfection), cover with abdominal pad (sterile, highly absorbent dressing), wrap in kerlix (fast wicking and absorbent) dressing daily, or as needed due to multiple injuries. 3. Starting on 4/22/24, licensed nurses were to clean Resident 1's right lower extremity to toes with normal saline, pat dry, paint with betadine (antiseptic used for skin disinfection), cover with abdominal pad (sterile, highly absorbent dressing), wrap in kerlix (fast wicking and absorbent) dressing daily, or as needed due to multiple injuries. A review of Resident 1's Treatment Administration Record (TAR), dated April 2024, indicated the following: 1. There was no documented evidence of monitoring of Resident 1's left and right lower extremities for 20 out of 70 shifts. On the morning shift on 4/18/24 and 4/24/24 staff documented a 9 on the treatment record. A review of the TAR chart codes indicated a 9 represented, Other, See Progress Notes. A review of Resident 1's progress notes dated 4/18/24 and 4/24/24 indicated no reason why the monitoring was not completed. 2. There was no documented evidence wound treatment was conducted on Resident 1's left lower extremity to toes for 5 out of 11 shifts. On 4/18/24 and 4/24/24 a 9 was annotated on the TAR. A review of Resident 1's progress notes dated 4/18/24 and 4/24/24 indicated no reason why the wound treatment was not conducted. 3. There was no documented evidence wound care treatment was conducted on Resident 1's right lower extremity to toes for 3 out of 5 shifts. On 4/18/24 a 9 was annotated on the TAR. A review of Resident 1's progress notes dated 4/18/24 indicated no reason why the wound treatment was not conducted. On 6/5/24, a review of a skin observation tool, dated 4/18/24 (four days after Resident 1's admission), was reviewed. The document indicated Resident 1 had a right lower leg diabetic ulcer (a serious complication caused by a combination of poor circulation, susceptibility to infection and nerve damage from high blood sugar levels) which measured 9.5 cm (centimeters, a unit of measurement) by 3 cm and a left lower leg diabetic ulcer which measured 15.5 cm by 4 cm. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/5/24 at 11:42 a.m. with Licensed Nurse 1 (LN 1), the LN 1 confirmed the missing dates on Resident 1's April 2024 TAR and stated, The empty dates on the TAR either indicate the treatment wasn't done or maybe the nurse forgot to check it off .either way, there is no documentation to verify if the treatment was done. The LN 1 verified there were no progress notes written in Resident 1's chart to indicate why the treatments were not completed. During a review of Resident 1's records on 6/5/24 at 2:03 p.m., Resident 1's admission skin assessment was requested. The facility failed to provide the surveyor with a copy of Resident 1's admission skin assessment. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/5/24 at 3:40 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON confirmed there were missing and blank dates on Resident 1's April 2024 TAR. The DON stated, The nurse either didn't do the treatment or they didn't initial that they did it, I'm unable to determine if the treatment had been completed or not. The DON explained a 9 on the TAR indicated the treatment was not done and there should be a progress note associated with the specific date; the DON confirmed there were no progress notes in Resident 1's chart to indicate why treatments were not completed. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Charting and Documentation, revised July 2017, indicated, All services provided to the resident .shall be documented in the resident's medical record .The following information is to be documented in the resident medical record .Treatments or services performed. Documentation in the medical record will be .complete, and accurate. A request for the facility's P&P regarding the standard for following physician orders was requested on 6/11/24 at 3:53 p.m. The facility was not able to provide an appropriate P&P. A review of the California Nursing Act indicated licensed nurses have a legal duty to carry out physician's orders as written.
Mar 2024 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident 1) out of three sampled residents rec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one resident (Resident 1) out of three sampled residents received proper foot care when: 1. Lack of documentation indicating Resident 1's wound on the right foot second toe was being assessed per nursing standards; and 2. Transportation services were not provided to Resident 1's podiatry (the medical care and treatment of the human foot) appointments. These failures resulted in Resident 1 not receiving foot care per nursing standards which led to a partial right foot amputation (surgical removal of part of the body). Findings: A review of Resident 1's face sheet, dated 3/1/24, indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility [EC1] on 11/11/20 with diagnoses which included peripheral vascular disease (PVD, a narrowing of a blood vessel which decreases circulation of blood to a body part), diabetes (DM 2, a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar, which slows the body's ability to heal wounds), heart failure (CHF, when the heart does not pump blood efficiently throughout the body), peripheral neuropathy (nerve damage that can cause weakness, numbness, and pain that usually affects the hands and feet), history of diabetic foot ulcer (wound on foot that develops in people with diabetes), osteomyelitis (swelling caused by infection of the bone) and partial left foot amputation. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool), dated 11/23/23, indicated resident had no memory impairments. A review of Resident 1's care plan, created on 12/3/20 and edited on 11/27/23, indicated, Problem .Self care deficit r/t [related to] h/o [history of] osteomyelitis[EC2] of [left] foot with partial foot amputation, PVD, DM 2 with peripheral neuropathy[EC3] , CHF .Goal .Resident will be able to function at the highest possible level as evidenced by X [times] 3months [EC4] [sic] .Approach .[nurses will] Shower/Bathe two times each week as scheduled . A review of an electronic mail (e-mail), dated 10/9/23 at 11:51 a.m., indicated Resident 1 had an appointment with his Podiatrist (a medical professional who specializes in the treatment of disorders of the foot, ankle, and related structures of the leg) on 10/11/23 at 11 a.m. Resident 1 missed the appointment and there was no documented reason. A review of an e-mail, dated 11/3/23 at 1:22 p.m., indicated Resident 1 had an appointment with his Podiatrist on 11/7/23 at 11:10 a.m. Resident 1 missed the appointment and there was no documented reason. A review of Resident 1's care plan, edited 11/27/20 and on 11/27/23, indicated, Problem .At risk for impaired skin integrity r/t .decreased sensation to BLE [both lower extremities] hitting .against bed/bedside table and is unaware of the incident .[h/o] left partial foot amputation .Approach .Licensed nurse to assess resident skin head to toe weekly .Monitor feet/heels for s/s [EC5] [signs and symptoms] of skin breakdown, poor circulation such as redness, dry skin and/or open area. Notify MD[EC6] [medical doctor] if found .Observe skin for s/s of skin breakdown .Podiatry as ordered .Wound consultant as needed . A review of Resident 1's order summary report indicated, .[Starting on 12/4/23, nurses were to] Dry scab to right 2nd toe .leave area open to air. Monitor area daily. Every day shift . This order summary report also indicated an order for, Podiatry for skin/nail problem conditions .order date 12/23/23. A review of a nurse progress note dated 12/24/23 at 12:45 p.m. indicated, [Resident 1] was taking off his [Left] leg/foot brace [with] right foot and upon doing so tore right second toe ulcer scab and started bleeding, cleaned .wrapped [with gauze], Treatment nurse made aware of incident. A review of Resident 1's Orders- Administration Note, written by the Treatment Nurse 2 (TN 2), dated 1/11/24 at 1:46 p.m., indicated, Dry scab to right 2nd toe . leave open to air. Monitor area daily. Every day shift. Scab re-opened; covered with bandaid, MD notified A review of Resident 1's SNF [Skilled Nursing Facility] Custodial Visit , dated 1/30/24, by Resident 1's Primary Care Physician (PCP), indicated no documented evidence Resident 1's right foot had been assessed.[EC7] [VAE8] A review of Resident 1's SNF Visit and Generalized Body Pains note written by the Nurse Practitioner 1 (NP 1), dated 2/9/24 for a visit conducted on 2/8/24, indicated, [Resident 1] tells me he feels 'achy' and didn't want to eat much this morning .last saw [Podiatrist] 9/28/23, was to follow up in one month? Was a now [sic] show for podiatry appts in October, Nov, December .Extremities- has dry scab on right foot second toe, old healed scabs from scratching on legs .2/9/24 labs now show WBC [white blood cell count] 19.2 [expected range 5-10] .DM 2 [with] ULCER OF RIGHT FOOT Unchanged, not sure why patient was no show will message [nurse] to call SNF with appointment . A review of a nurse progress note dated 2/10/24 at 2:07 p.m. indicated, [Resident 1] on [oral antibiotic for] foot infection .foot has scabbed. [Resident 1] encouraged not to pick at scabs .will continue to monitor. A review of a weekly wound observation tool, dated 2/12/24 at 4:50 p.m., indicated, .Wound type .Diabetic ulcer .Describe other .Probably moisture-related .Present upon admission .No .What date wound was identified .2/12/24 .Length .1.3 cm [centimeters, a unit of measurement] .Width .1.5 [cm] .Depth .0.2 [cm] .Exudate [fluid that leaks out of blood vessels into nearby tissues which may ooze from cuts or from areas of infection] .Moderate .Exudate Type .Serosanguineous[EC9] [thin, watery, pale, red/pink drainage] [and] purulent [containing pus] thick, opaque [cannot see through], tan/yellow drainage .Wound Stage .Stage 3: full thickness skin loss .Describe Wound Edge/Margin .Erythema[EC10] : [Redness of the skin] .Unable to fully visualize wound bed due to location. Wound edges are erythematous [abnormal redness of the skin] A review of a skin/wound note, dated 2/12/24 at 4:55 p.m., indicated, [Resident 1] is not sure how injury occurred. He has a [history] of diabetic neuropathy [nerve damage caused by diabetes that can cause weakness, numbness and pain that usually affects the hands and feet] [EC11] and has frequent injuries to bilateral lower extremities that he cannot recall. Spoke with [staff] at [Podiatrist's] office .who states [Resident 1] has missed several recent appts over the last few months but has scheduled appt with wound care this Fri., 2/16. Office informed of new wound and states a message will be sent to [Podiatrist] in the meantime .[NP 1] informed .[NP 1] will photograph wound in [morning] . A review of telephone encounter note from Podiatrist 1 (PD 1), dated 2/13/24, indicated, .it does appear that [Resident 1] has missed several appts [appointments]-both with preventative RN staff AND me over past year . [NP 1] to assess for the infection . if there is infection, patient should be seen in [Emergency Room] . A review of a SNF Transfer and Toe Problem note, dated 2/13/24 at 4:10 p.m., indicated, . [Resident 1] toes had multiple scabs but today his right foot second toe is edematous, macerated[EC12] [softening and breaking down of skin resulting from prolonged exposure to moisture] with what looks like necrotic tissue [dead tissue] between, the toes .Transfer to ED [Emergency Department] for further evaluation, high risk patient . A review of a nurse progress note dated 2/13/24 at 5:01 p.m. indicated, Received orders to send [Resident 1] to hospital to r/o [rule out] sepsis[EC13] [a severe response to infection which can lead to organ damage] r/t [related to] second toe wound. A review of Resident 1's skilled nursing facility Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated, . [Resident 1] is a long term care patient . after . left midfoot amputation .today his right foot second toe is edematous, macerated with what looks like necrotic tissue between the toes .transfer to ED for further evaluation, high risk patient . A review of Resident 1's hospital ED treatment note, dated 2/13/24, indicated, [Resident 1] .present with concerns for an ulcer between his right toe .there is some necrotic tissue along the lateral aspect [the side] [EC14] of the second toe with ulceration [break in skin] . A review of Resident 1's hospital podiatry consult note, dated 2/14/24, indicated, [Resident 1] .Patient present with ongoing swelling, infection to the right lower extremity second digit[EC15] [toe or finger]. Positive probe to bone, indicative of osteomyelitis .Podiatry team will plan for right foot second digital amputation on 2/14/24 . A review of Resident 1's hospital Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated, .hospital course and significant findings .admitted with diabetic ulcer right foot, s/p [status post] TMA [transmetatarsal amputation[EC16] : surgery to remove part of foot] [2/24/24] . In an interview on 3/1/24 at 9:10 a.m., the Executive Director (ADM) stated the facility's Social Services Coordinator (SSC) was expected to arrange transportation services to outside appointments, such as podiatry appointments, for long term residents. In an interview on 3/1/24 at 12:27 p.m., Resident 1 stated the facility was supposed to set-up transportation to his podiatry appointments and he was aware he had missed at least one podiatry appointment. Resident 1 stated staff did not explain why he had missed his podiatry appointments. Resident 1 confirmed he developed a wound on his right foot in December of 2023. Resident 1 stated he felt safe in the facility but was upset and felt the care of his foot had not been prioritized. In an interview on 3/1/24 at 1:25 p.m., Licensed Nurse 1 (LN 1) stated she cares for residents who have wounds by reviewing the documented history of the wound(s) and carefully reading the treatment administration record. In an interview on 3/1/24 at 1:35 p.m., Certified Nursing Assistant 2 (CNA[EC17] 2) stated if staff did not monitor skin issues, then open wounds could become infected and can affect the bone which can change the way a resident can function. The CNA 2 added the infection could be painful and cause the resident to not want to eat. In an interview on 3/1/24 at 1:50 p.m., Treatment Nurse 1 (TN 1) confirmed she worked at the facility as a dedicated treatment nurse. As a treatment nurse, TN 1 stated she attended weekly wound meetings with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) to discuss concerning wounds. The TN 1 stated she was expected to conduct and document weekly assessments of resident wounds. In an interview and concurrent record review on 3/1/24 at 2:37 p.m., the ADON stated a wound that was persistent for two months would have been discussed in the weekly wound meeting which consisted of the ADON, the unit manager, treatment nurses, and a dietician. The ADON also stated she expected persistent wounds to be documented at least weekly to determine if it was improving or worsening. The ADON stated she believed Resident 1's dry scab on the right second toe had healed but was unable to provide documentation the wound had resolved. The ADON stated she could not recall discussing Resident 1's wound in any of the weekly wound meetings or interdisciplinary team meetings and verified Resident 1's medical chart showed no documented evidence of such discussions between December 2023 and February 2024. The ADON acknowledged, based on documentation available, the wound on Resident 1's right second toe had been present from December 2023 to February 2024. The ADON stated transportation for outside appointments were arranged by the social services department. The ADON further stated if there is no documentation in the resident's chart, then it was not done. In an interview on 3/1/24 at 3:30 p.m., the Social Services Director (SSD) stated the social services department arranged transportation to outside appointments when the nurse notified them of the resident's appointment. The Social Service Coordinator (SSC) then communicates to the nursing unit of the confirmed transportation. The SSD stated the unit nurses were responsible for getting the resident up and ready for transportation. In an interview on 3/1/24 at 3:40 p.m., the SSC confirmed she arranged for transportation for Resident 1's podiatry appointments. The SSC stated she was first made aware of Resident 1's missed podiatry appointments in early February of 2024 by the NP 1. The SSC stated the last podiatry appointment transportation she arranged for Resident 1 was in November 2023. In an interview on 3/20/24 at 9:18 a.m., the SSC stated there was a failure in communication which led to Resident 1's missed podiatry appointments. In an interview on 3/20/24 at 9:55 a.m., LN 2 stated a resident with diagnoses of PVD and DM 2 would have a risk of developing wounds and added vascular and diabetic ulcers are difficult to treat and heal. The LN 2 stated he expected each wound to have a care plan which included monitoring and documentation of the monitoring. The LN 2 further stated measurements of the wound needed to be documented to determine its progress. An interview on 3/20/24 at 10:20 a.m., TN 2 accessed Resident 1's medical records on her computer. The TN 2 stated she had been monitoring Resident 1 for a non-healing scab since December 2023. The TN 2 stated she monitored the wound by looking at it and would report to physician if she felt there was a change to the wound that needed to be addressed. When asked how she would know if the wound was changing, she replied because I look at it and know. When asked if there was any documentation indicating descriptions of the size or changes to the wound on the right second toe before 2/12/24, she confirmed there was not. When asked if it was a concern that Resident 1 had a wound on his foot from December to February, the TN 2 replied, it's a gray area . I was monitoring a dry scab . something that is not concerning. When asked how she would know if the wound was improving, the TN 2 disclosed, I was not monitoring that closely and alleged she was not aware of the right second toe lateral wound until 2/12/24 and added, it was hard to see. The TN 2 confirmed she knew having a diagnosis of DM2 and PVD were high risk factors for poor wound healing, but she had not notified NP 1 about Resident 1's right second toe wound until 2/12/24. The TN 2 added, Resident 1 had always had a podiatrist due to his other foot issues and expected he was getting podiatry services. In an interview and concurrent record review on 3/20/24 at 11:16 a.m., in the Director of Nursing (DON) office, the DON stated residents with diagnoses of DM2 and PVD would be at high risk for developing wounds and poor wound healing. The DON stated she expected nurses to monitor wounds, document descriptions of wounds and notify the physician of any changes. The DON added she expected the physician to be notified if the wound was not responding/healing within two weeks and added, we need to do something else. The DON stated if a resident had a wound on the foot that was not healing the physician would refer the resident to a podiatry specialist. The DON accessed Resident 1's medical records on her computer, confirmed she could read Resident 1's progress notes and assessments since December 2023. The DON confirmed the progress note written on 12/24/23 which indicated Resident 1 had a wound on his right second toe without any further descriptors such as size, presence of exudate or necrotic tissue. The DON also confirmed the progress note written on 1/11/24 which indicated Resident 1 had a scab reopen on right second toe but also had no other descriptions of the wound. The DON continued to search Resident 1's medical records and confirmed she could not find any documentation that clearly described Resident 1's wound on his right second toe until 2/12/24. The DON acknowledged, without descriptions of the wound documented, it would not be possible for staff to know if the wound was improving. The DON reiterated a wound that does not improve should always be a concern. In an interview on 3/20/24 at 1:20 p.m., the NP 1 stated she was aware Resident 1 had a history of wounds on his right foot and a partial left foot amputation. The NP 1 stated she discovered in early February 2024 Resident 1 had missed his podiatry appointments (in October, November, and December of 2023) that she documented in a progress note. When asked if it was a concern for Resident 1 to miss podiatry appointments, the NP 1 stated, Of course it is a concern. The NP 1 added Resident 1 was at high risk for infection and losing toes due to his DM2 and concluded, If [Resident 1] wasn't high risk he wouldn't be seeing the podiatrist. The NP 1 confirmed she evaluated Resident 1's right foot on 2/13/24 and determined he should be sent to the hospital for further evaluation and treatment of suspected infection to right foot. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Prevention of Pressure Injuries, revised April 2020, indicated, .Skin Assessment .During the skin assessment, inspect .presence of erythema .Temperature of skin and soft tissue .edema[EC18] [swelling cause by trapped fluid] .inspect the skin on a daily basis .identify . darkly pigmented skin, inspect for changes in skin tone, temperature and consistency .Monitoring [expectations] .Evaluate, report and document potential changes in the skin .Review the interventions and strategies for effectiveness on an ongoing basis. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Pressure Ulcers/Skin Breakdown- Clinical Protocol, revised April 2018, indicated, .nurse shall describe and document/report the following .full assessment of pressure sore [area of damage to skin and underlying tissue caused by pressure] [EC19] including location, stage, length, width and depths, presence of exudate or necrotic tissue .Monitoring [expectations] .During resident visits, the physician will evaluate and document the progress of wound healing-especially for those with complicated, extensive, or poorly-healing wounds .The physician will guide the care plan as appropriate, especially when the wounds are not healing as anticipated . A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Transportation, Social Services, revised December 2008, indicated, Our facility shall help arrange transportation for residents as needed .social services will help the resident.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 effective infection prevention program for one resident (Resident 1) out of three sampled residents, when the Treatment Nurse 1 (TN 1): did not clean bandage scissors prior to or after cutting a soiled wound dressing, placed treatment supplies directly on Resident 1's bed and returned supplies to the treatment cart, and did not perform hand hygiene (simple act of cleaning hands to present the spread of germs) during a wound treatment. These failures increased the risk for cross-contamination (movement or transfer of harmful bacteria from one person, object, or place to another) and the potential for infection. Findings: Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included peripheral vascular disease (PVD: a narrowing of a blood vessel which decreases circulation of blood to a body part) and diabetes (DM2: a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar, which slows the body's ability to heal wounds). A concurrent observation and interview on 3/1/24 at 2:10 p.m., with TN 1 during Resident 1's right foot surgical site bandage change. TN 1 placed a plastic bin of treatment supplies and a box of disposable gloves directly on Resident 1's bed and put on a pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene. TN 1 removed a pair of bandage scissors from a pouch on her belt, without cleaning them, cut off Resident 1's old bandages, that had reddish/brown stains, from Resident 1's right foot surgical wound and placed bandage scissors directly on Resident 1's bed. With gloved hand TN 1 removed old bandages from Resident 1's right foot. After removing soiled bandages, TN 1 without changing gloves or performing hand hygiene, picked up a cup with bandages soaking in a reddish brown liquid and stated she was going to apply [povidone-iodine] (a topical antiseptic used to treat and prevent infection) to Resident 1's surgical wound. For resident safety the bandage change was stopped and TN 1 was asked to go to the hallway. In the hallway outside of Resident 1's room, TN 1 acknowledged she had not changed her gloves, nor planned to change gloves, after removing the soiled bandages and prior to applying [povidone-iodine] and added she had not touched the dirty parts of the old dressing with gloves. Upon returning to resume Resident 1's right foot bandage change, TN 1 put on a new pair of gloves without performing hand hygiene and applied [povidone-iodine] to Resident 1's right foot surgical wound. TN 1 then removed gloves, did not perform hand hygiene, put on a new pair of gloves, and continued to wrap Resident 1's surgical wound with bandages. After rebandaging Resident 1's surgical wound, TN 1 exited Resident 1's room, put the used bandage scissors, without cleaning them, back in the pouch on her belt, placed the plastic bin of supplies and the box of disposable gloves on top of the treatment cart and stated she had completed all steps she needed to perform. TN 1 acknowledged she had placed the plastic bin of supplies, box of disposable gloves, and bandage scissors on Resident 1's bed during the bandage change and denied concerns for infection control. TN 1 acknowledged she had not performed hand hygiene after removing soiled gloves and prior to putting on new gloves and added she had not been taught to perform hand hygiene between glove changes. An interview on 3/1/24 at 2:37 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated she expected Treatment Nurses to follow infection control practices by putting treatment supplies and gloves on clean and sanitary surfaces, cleaning bandage scissors prior to and after being used for wound treatments, performing hand hygiene prior to putting on clean gloves, and changing gloves after removing a soiled bandage and prior to applying [povidone-iodine] to a surgical wound. The ADON added, if these infection control practices were not followed, she would be concerned with cross contamination that would put residents at risk for infections. An interview on 3/7/24 at 3:56 p.m., the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated she expected nurses to ensure a sanitary barrier between wound treatment supplies and potentially contaminated surfaces. The DSD added, supplies that touched the resident bedding would be contaminated and could lead to spreading infection. The DSD stated she expected nurses to change gloves after removing a soiled bandage and prior to cleaning a surgical wound. The DSD stated she also expected nurses to perform hand hygiene after removing soiled gloves and prior to putting on clean gloves. The DSD stated used bandage scissors that were put away without being cleaned would have been a risk for cross contamination that could also lead to spreading infection. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, revised August 2019, indicated, This facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections .all personnel shall be trained and regularly in-serviced on the importance of hand hygiene in prevention the transmission of healthcare-associated infections .all personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections .Use an alcohol-based hand rub . or, alternatively, soap . and water for the following situations: .before and after direct contact with residents .before handling clean or soiled dressings, gauze pads, etc. before moving from a contaminated body site to a clean body site during resident care .after handling used dressings . after removing gloves . the use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene. Integration of glove use along with routine hand hygiene is recognized as the best practice for preventing healthcare-associated infections . A review of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC: a service organization that protects the public's health) document titled, Infection Control Assessment and Response (ICAR) Tool for General Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) Across Settings, dated 1/27/23, indicated, .maintain separation between clean and soiled equipment to prevent cross contamination .Wound care supplies such as dressing materials and equipment . should be brought into the patient/resident's room or treatment area and placed on a clean surface and away from potential sources of contamination . Any unused disposable supplies that enter the patient/resident's care area should remain dedicated to that patient/resident or be discarded. They should not be returned to the clean supply area . To prevent pathogen transmission, reusable wound care equipment should be cleaned and disinfected after each use . reusable equipment should also be transported and stored in a manner to prevent contamination when moved between treatment areas. For example, bandage scissors should not be carried in pockets .
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0882 (Tag F0882)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an Infection Preventionist (IP: a nurse responsible for the facility's Infection Prevention and Control Plan) was available to meet ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an Infection Preventionist (IP: a nurse responsible for the facility's Infection Prevention and Control Plan) was available to meet all the requirements of the position for a census of 141 residents. This failure decreased the facility's potential to prevent the spread of infection among staff and residents. Findings: An interview on 3/1/24 at 9:10 a.m., the Executive Director (ADM) stated the facility's full time IP left in January 2024 and indicated the IP continued to work part-time during February 2024. The ADM added, the facility was hoping to hire a full time IP soon. An interview on 3/1/24 at 2:37 p.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated the facility is in between IPs and was unable to confirm the facility had anyone working in the IP role. An interview and concurrent record review on 3/1/24 at 4:30 p.m., the ADM provided time sheets for the facility's IP. The time sheet for dates 2/1/24-2/15/24, indicated the IP had worked zero hours. Additionally, there was no time sheet provided for the dates 2/16/24-2/29/24 as requested. The ADM stated there were no February hours on the February time sheets yet due to being the beginning of the month. The ADM stated he would email the Department the IP's updated February time sheets by 3/6/24. The facility did not send the Department any further time sheets for the facility's IP. An interview and concurrent record review on 3/20/24 at 9:05 a.m., the ADM stated there was not an IP at the facility's quarterly Quality Assurance (QA) meeting that was held on 1/25/24. The ADM provided a copy of the 1/25/24 QA meeting sign-in sheet that indicated the facility had no IP in attendance. An interview on 3/20/24 at 11:13 a.m., the ADM acknowledged he could not provide further time sheets for the facility's IP and confirmed the IP had not worked any hours in February 2024. An interview on 3/20/24 at 11:16 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated it is important to have an IP that works in the building and acknowledged the IP is expected to be present at facility's quarterly QA meetings. An interview on 3/20/24 at 12:08 p.m., the Resource Nurse Consultant (RNC) indicated the facility's Director of Staff Development (DSD) was certified as an IP and had been performing the IP duties. The RNC stated would provide the DSD's IP certification and documentation indicating what work the DSD had performed as the IP. An interview on 3/20/24 at 1 p.m., the ADM confirmed the DSD was not performing the duties of the IP role. An interview on 3/20/24 at 1:02 p.m., the RNC confirmed the DSD was not certified to perform the role of an IP and was not acting as the facility's IP. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, revised October 2018, indicated, An infection prevention and control program (IPCP) is established and maintained to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections .The infection prevention and control program . is an integral part of the quality assurance and performance improvement program . The infection prevention and control program is coordinated and overseen by an infection prevention specialist (infection preventionist) .The committee meets regularly, at least quarterly .
Feb 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for the prohibition and prevention of abuse for a census of 142 residents when 22 out of 26 sampled facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement policies and procedures for the prohibition and prevention of abuse for a census of 142 residents when 22 out of 26 sampled facility staff hired in December 2023 (Certified Nurse Assistant [CNA] 3, CNA 4, CNA 5, CNA 6, CNA 7, CNA 8, CNA 9, CNA 10, CNA 11, CNA 12, CNA 13, CNA 14, CNA 15, CNA 16, CNA 17, CNA 18, CNA 19, CNA 20, CNA 21, Licensed Nurse [LN] 4, LN 5, and Housekeeping Staff [HKS]) started working with residents in the facility without an employee background check (a formal process that verifies an upcoming employee's personal and professional information such as identity, work history, criminal record, and any other relevant information) done. This failure placed all the residents in the facility at risk for possible serious physical and/or psychosocial harm and decreased the facility's potential to protect residents from exposure to an employee with a criminal history of abuse, neglect, and/or exploitation. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/6/24 at 2:16 p.m. with the Human Resource/Payroll (HRP), Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 5's employee files were reviewed. The HRP confirmed that CNA 5 was hired as a full time (an employee who is scheduled to work and who does work a schedule of 30 hours or more per week) CNA (provides vital support to both residents and nurses which includes assisting, transporting, bathing, and feeding patients, stocking medical supplies, and logging patient information) on 12/12/23, and started providing direct care to residents on 12/21/23. The HRP also confirmed that CNA 5's background screening report was done 1/10/24, almost a month after CNA 5's hired date. The HRP stated, .We had an on-site hiring before and there were a couple of them that had their background check delayed . The HRP further stated, .It was not safe to do that [having a staff working in the facility with residents without an employee background check done] .Our standard is to have the background check first before the staff starts working . The employee files of the facility employees hired in December 2023 were requested. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/7/24 which started at 12:57 p.m. with the HRP, the employee files of the CNAs hired in December 2023 were reviewed. The HRP confirmed that CNA 3, CNA 4, CNA 8, CNA 10, CNA 11, CNA 12, CNA 14, CNA 16, CNA 17, CNA 18, CNA 19, CNA 20, and CNA 21 were all hired as full time CNAs in the facility and started providing direct care to residents without a background screening done. The HRP also confirmed that CNA 6, CNA 7, CNA 9, and CNA 13 were all hired as part time (an employee who is scheduled to work and who does work a schedule of 30 hours per week) CNA in the facility and started providing direct care to residents without a background screening done. The HRP further confirmed that CNA 15 was hired as an on-call (an employee that is ready to go to work at any time if they are needed, especially if there is an emergency) CNA in the facility and started providing direct care to residents without a background screening done. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/7/24 which started at 12:57 p.m. with the HRP, the employee files of the Registered Nurse (RN- a nurse that provides a higher level of patient care and coordination and works under a doctor, assesses patient health problems, and needs, develops, and implements nursing care plans, and maintains medical records) hired in December 2023 were reviewed. The HRP confirmed that LN 3 was hired as a full time RN in the facility and started providing direct care to residents on 1/8/24, without a background screening done. The HRP also confirmed that as of 2/7/24, LN 3's background screening was still in process. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/7/24 which started at 12:57 p.m. with the HRP, the employee files of the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN- a nurse that is trained in basic nursing skills, such as taking vital signs, administering medications, and assisting with basic patient care) hired in December 2023 were reviewed. The HRP confirmed that LN 4 was hired as a full time LVN in the facility and started providing direct care to residents on 1/1/24 without a background screening done. The HRP also confirmed that as of 2/7/24, LN 4's background screening was still in process. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/7/24 which started at 12:57 p.m. with the HRP, the employee files of the housekeeping staff hired in December 2023 were reviewed. The HRP confirmed that HKS was hired as part time housekeeping staff in the facility and started working on 12/23/23 without a background screening done. The HRP also confirmed that as of 2/7/24, HKS's background screening was still in process. The HRP agreed that even though HKS did not provide direct care to residents, HKS still had access and interactions with residents and their property whenever he would clean their rooms and other areas in the facility. During an interview on 2/7/24 at 1:37 p.m. with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated, My expectation is that background checks should be done .What went wrong on that is that I did not verify it with her [HRP] .This [having staff working in the facility with residents without an employee background check done] is not light, this is something I recognize as important .It's a safety risk for the residents, ultimately . A review of the facility's employee handbook titled, Fair Oaks Healthcare Center EMPLOYEE HANDBOOK, undated, under SECTION 5- SAFETY POLICIES, indicated, BACKGROUND CHECKS. The Facility requires a criminal check for all employees once a conditional offer of employment has been extended, in accordance with applicable law . A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation and Misappropriation Prevention Program, revised 04/2021, indicated, Residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation .2 .implement policies and protocols to prevent and identify: a. abuse or mistreatment of residents; b. neglect of residents; and/or c. theft, exploitation or misappropriation of resident property .4. Conduct employee background checks . A review of the facility's P&P titled, Hiring, undated, indicated, .8. The following steps will be followed when accepting applications from outside the facility: .g. The HR director will then conduct any applicable investigations and determine whether the applicant is legally eligible to work .10 .background investigations may be conducted on persons making applications for employment with this facility and on current employees .
Jan 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

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 and complete a baseline care plan (BCP) within 48 hours 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 develop and complete a baseline care plan (BCP) within 48 hours of admission for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure decreased the ability to address Resident 1's specific health needs and communicate his initial plan of care. Findings: A review of an admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including respiratory failure, pneumonia due to inhalation of food and vomit, gastrostomy tube (G-tube, opening into stomach), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). Resident 1 was discharged home on [DATE]. A review of a document titled, 48 Hour Baseline Care Plan, indicated Resident 1's BCP was completed on 12/19/23. During an interview on 1/17/24 at 1:02 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), DON confirmed Resident 1's BCP was completed on 12/19/23. DON stated BCP should have been completed within 48 hours of admission, because staff needed the BCP to understand the plan of care Resident 1 needed. DON further stated BCP could have provided Resident 1 and his family the initial goals for admission and a summary of the plan of care. A review of the facility's policy titled, Baseline Care Plans, dated 3/22, indicated, A baseline plan of care to meet the resident's immediate health and safety needs is developed for each resident within forty-eight (48) hours of admission.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the physician's Nothing By Mouth (NPO) diet order 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 follow the physician's Nothing By Mouth (NPO) diet order for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1), when Resident 1 was served and fed a meal at dinner time. This failure increased Resident 1's potential to inhale food into his lungs and develop pneumonia (lung infection). Findings: A review of an admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including respiratory failure, pneumonia due to inhalation of food and vomit, gastrostomy tube (G-tube, opening into stomach), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS; an assessment tool), dated 12/14/23, indicated Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15 of 15 with good memory. A review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, dated 1/17/24, indicated Resident 1 received a bolus feeding via his G-tube and his diet was NPO. The report further indicated a stat (urgent) chest x-ray (CXR) was ordered for Resident 1 on 12/15/23. A review of Resident 1's Care Plan, dated 12/19/23, indicated Resident 1 required tube feeding, will remain free of complications related to tube feeding, and to be monitored for signs of aspiration (when food or liquid enters airway and eventually lungs by accident). A review of a document titled, eINTERACT Change in Condition Evaluation, dated 12/15/23, indicated a diet error was identified for Resident 1 on 12/15/23 in the afternoon. A food tray was found on Resident 1's table and served by kitchen staff and Resident 1 stated he was fed by a new certified nursing assistant (CNA) some bites of the food. The physician ordered for a stat CXR and to continue to monitor Resident 1 for any changes. During an interview on 1/17/24 at 11:49 a.m. with Licensed Nurse 1 (LN 1), LN 1 confirmed she found a food tray on Resident 1's meal table at dinner time on 12/15/23. LN 1 stated Resident 1 told her a CNA fed him few bites of the food, and the CNA told her she encouraged Resident 1 to eat and was unaware he was not supposed to eat. LN 1 further stated Resident 1 had a G-tube, was on NPO diet, was not supposed to be served food at all, and she took the food tray away from Resident 1 and notified his physician who ordered a CXR. During an interview on 1/17/24 at 12:07 p.m. with LN 2, LN 2 stated she was notified that Resident 1 was fed a dinner meal by a new CNA on 12/15/23. LN 2 further stated kitchen staff sent Resident 1 meal trays even though he was NPO, on a tube feeding, and was not supposed to have any food by mouth until he was seen by speech therapy. During an interview on 1/17/24 at 12:37 p.m. with Dietary Manager (DM), DM stated kitchen staff should not have sent Resident 1 a tray unless there was a diet order. DM confirmed Resident 1's order indicated he was NPO, had a tube feeding, and was not supposed to be served any tray because he had no diet order. During an interview on 1/17/24 at 1:02 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), DON confirmed Resident 1's diet was NPO. DON stated the kitchen should not have served Resident 1 a tray, and the CNA should not have fed him especially since there was a sign over his bed indicating he was NPO. DON further stated there was a potential that Resident 1 might have choked and had aspiration pneumonia or inhalation injury. A review of the facility's policy titled, Administering Medications, dated 4/19, indicated Medications [and diets] are administered in accordance with prescriber orders .The charge nurse must accompany new .personnel .to ensure established procedures are followed and proper resident identification methods are learned.
Dec 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer medication as ordered for one resident (Resident 1) of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer medication as ordered for one resident (Resident 1) of three sampled residents. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to have complications related to hypertension. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's Physician Order Report (POR), the POR indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of hypertension (high blood pressure). The POR also indicated an order for amlodipine (a medication that helps lower blood pressure) 5 mg (milligrams , a unit of measurement), give two tablets orally for hypertension one time a day; hold if systolic blood pressure (the pressure in the arteries when the heart beats) is less than 100. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan (CP), dated 11/7/23, the CP indicated Resident 1 was at risk for complications related to hypertension, administer amlodipine, and monitor blood pressure every shift and as needed, to prevent complications related to hypertension. A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated November 2023, Resident 1 did not receive amlodipine as ordered on 11/3/23, 11/5/23 and 11/6/23. The MAR indicated the following: 11/3/23 - Not Administered; Drug/Item unavailable. 11/5/23 - Not Administered; Other Comment: waiting for supply. 11/6/23 - Not Administered; Other Comment: waiting for pharmacy, order faxed. During a review of Resident 1's Resident Progress Notes (RPN), dated 11/2/23 - 11/8/23, there was no documentation that staff had contacted Resident 1's physician regarding the missing doses of amlodipine as ordered or that a refill request was sent to the facility's pharmacy. During an interview on 12/29/23 at 12:34 p.m. with Licensed Nurse (LN) 1, LN 1 stated, If a medication is not available, it is easy to retrieve .I know amlodipine used to be in the [Automated Dispensing Units (ADU, an automated medication dispensing machine]. LN 1 also indicated if a medication was unavailable the pharmacy and resident's physician would also be notified. During an interview on 12/29/23 at 1:22 p.m. with LN 2, LN 2 stated, If a medication is unavailable, I will notify the pharmacy to request a refill or use the e-kit (emergency kit, a container that the pharmacy has provided with additional doses of oral medications, including blood pressure medications) if the medication is available. LN 2 also indicated she would contact the physician to notify them of the unavailable medication. During an interview on 12/29/23 at 1:42 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON indicated his expectation was for nursing staff to contact the physician if a medication is not available; if medications were unavailable the physician should be notified and the pharmacy must be contacted for refills or for an appropriate substitution. The LN needs to document in the resident chart, under the progress notes, the physician was notified, if pharmacy was contacted and the outcome of the conversation. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/29/23 at 2:15 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON verified the missing doses of amlodipine on Resident 1's MAR on 11/3/23, 11/5/23 and 11/6/23. ADON reviewed and verified there were no progress notes in Resident 1's RPN indicated the LN contacted the physician or pharmacy regarding the unavailable medication. During an interview on 1/4/24 at 11:55 a.m. with Pharmacy Representative (PR 1), PR 1 indicated orders and refills for medications are available three ways: all medications have a barcode associated with them which can then be faxed to the pharmacy, staff can call in an order or they can be refilled through the facilities electronic platform [residents' electronic records. PR 1 stated, [The Pharmcay] did service the [ADU] at Fair Oaks Health Care Center and that machine did carry extra doses of .5 mg tablets of amlodipine. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Administration, dated April 2019, the P&P indicated, Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders .
Dec 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to follow infection control guidelines for the residents 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 follow infection control guidelines for the residents of the facility, when: 1. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) did not wear required Personal Protective Equipment (PPE- mask, gown and gloves) while inside a resident's room that was under contact isolation precautions; and 2. An uncovered linen cart from laundry with resident's clean personal clothes was seen parked in the A wing hallway. These deficient practices had the potential to spread infection and disease among residents, staff and visitors. Findings: 1.During a review of Resident 2's clinical record he was last admitted to the facility on [DATE]. According to Resident 2's progress notes as documented by his physician [physician's name] with custodial visit date of 11/28/23, with Assessment and plan for Pneumonia (inflammation and fluid in lungs) and C. Difficile Diarrhea (C-Diff-highly contagious bacterial infection). During a concurrent observation and interview with CNA 1 on 12/7/23 at 1:20 p.m., Resident 2's room had an isolation bin by the door containing yellow gowns and a box of gloves. Above the isolation bin was a hand sanitizer dispenser installed on the wall and signage indicating to use the hand sanitizer before entering and exiting room. Contact precaution signage on the right side of the door indicated staff must put on gloves and a gown before room entry. Another sign posted on the wall about how to properly put on a gown, mask, face shields and gloves before entering Resident 2's room. CNA 1 was observed entering Resident 2's isolation room with a mask on and covered his pillow with a white pillowcase. She did not sanitize or wash her hands when she exited Resident 2's room. CNA 1 stated she should have worn a gown, gloves and face shield when she entered Resident 2's room and should have sanitized her hands when she exited the room because Resident 2 is on contact isolation. During an interview with Licensed Nurse (LN 1) on 12/7/23 at 1:40 pm., LN 1 stated, Resident 2 is on contact isolation for C-Diff, and all staff should wear complete PPE before entering the room and sanitize our hands when we exited his room, it is an infection control measure. During an interview with Infection Preventionist (IP) on 12/7/23 at 2:20p.m., IP stated, all staff must wear required PPE such as gown, gloves, and a mask when inside the isolation room of Resident 2 to prevent the spread of infection. During an interview with LN 2 on 12/7/23 at 3:30 p.m., LN 2 stated, my expectation is for the staff to follow all isolation precautions. Resident 2 is on contact isolation for C-Diff. All staff entering the room must wear required PPE, they should sanitize their hands before and after entering the isolation room. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure titled, Isolation - Categories of Transmission-Based Precautions revised date October 2018, indicated, .Contact Precautions 4. Staff and visitors will wear gloves (clean, non-sterile) when entering the room . Gloves will be removed, and hand hygiene performed before leaving the room .5. Staff and visitors will wear a disposable gown upon entering the room and remove before leaving the room . 2.During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/7/23 at 1:25 p.m., with Laundry Staff (LS), an uncovered linen cart was parked in A wing hallway with clean personal clothes of the residents hung in the linen cart rack. This linen cart is used by laundry employees to transport clean personal clothes from the laundry room to resident's rooms. When asked, LS confirmed that she delivered clean, newly laundered personal clothes to multiple residents in A wing. She further acknowledged, that as soon as she entered A wing, she uncovered the linen cart, Yes it was not covered with white linen the whole time I was here in A wing. During an interview with the Environmental Service Director (EVS) on 12/7/23 at 2 p.m., the EVS confirmed they use a linen cart to deliver personal clothes to the residents, and Anytime the linen cart leaves this room (laundry room, clean area) it should be covered with white linen, and when they reach the unit, the linen cart should still be covered with white linen. The EVS further stated, laundry staff should roll up the white linen, exposing only the clothes they need to take and then cover it again to ensure cleanliness and protect the clothes from dust while being transported within the facility. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure titled, Laundry and Bedding, Soiled revised date October 2018, indicated, Transport 5. Clean linens are protected from dust and soiling during transport .
Oct 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide services according to professional standards of quality for one resident (Resident 1) of two sampled residents when: ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide services according to professional standards of quality for one resident (Resident 1) of two sampled residents when: 1. Resident 1's pain medication was not administered timely and per physician order; and, 2. A lidocaine patch (a topical patch that applies pain relief) was documented as administered when it was not. This failure had the potential to increase Resident 1's pain above a tolerable threshhold and allow for accurate pain remedies to be administered. Findings: A review of an admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in September 2023 with diagnoses including fractures and neoplasms (abnormal growth of tissue). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS; an assessment tool), dated 10/17/23, indicated Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score was 15 of 15 with good memory. 1. During an interview on 10/30/23 at 9:26 a.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated it took Licensed Nurse 3 (LN 3) more than three hours to give her oxycodone (drug that relieves pain) after she requested it on 10/23/23 at 7 a.m. Resident 1 further stated LN 3 arrived after 10 a.m. because she was making her routine rounds and going into rooms by numerical order while Resident 1 was waiting, screaming, and crying because of the burning pain in her left hip. A review of Resident 1's Order History, dated 9/29/23, indicated 10 milligrams (mg; a unit of measure) of oxycodone to be administered to Resident 1 once a day at 8 a.m. A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration History, dated 10/23/23, indicated the 8 a.m. scheduled dose of oxycodone was administered at 10:12 a.m. by LN 3. During an interview on 10/30/23 at 1:42 p.m. with LN 2, LN 2 stated she witnessed the late administration of oxycodone by LN 3 to Resident 1 on 10/23/23. LN 2 further stated she was aware that Resident 1 was in pain while waiting for LN3 and LN 3 had told her she was following the rooms' numerical order while passing medications, which led to the late administration of oxycodone to Resident 1 by the time she arrived to her room. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/30/23 at 9:53 a.m. with Resident 1, there was no lidocaine patch was applied over Resident 1's left knee. Resident 1 stated LN 1 did not apply her lidocaine patch yet and there had been three to four encounters since she was admitted to the facility where staff did not apply her lidocaine patch. A review of Resident 1's Order History, dated 10/18/23, indicated one lidocaine patch to be applied to Resident 1's left knee twice a day at 8 a.m. and 8 p.m. A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration History, dated 10/30/23, indicated the 8 a.m. scheduled dose of lidocaine was administered at 10:56 a.m. by LN 1. During an interview on 10/30/23 at 1:23 p.m. with LN 1, LN 1 stated he charted at 10:56 a.m. that he applied the lidocaine patch for Resident 1; however, he did not apply the patch yet because Resident 1 had just left to her appointment for radiation therapy. A review of Resident 1's Care Plan, dated 9/28/23, indicated Resident 1 had a potential for pain related to a fracture and to administer medications as ordered. During an interview on 10/30/23 at 2:38 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), DON confirmed the late administration of Resident 1's oxycodone and lidocaine patch medications and stated nurses should have followed the physician's orders and administered the medications within one hour before or one hour after their scheduled times. DON further stated late charting meant late administration of medications, therefore residents would have been in pain and physician's orders were not followed. A review of the facility's policy titled, Administering Medications, revised on 4/2019, indicated Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame .Medications are administered within one (1) hour of their prescribed time .
Jul 2023 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when the facility identified that the resident develope...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when the facility identified that the resident developed skin care needs and refused bathing. This failure resulted in Resident 1 not having clear care guidelines to the desired health outcomes of the identified issues and had the potential for the resident having unmet care needs. Findings: Resident 1 was a long-term resident in the facility with comorbidities which included diabetes, lung problems, heart failure, moisture related skin issues due to incontinence and advanced age. Review of the most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool) indicated Resident 1 was cognitively intact, bed bound and required assistance with bathing and activities of daily living. Review of the facility's policy and procedure, revised 10/27/22, stipulated, A Care Plan will be developed to meet the identified needs of the resident .The licensed nurse will document the status of each skin impairment and response in the Health Record and update the plan of care as needed. Review of Resident 1's clinical record indicated there was no care plan for the identified feet fungal issue. In a telephone interview on 7/3/23 starting at 10 a.m., with Licensed Nurse (LN) 1 present, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 1 had the fungal issue to her feet and it had been treated. The DON verified there was no care plan developed for the fungal problem and acknowledged there should have been a care plan for the feet issues as stipulated in the facility's policy and procedure. 2. In an interview on 6/6/23 at 12:17 p.m., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 stated Resident 1 refused bed baths. CNA 1 stated CNAs checked residents skin integrity whenever they gave shower or bed bath to residents. In an interview on 6/6/23 at 12:23 p.m., CNA 2 stated Resident 1's shower days were in the AM on Thursdays and Sundays. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 refused bed baths. In an interview on 6/6/23 at 1:30 p.m., the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated she was aware that Resident 1 refused to get out of bed and refused taking a bed bath. Review of Resident 1's clinical record, MAR (Medication Administration Record)/TAR (Treatment Administration Record) for March and April 2023 indicated Resident 1 had a physician order, dated 6/20/22, for LNs to document the resident's refusal for shower and bed bath. The MAR/TAR indicated Resident 1's shower days were Thursdays and Sundays and documented the resident received a bed bath once on 3/9/23 in March 2023 and had no bed bath in April 2023. Review of the facility's 10/26/12 policy and procedure, Care Plan Process, stipulated, The comprehensive care plan has been designed to .Incorporate identified problem areas; Prevent declines in the resident's functional status and/or functional levels . In a telephone interview on 6/27/23 at 1:27 p.m., the DON stated the facility identified Resident 1 was non-compliant with personal care and notified the physician back in June 2022. The DON stated the physician then ordered for LNs to document Resident 1's refusal for bed bath in the MAR. The DON stated Resident 1 was non-compliant with bed baths for a long time and it should have been care planed.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the care and treatment needed for one of three sampled resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the care and treatment needed for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1's skin issues were unnoted by staff. This failure resulted in Resident 1 sustaining two open areas of odorous wounds with exudate (fluid that leaks out of blood vessels into nearby tissues) under her left arm pit, 100% red tissue in her left upper chest, and mid upper back with exudate. Findings: Resident 1 was a long-term resident in the facility with comorbidities which included diabetes, lung problems, heart failure, moisture related skin issues due to incontinence and advanced age. Review of the most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool) indicated Resident 1 was cognitively intact, bed bound and required assistance with bathing and activities of daily living. In a telephone interview on [DATE] at 8:56 a.m., Resident 1's Representative (RR), the Power of Attorney for the resident, stated the facility transferred Resident 1 to a hospital emergency room (ER) on [DATE] due to her slow heart rate and the resident was subsequently admitted to the hospital; Upon admission to the hospital floor, the RR was informed that Resident 1 had several skin wounds that she was not aware of. The RR stated she was shocked when she saw the resident wounds that were rotting and there were holes under the resident's arm pit. The RR stated the hospital doctor said that the resident had the skin condition for a quite a while. The RR voiced the facility should have identified and treated the resident's skin issues before they went so bad and stated it was pure neglect that the facility did not treat the resident's rotten skin condition. Review of Resident 1's medical record, Resident Progress Note dated [DATE], indicated Resident 1 was sent to a general acute care hospital ER at about 10:40 a.m., that morning due to a change in condition, having shortness of breath with increased respiration rate of 25-30/minute (adult person normal at 12-20/ minute) and heart rate of 40-46/minute (adult person normal at 60-100/minute). Review of the hospital provided Wound Care Note for Resident 1, dated, and timed [DATE] at 12:42 p.m., described the resident skin wounds with pictures of the affected areas as follows: 1. Left upper chest: 2.5 cm (centimeter) x 2.8 cm (1 x 1.1); 100% red tissue with dry peeling tissue and had scant serosanguineous (contains or related to both blood and the liquid part of blood) exudate 2. Left arm axilla (armpit): 10 cm x 10 cm (3.9 x 3.9); Two open areas under armpit with dark red tissue and dry patchy peeling tissue with swelling and mild odor with small amount of serosanguineous exudate 3. Mid upper back: 4 cm x 5 cm (1.6 x 2): 100 % red tissue intact maroon discoloration with scant serosanguineous exudate In addition to the wound's description, this Wound Care Note included the current treatment with Treatment Recommendation, and PRESSURE INJURY PREVENTION MEASURES that was attested by the wound doctor (MD 1). In an interview on [DATE] at 11:57 a.m., Licensed Nurse (LN 1), who used to be the treatment nurse, stated Resident 1 was transferred to the hospital due to a total heart block on [DATE] and returned to the facility on [DATE] with hospice care and expired on [DATE]. LN 1 stated Resident 1 had a long history of skin issues that had been treated but the facility did not know of any open wounds under her armpit or other skin issues except her fungal left arm, hand and her bilateral feet that had been treated with an anti-fungal cream. LN 1 explained it was the facility policy that Certified Nurse Assistants (CNAs) were to check residents' skin integrity during the shower or bed bath using the shower sheet and to report to LNs if any new skin issues were noted. LN 1 stated all residents received shower or bed baths twice a week minimum and the facility kept all shower sheets including the days when residents refused to shower. LN 1 stated CNAs did not report any skin issues for Resident 1. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:17 p.m., CNA 1 stated Resident 1 refused bed baths. CNA 1 stated CNAs checked residents' skin whenever they gave a shower or a bed bath to residents. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:23 p.m., CNA 2 stated Resident 1's shower days were in the AM on Thursdays and Sundays. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 refused bed baths. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:59 p.m., LN 2 stated she was the medication nurse, not a treatment nurse, and stated she was not sure Resident 1 had any skin issues. Review of the facility's policy and procedure, revised [DATE], Skin Integrity Protocol, stipulated residents were evaluated to identify current skin impairment as well as their potential risk of skin impairment. As an ongoing evaluation, the policy instructed CNAs to observe for any skin issues during routine episodes of care, and on the shower day and to report to the licensed nurse any new areas of skin concerns using, the Shower Day Skin Inspection worksheet .Resident's skin will be inspected using the shower sheet even if the shower is refused. Shower Day Skin Inspection worksheets for March and [DATE] requested and the facility provided a total of 6 shower sheets including February 2023 as follows: [DATE]: Refused [DATE]: Refused [DATE]: Refused [DATE]: Bed bath [DATE]: Refused [DATE]: Refused There were 14 shower days for the resident from [DATE], to [DATE] before she was transferred to the ER and it was documented that the resident had one bed bath out of the 14 shower days scheduled in March and [DATE]. In an interview on [DATE] at 1:22 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) indicated the facility was not aware of the resident wounds on her armpit and stated the resident's skin issues had not been brought up during the daily stand-up meeting when staff discussed any care issues. The DON stated he was informed that Resident 1 was treated for shingles (a viral infection that painful rash develops on one side of the face or body) in the hospital and mentioned the possibility that the resident's skin issues could have developed within hours upon the hospital transfer. In an interview on [DATE] at 1:30 p.m., the Nurse Practitioner (NP) stated Resident 1 had a history of dermatitis longer than 10 years and was fragile with compromised health. The NP stated she saw the resident's wound pictures taken from the hospital and stated the wound under the resident's armpit appeared to be macerated (skin breakdown due to moisture). The NP indicated the wound under her armpit could have been developed within hours if the resident was sweating profusely; however, the NP clarified the armpit was not a dermatome (nerve connections on the spine) for shingles. The NP stated the wound should have been identified. Review of Resident 1's clinical records, Resident Progress Notes, did not indicate the resident was sweating profusely on [DATE]. Review of the hospital ER physician note, dated [DATE], and the review of the hospital Wound Care Note for Resident 1, dated [DATE], did not indicate the resident sweated excessively. In a telephone interview on [DATE] at 1:21 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the six shower sheets were, all we can find, and explained the shower sheets were worksheets that CNAs used, and they were not a part of residents' medical records; therefore, they were not required to be kept. The DON stated the facility had no specific guidelines how long the shower sheets are to be kept before discarding them. The DON acknowledged the resident had one bed bath on [DATE] during March and [DATE]. In a telephone interview on [DATE] starting at 10 a.m., with LN 1 present, the DON verified the resident was transferred to the hospital on [DATE] because of heart block, not because of shingles.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

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 ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1's) clinical recor...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1's) clinical records were accurate when the MDS (Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool) and a Licensed Nurse (LN) weekly summary for the resident was inconsistent with the MAR (Medication Administration Record) for a census of 125. This failure resulted in Resident 1's skin issues not to have been correctly reflected in the medical records and had the potential for misleading health professionals in making treatment decisions for the resident. Findings: Resident 1 was a long-term resident in the facility with comorbidities which included diabetes, lung problems, heart failure, moisture related skin issues due to incontinence and advanced age. Review of the most recent MDS (Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool) indicated Resident 1 was cognitively intact, bed bound and required assistance with bathing and activities of daily living. Review of Resident 1's clinical record, the Medication Administration Records (MAR), included a physician order, dated 4/23/21, for terbinafine cream 1% (a prescription medication, an anti-fungal medication) to apply both resident's feet for fungus twice a day. In an interview on 6/6/23 at 11:57 a.m., Licensed Nurse (LN 1), who used to be the treatment nurse, stated Resident 1 had fungal issues to her left arm, hand and bilateral feet for more than 6 months and she administered terbinafine to the resident's feet. Review of Resident 1's clinical record, the most recent MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident did not have any foot problems in the Skin Section of the MDS. There was an X mark next to None of the above were present indicating the resident did not have any infection, diabetic foot ulcers or other open lesion on the foot. Review of LN's weekly summary, dated 4/16/23, for Resident 1, indicated the resident had no skin issues other than the resident's skin condition was Dry and Fragile. In a telephone interview on 7/5/23 at 1:22 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) verified the inconsistent documentation regarding the resident's skin issues to her feet. The DON acknowledged the inaccurate and the inconsistent documentation could have mis-led the health care professionals in making treatment decisions for the resident.
Apr 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0725 (Tag F0725)

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 provide sufficient nursing staff to meet residents' required care f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide sufficient nursing staff to meet residents' required care for two of four sampled residents (Resident 4 and Resident 6), when there was no Registered Nurse (RN) on duty on 4/12/23, between 2 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. This failure resulted in Resident 4 and Resident 6 to miss doses of intravenous (IV, administration through a vein) antibiotics (a medicine for infection) and had the potential for an adverse effect on the health of all the residents in the facility. Findings: A review of Resident 4's clinical record indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included infection and inflammatory reaction due to internal right hip prosthesis (an artificial body part). A review of Resident 6's clinical record indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included sepsis (the body's extreme response to an infection) and bacteremia (the presence of bacteria in the bloodstream). A review of a facility order report titled, IV Therapy, dated 4/12/23, indicated a total of four residents in the facility had an active order of IV antibiotics which included Resident 4 and Resident 6. Resident 4 had an order for IV antibiotic due at 4 a.m. of 4/12/23, and Resident 6 had an order for IV antibiotic due at 2 a.m. of 4/12/23. During an interview on 4/12/23, at 12:37 p.m., with the Unit Manager (UM) 1, the UM 1 stated, We are supposed to have an RN all shifts in the facility .and we call them when we need help. The UM 1 further stated, In our setting, RNs are the one who .give .IV antibiotics. During an interview on 4/12/23, at 2:19 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 2, RN 2 stated, there was no RN on duty in the facility on the morning of 4/12/23, when she came in for her 6:30 a.m. shift. RN 2 also said that the facility should have an RN in the facility working because the facility had four residents who were on IV antibiotics. Only an RN can administer these medications. RN 2 further stated, when she came in this morning, the residents who were due to receive a dose of their IV antibiotics had not received the medication. During an interview on 4/12/23, at 4:05 p.m. with RN 3, RN 3 stated, she was scheduled to be on duty from 11:30 p.m. 4/11/23 to 7 a.m. 4/12/23, but she had called in sick. RN 3 further stated, she had been asked to go into work if she felt better because the facility could not find an RN to cover the hours between 2 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/12/23, at 4:32 p.m. with the UM 4, UM 4 confirmed that the IV antibiotics for Resident 4, which were due at 4 a.m., and the IV antibiotics for Resident 6, which were due at 2 a.m., were not given on 4/12/23. UM 4 further stated, only an RN can give IV antibiotics to the residents. During an interview on 4/12/23, at 4:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated he expects to have an RN in the facility 24 hours a day, seven days a week to provide care to the residents. The DON further stated, the scheduled RN for 11:30 p.m. 4/11/2023 to 7 a.m. 4/12/2023, called in sick and they were not able to find a replacement RN to be on duty between 2 a.m. and 6:30 a.m. on 4/12/23. A review of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) document titled, CMS Manual System: State Operations Provider Certification, dated 6/6/2014, indicated, .IV medications .are administered to patients by registered nurses (RNs). A review of an undated facility document titled, Staffing Matrix- Codman Court 40, indicated, .There must always be at minimum of 1 RN on every shift . A review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Staffing, revised 3/1/2001, indicated, .facility maintains adequate staff on each shift to assure that the resident's needs are met.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

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 ensure two of four sampled residents (Resident 4 and Resident 6) we...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of four sampled residents (Resident 4 and Resident 6) were free from a significant medication error when their prescribed intravenous (IV, administration through a vein) antibiotics (a medicine for infection) were not administered at the prescribed time. This failure had the potential for Resident 4 and Resident 6 to experience worsening of infection and possible development of antibiotic resistance (occurs when a bacterium develops the ability to protect itself from the effects of antibiotics). Findings: A review of Resident 4's clinical record indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included infection and inflammatory reaction due to internal right hip prosthesis (an artificial body part). A review of Resident 4's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated 4/7/23, Vancomycin (an antibiotic medication) reconstitution solution (adding water to a powder to make a liquid mixture); 1000 milligrams (mg, a unit of measurement); amount: 1000 mg; intravenous for osteomyelitis (swelling of bone that is usually the result of an infection)/Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA, an infection that is difficult to treat because of resistance to some antibiotics) for 12 days every 12 hours; 4 p.m., and 4 a.m. During an interview on 4/12/23, at 12:37 p.m., with the Unit Manager (UM) 1, the UM 1 stated, We are supposed to have an RN [Registered Nurse] all shift in the facility .RNs are the one who .give .IV antibiotics. During an interview on 4/12/23, at 2:19 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 2, RN 2 stated, Resident 4's IV antibiotic, which was due at 4 a.m. on 4/12/23, was not given because they did not have an RN on duty at that time. RN 2 further stated, only an RN can administer IV antibiotics. During an interview on 4/12/23, at 2:43 p.m., with Resident 4, Resident 4 stated she did not receive the IV antibiotics for her infection this morning. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/12/23, at 4:32 p.m. with UM 4, the UM 4 confirmed that Resident 4's IV antibiotics for 4 a.m. on 4/12/23 was not given. The UM 4 further stated, antibiotics should be given at the ordered time to maintain the therapeutic level in the body for it to be effective; if not, it can cause the infection to get worse. A review of World Health Organization document titled, Antimicrobial Stewardship, dated 2019, indicated that vancomycin was included in the antibiotics group that had a higher possibility to develop antibiotic resistance. A review of Resident 6's clinical record indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included sepsis (the body's extreme response to an infection) and bacteremia (the presence of bacteria in the bloodstream). A review of Resident 6's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated 3/28/23, Cefazolin (an antibiotic medication) reconstitution solution; 2 grams (g, a unit of measurement); amount: 2 g; injection for sepsis, bacteremia until 5/2/23, every 8 hours; 10 a.m., 6 p.m. and 2 a.m. During an interview on 4/12/23, at 2:19 p.m. with RN 2, RN 2 stated, Resident 6's IV antibiotic which was due at 2 a.m. on 4/12/23, was not given because they did not have an RN on duty that time. During an interview on 4/12/23, at 4:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated medications should be given on time, as prescribed. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/12/23, at 5:09 p.m. with RN 4, RN 4 confirmed that Resident 6's IV antibiotics for 2 a.m. on 4/12/23, which was for Resident 6's blood infection, was not given. RN 4 also stated, IV antibiotics should be given on time to maintain its effectiveness and for the infection not to get worse. RN 4 further stated, We need to give it [IV antibiotics] to them [residents] at the ordered time because if not, they [residents] may develop antibiotic resistance. When they [residents] get [an] infection again, the antibiotic won't be effective anymore. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Monitoring, dated 1/2020, indicated, Medications are administered at the frequency and times indicated in the prescriber orders. A review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention document titled, Core Elements of Hospital Antibiotic Stewardship Programs, last reviewed 4/28/21, indicated, The misuse of antibiotics has .contributed to antibiotic resistance, a serious threat to public health. The misuse of antibiotics can adversely impact the health of patients .through the spread of resistant organisms .
Apr 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

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 protect and promote one of five sampled residents' (Resident 2) rig...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect and promote one of five sampled residents' (Resident 2) right to be treated with respect and dignity when Resident 2 felt negatively treated by Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 3. This failure resulted in Resident 2 experiencing emotional distress and unnecessary fear. Findings: A review of Resident 2's clinical record indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Parkinson's disease (a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements). A Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool), dated 2/9/23, indicated Resident 2 had intact cognition and required extensive assistance with personal hygiene. A review of a facility document titled, Report of Suspected Dependent Adult/Elder Abuse, dated 3/20/23, indicated, Patient [Resident 2] stating she is afraid of [Name of CNA 3] and asking that she not come into her room again. A review of the facility document titled, Allegation of Abuse Investigation Form, dated 3/21/23, indicated, She [Resident 2] feels like she did something to make her [CNA 3] mad and is afraid to ask for help .She [Resident 2] feels afraid of her [CNA 3] because of how she [CNA 3] talks to her [Resident 2]. A review of Resident 2's clinical record indicated a progress note, dated 3/22/23, .[Resident 2] appears a bit emotional . During an interview on 3/29/23, at 10:42 a.m., with Resident 2, Resident 2 stated CNA 3 was physically and verbally rough with her and every encounter with CNA 3 was mostly negative which caused her to sleep less at night. Resident 2 also stated, she knew the way CNA 3 treated her was wrong, but she thought it was just the way how health care works. Resident 2 further stated, I was fearful when I knew she's coming .I was anxious every time I knew she is working .My shaking, stiffness, and not being able to move gets worse every time. During a telephone interview on 4/4/23, at 2:19 p.m., with the Administrator, the Administrator stated, .residents should be treated with dignity no matter what. A review of facility policy titled, Know Your Rights under Federal Nursing Home Regulations, undated, indicated, You [resident] have the right to be treated with respect and dignity.
Jan 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication was administered as ordered for one resident (Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication was administered as ordered for one resident (Resident 1) of five sampled residents. This failure decreased the facility's potential to administer medications to residents accurately. Failure: A review of a face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis which included left total knee replacement surgery. A review of Resident 1's discharge summary from the outpatient surgery clinic, dated 4/26/22, indicated, .SNF [Skilled Nursing Facility] Orders .Medication List at Discharge as of 4/26/2022 at 8:00 p.m Enoxaparin (anticoagulant, prevention of clots) .40 mg [milligram, a unit of measure]/ 0.4 ml [milliliter, a unit of measure] SubQ [subcutaneous, under the skin] Syringe .Inject 0.4 ml subcutaneously daily for 28 days .Start Date .4/26/22 . A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated April 2022, indicated enoxaparin was administered on 4/27/22 at 8 a.m. and again at 4 p.m. In an interview on 1/30/23 at 4:25 p.m., the Director of Nurses (DON) stated he expected nurses to administer medications as ordered by the physician. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Medication Administration General Guidelines, revised January 2021, indicated, .Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the prescriber .If necessary, the nurse contacts the prescriber for clarification .
Nov 2021 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was reported to the Department, for a census of 130. This failure had the potential for abuse a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an allegation of abuse was reported to the Department, for a census of 130. This failure had the potential for abuse allegations to not be investigated thoroughly and in a timely manner. Findings: Review of Resident 3's clinical records indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility in mid 2018 with diagnoses that included anxiety disorder. Review of Resident 3's MDS (Minimum Data Set, an assessment tool) Section C, dated 7/9/21, indicated Resident 3 had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 8 out 15 which indicated moderate impaired cognitive function. During a concurrent observation and interview conducted on 11/1/21 at 1:30 p.m., Resident 3 was observed to have a reddish to purplish discoloration on her right forearm measuring approximately 12 centimeters (cm, a unit of measurement) x 4 cm, and on her left forearm measuring approximately 6 cm x 4 cm. Resident 3 stated someone hit her. A review of Resident 3's clinical records did not indicate any documentation of discoloration on Resident 3's forearms, nor was there a documentation of allegations made by Resident 3. On 11/1/21 at 2 p.m., a follow-up interview was done with Resident 3. Resident 3 denied somebody hit her and stated they were just holding her to move her up. On 11/1/21 at 2:10 p.m. Resident 3's allegation of someone hitting her as well as the skin discoloration observed on right and left forearms were reported to the Licensed Nurse (LN) 2 by the Department. Review of Resident 3's Progress Notes dated 11/1/21 at 3:19 p.m., indicated, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT [Resident 3] HAD A LARGE DISCOLORED AREA AROUND HER WRIST, WHEN THE SURVEYOR ASKED HOW THAT HAPPENED SHE TOLD HER SHE WAS HIT. WHEN I WENT DOWN TO SEE [Resident 3], SHE TOLD ME THAT 'OH THAT THING, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT HAPPENED, IT WAS JUST WHEN THEY PULL ME UP, BUT THEY DIDN'T MEAN TO DO THAT, THEY WERENT ANGRY' . During an interview with the LN 2 on 11/2/21 at 10:17 a.m., LN 2 stated after the allegation was reported to her, she started her investigation, and Resident 3 denied the allegation. LN 2 stated the PM nurse asked Resident 3 again, and Resident 3 stated she did not remember how it happened. LN 2 stated she did not fill out the abuse form because Resident 3 told her they were pulling her up and they were not angry, so to her that was not a reportable situation. LN 2 further stated she reports allegations that were witnessed, seen, heard, or when during investigation, there was no explanation as to what happened. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/2/21 at 2:49 p.m., the DON stated the nurse can decide if an abuse needs to be reported. The DON further stated the nurse seemed to indicate that was not a true abuse situation, and that when they asked Resident 3 again if any harm was done, Resident 3 denied it. During an interview with the Abuse Coordinator (AC) on 11/2/21 at 3:06 p.m., the AC stated the facility did not think the allegation made by Resident 3 was reportable. Review of Resident 3's clinical records did not indicate any care plan for making false allegations. During an interview with the Quality and Compliance Nurse (QCN) on 11/4/21 at 11:49 a.m., the QCN stated if there was any abuse allegation, the facility needed to report it immediately and no later than 2 hours and started the investigation. Review of the facility policy titled, ELDER AND DEPENDENT ADULT SUSPECTED ABUSE & REPORTING, revised 11/28/17, indicated, All suspected/alleged or witnessed abuse . shall be immediately reported verbally and/or in writing . The mandated reporter is responsible for completing a telephone report to . the licensing agency (CDPH) immediately or as soon as practicable .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet the professional standards of nursing practice w...

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 meet the professional standards of nursing practice when Licensed Nurse (LN) did not ensure Resident 183 swallowed the medications after administration for a census of 130. This failure placed the resident at risk for ineffective medication therapy and increased the potential for choking. Findings: Resident 183 was a short term resident in the facility with diagnoses which included a history of bleeding in the space that surrounds the brain and was at an advanced age. In a concurrent observation and interview on 11/1/21 at 10:25 a.m., Resident 183 was lying in her bed and stated she needed some juice to swallow her medications. LN 6 who administered the medications to the resident was in the hallway right outside the resident's room. LN 6 came into the resident's room and gave the resident water in a plastic cup with a straw. When the resident opened her mouth to drink the water, multiple pills, approximated 6 to 7 pills, were observed on her tongue. Some of the medications were partially dissolved and others were not. LN 6 confirmed the pills in her mouth and stated she administered the the medications with water to the resident a short time ago. LN 6 stated it was the facility policy for LNs to stay with residents until they finished swallowing the medications. LN 6 stated, I don't know why she has the meds [medications] in her mouth. In an interview on 11/3/21 at 10:23 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility expectations for LNs regarding medication administration were to ensure residents took all the medications by having the residents open their mouths to check whether they pocketed (kept pills in the mouth) the pills. The DON stated it was more so for a new resident or when the LN was not familiar with the resident. The DON acknowledged Resident 183 was admitted on [DATE] and new to the facility. The DON stated it was the professional nursing standards that LNs ensure residents swallow all medications after the administration and the facility referred to the nursing professional procedure book, Clinical Nursing Skills. Review of the professional nursing skills and procedures book, Clinical Nursing Skills, 9th edition, stipulated when LNs administer oral medication to adults, Offer water or other liquid. Rationale: The liquid aids swallowing, dilution, and absorption of medication .Make sure client [Resident] swallows medication.
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

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a skin assessment was conducted and documented for one resident (Resident 3), for a census of 130. This failure had th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a skin assessment was conducted and documented for one resident (Resident 3), for a census of 130. This failure had the potential for Resident 3 to not receive adequate care and monitoring. Findings: Resident 3 was admitted to the facility in mid-2018 with diagnoses that included anxiety disorder. During an observation conducted on 11/1/21 at 1:30 p.m., Resident 3 was observed to have a reddish to purplish discoloration on her right forearm measuring approximately 12 centimeters (cm, a unit of measurement) x 4 cm, and on her left forearm measuring approximately 6 cm x 4 cm. A review of Resident 3's clinical records did not indicate any documentation of discoloration on Resident 3's forearms. Review of Resident 3's Progress Notes dated 11/1/21 at 3:19 p.m. by Licensed Nurse (LN) 2, indicated, IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT [Resident 3] HAD A LARGE DISCOLORED AREA AROUND HER WRIST . During an interview with the LN 2 on 11/3/21 at 8:53 a.m., LN 2 stated she did not document the left arm discoloration that was reported. LN 2 further stated she thinks Resident 3 had that discoloration a while back and it just stayed on Resident 3's skin. LN 2 stated there was no previous documentation of Resident 3's left arm discoloration. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/4/21 at 9:14 a.m., the DON stated her expectation was that if a bruise was noticed, the licensed staff needed to evaluate it, determined the cause, and document. Review of a facility policy titled, Skin Integrity Protocol, revised 6/4/21, indicated, . Residents are evaluated to identify any current skin impairment . Ongoing Evaluation . A licensed nurse will document the status of each skin impairment .
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident environment remained free from accide...

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 resident environment remained free from accident hazards as possible when Resident 5's smoking materials were not kept in a secure location, for a census of 130. This failure had the potential for residents to have access to smoking materials without supervision. Findings: Resident 5 was admitted to the facility in late 2019 with diagnoses that includied cerebrovascular disease (conditions that affect blood flow and the blood vessels in the brain). During an observation conducted on [DATE] starting at 8:31 a.m., Resident 5 was smoking outside in the patio. At 8:49 a.m., Resident 5 came back inside the facility, returned cigarettes and a lighter which were inside a small plastic container by pushing it down behind the nurses' station counter. The Licensed Nurse (LN) 2 took the container and placed it further back on the counter. The nurses' station did not have any doors. In an interview with the LN 2 on [DATE] at 8:50 a.m., the LN 2 stated they just kept the cigarettes and lighter behind the nurses' station counter and stated they are the only ones who had access to it. In an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 4:46 p.m., the DON stated nurses usually keep resident cigarettes and lighter in their medication carts. The DON further stated if a resident smoked often, they like having them easily accessible and stated they can be secured in a drawer. The DON stated, I don't think it's safe, for cigarettes and lighter to be stored in the nurses' station counter. Review of a facility policy titled, SMOKING, revised [DATE], indicated, . Smoking materials (matches, lighters, cigarettes, etc.) belonging to residents who require smoking supervision will be maintained in a secure location.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent with 27 observed opportunities for one of six sampled residents (Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than 5 percent with 27 observed opportunities for one of six sampled residents (Resident 49), when: 1.Resident 49 was administered calcium carbonate (used to treat gas and stomach pain) 750 mg (milligram is a unit of measuring weight) instead of prescribed calcium carbonate 500 mg, 2. Resident 49's lidocaine patch (medication used to treat pain) was administered instead of notifying the physician when the nurse knew that the previous patch was not removed as prescribed the night before. These failures resulted in 2 medication errors identified out of 27 opportunities during Medication pass observation. This resulted in the facility having a medication error rate of 7.41 percent. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 49's admission record, indicated Resident 49 was admitted late 2021 with multiple diagnoses that included Rhabdomyolysis (a serious medical condition due to a direct or indirect muscle injury). During a review of Resident's 49's physician order for November 2021, indicated, . Aspercreme (lidocaine)[OTC (over the counter)] adhesive patch, medicated; 4% amt: ONE PATCH; topical Special instructions: **apply patch to left shoulder q am[every morning] and remove qhs [every bedtime] . During a medication pass observation on 11/1/21 at 8:45 a.m., when Licensed Nurse (LN) 10 was going to apply a lidocaine patch to Resident 49's left shoulder, the old Lidocaine patch was still there. LN 10 stated, It's still here. LN 10 removed the old lidocaine patch from Resident 49's shoulder and applied the new lidocaine patch. LN 10 did not notify the physician that the old patch was left on Resident 49 for more than the prescribed hours and that it was possible for overmedication before applying the new lidocaine patch. 2. During a review of Resident 49's physician's orders for November 2021, indicated, .Antacid (Calcium Carbonate) 200mg calcium (500 mg[milligram]); amt [amount]:1 Tablet; oral three times a day . During a medication pass observation on 11/1/21 at 8:57 a.m., LN 10 administered antacid tablets ES (extra strength) calcium carbonate 750 mg 1 tablet. During an interview on 11/2/21 starting at 11:02 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the old lidocaine patch should have been removed in the evening as per the physician order. The DON acknowledged it was a medication error and stated the nurse should have notified the physician when she noted the old patch was still on from the day prior. A review of facility's policy, dated 5/16 titled Medication Administration indicated, .Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the prescriber .
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy services were maintained for nine of 130 residents when: 1. Residents' identification was not verified at the...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure pharmacy services were maintained for nine of 130 residents when: 1. Residents' identification was not verified at the time of medication administration for Resident 31, Resident 81, and Resident 83, which put residents 31, 81 and 83 at risk of receiving the wrong medication, 2. Disposed non-controlled medications (prescription medications with less risk of addiction and harm) were retrievable or were destroyed in sharp containers (a hard plastic container that is used to safely dispose of hypodermic needles and other sharp medical instruments), which could result in drug diversion, 3. Two expired medications were available for use for Resident 44 and 99 in the medication cart, which put residents 44 and 99 at risk of receiving expired medication, 4. Resident 99's opened inhaler (used to administer medication by breathing in) in the medication cart was not dated, which put Resident 99 at risk of receiving expired or outdated medication, 5. Loose pills were found in the medication carts, which could result in diversion of the loose medication, 6. The temperature of medication refrigerator in wing C was out of range, which put medication requiring a specific temperature at risk of degradation, and, 7. Controlled drug (medication that may be abused or cause addiction) record forms were not filled out and signed immediately at the time of medication administration for Resident 1, 90, 93, and 176, which could result in diversion of the residents' medication. Findings: 1. During the medication pass observation on 11/1/21 at 9:42 a.m., Licensed Nurse (LN) 9 did not ask Resident 81's name or check their name bracelet before administering the medications. During the medication pass observation on 11/1/21 at 9:46 a.m., LN 9 did not ask Resident 83's name or check their name bracelet before administering the medications. During the medication pass observation on 11/1/21 at 9:52 a.m., LN 9 did not ask Resident 31's name or check their name bracelet before administering the medications. During an interview with LN 9 on 11/1/21 at 9:56 a.m., LN 9 stated she verified residents' identities by looking at their pictures in electronic Medication Administration Record and by calling residents by their names. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/2/21 at 03:40 p.m., the DON stated nurses needed to do two resident identity verifications before medications are administered to the residents. Review of the facility policy titled Medication Administration, dated 05/16, indicated, .Residents are identified before medication is administered using at least two resident identifiers. Methods of identification may include: a. Check identification band b. Check photograph attached to medical record c. Verify resident identification with other nursing care center personnel . 2. During a medication pass observation and interview with LN 10 on 11/1/21 at 9:13 a.m., a drug disposal container for non-controlled medications, in the medication room on wing B, had multiple whole pills of different colors and sizes that were retrievable. There was no liquid solution or other method used to render the medications unusable. During the same observation pills were in the sharps container attached to medication cart 2 on wing B. LN 10 verified medications were discarded in the sharps container. LN 10 stated only sharps should be discarded in the sharps container. During a concurrent observation and interview with LN 9 on 11/1/21 at 9:56 a.m., LN 9 verified there were pills discarded in the sharps container attached to medication cart 2 in wing D. LN 9 stated, I see a yellow pill in there, lots of them. LN 9 stated only sharps were to be discarded in the sharps container. She stated non controlled medications were discarded in the disposal container in the medication room on wing D. The medication disposal container in the medication room on wing D had multiple whole pills of different colors and sizes that were retrievable. There was no liquid solution or other method used to render the medications unusable. During an interview with the DON on 11/2/21 at 11:02 a.m., the DON stated pills should not be discarded in the sharps containers. Non-controlled medications should be disposed of in the specific disposal containers in the medication rooms. The DON stated she was not aware that non-controlled disposed medications should be non-retrievable. Review of the facility policy titled, Disposal of Medications, Syringes and Needles Disposal of Medications, dated 12/12, indicated, .Methods of disposition of pharmaceutical hazardous and non-hazardous waste are consistent with applicable state and federal requirements, local ordinances, and standards of practice .the appropriate method non-controlled medication destruction is .Transfer medication to trash receptacle following destruction to unusable consistency *Mixing medications with an undesirable substance, such as used coffee grounds or kitty litter, and putting them in impermeable, non-descript containers, such as empty cans or sealable bags; will further ensure the drugs are not diverted . 3. During an inspection of medication cart 2 on wing B with LN 1 on 11/2/21 at 9:50 a.m., two expired medications were in the cart available for use: a. Resident 44's ondansetron medication (used to prevent nausea and vomiting) bubble pack with two pills left in it, with expiration date 4/2021, and, b. Resident 99's albuterol sulfate inhaler (used to prevent and treat wheezing and shortness of breath caused by breathing problems such as asthma, lung diseases) with expiration date 9/2021. LN 1 verified the expired medications in the medication cart were available to use for Residents 99 and 44. During a continued interview with the DON on 11/2/21, starting at 11:02 a.m., the DON stated expired medications should not be in the medication cart. She further added expired medications should have been removed from the medication cart. A review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage, dated 11/17, indicated, .Outdated .medications .are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal . 4. During an inspection of the medication cart 2 with LN 1 in wing B on 11/2/21 at 9:50 a.m., an open budesonide and formoterol inhaler (used to control and prevent symptoms of asthma and improve lung functions) had no open date (date the medication was removed from the protective foil pouch). The instructions on the inhaler carton indicated, .Discard within three months after removing from the foil pouch . LN 1 verified the inhaler had no open date. A review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration dated 5/16, indicated, .The nurse shall place a 'date opened' sticker on the medication .and enter the date opened .Certain products or package types such as multi-dose vials .have specified shortened end-of-use dating, once opened, to ensure medication purity and potency . A review of the facility policy titled, Medication Ordering and Receiving From Pharmacy provider Medications and Medication Labels, dated 5/16, indicated, .Multi-dose vials shall be labeled to assure product integrity, considering the manufacturer's specifications. (Example: Modified expiration dates upon opening the multi-dose vial.). Nursing staff should document the date opened on multi-dose vials on the attached auxiliary label . 5. During an inspection of medication cart 2 on wing D with LN 2 on 11/2/21 at 9:03 a.m., LN 2 verified there were two loose pills in the medication cart. During an inspection of medication cart 2 on wing B with LN 1 on 11/2/21 at 9:50 a.m., LN 1 verified there were eight and half loose pills in the medication cart. During an inspection of medication cart 1 on wing B with LN 1 on 11/2/21 at 10:11 a.m., LN 1 verified there were two and half loose pills in the medication cart. During an inspection of medication cart 1 on wing C with LN 11 on 11/2/21 at 10:25 a.m., LN 11 verified there were loose pills in the medication cart. During a continued interview with the DON on 11/2/21 starting at 11:02 a.m., the DON stated they needed a different process for loose pills. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage dated 11/17, indicated, .Medications are stored properly .to maintain their integrity and to support safe effective drug administration .Medication storage should be kept clean, well lit, organized and free of clutter . Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Ordering and Receiving From Pharmacy Provider Medications and Medication Labels dated 5/16, indicated, .Each prescription medication will be labeled . 6. During a concurrent observation and interview with LN 11 on 11/2/21 at 10:43 a.m., the temperature of the medication refrigerator in medication room on wing C was 29°F (degree Fahrenheit: unit of measurement). There were multiple medications in the refrigerator including insulin vials, four prefilled syringes of influenza vaccine, darbepoetin alfa injections (used to treat anemia) and one E-kit including drugs: insulin vial, lorazepam vial (used to treat anxiety), prochlorperazine (can treat nausea and vomiting) and promethazine (treats allergy symptoms) suppositories (medications inserted into the rectum). LN 11 verified the refrigerator temperature was 29°F and medications were present in the refrigerator. During an interview with the DON on 11/2/21 starting at 11:02 a.m., the DON stated the normal temperature range for the medication refrigerator was 36°F to 46°F. The DON stated the thermometer in medication refrigerator on wing C may not be working. During an observation on 11/2/21 at 3:59 p.m., the temperature of the medication refrigerator in medication room on wing C was still of out range at 30°F. Review of the facility policy titled, Refrigerator/Freezer Checklist dated 5/97, indicated, .Adequate temperature of drug/food stored in the refrigerator will be maintained .Acceptable temperatures ranges for the refrigerator: 36F - 46F . Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage, dated 11/17, indicated, .Medications requiring refrigeration or temperatures between 2°C (36°F) and 8°C (46°F) are kept in a refrigerator with a thermometer to allow temperature monitoring .A temperature log or tracking mechanism is maintained to verify that temperature has remained within accepted limits . 7. During an inspection of the medication cart 2 on wing B with LN 1, on 11/2/21 at 10:01 a.m., a controlled drug count for Resident 93's hydrocodone/acetaminophen (combination of two pain medications) 5/325 milligram (mg: unit of measureming weight) was not accurate. There were 43 tablets of hydrocodone/acetaminophen 5/325 mg in the medication bubble pack and the controlled drug log indicated there should be 44. LN 1 stated the nurse gave the medication to the resident earlier and forgot to sign after giving it. During an inspection of the medication cart 1 on wing C with LN 11, on 11/2/21 at 10:25 a.m., the controlled drug count for Resident 1's hydrocodone/acetaminophen 7.5/325 mg , Resident 90's tramadol (pain medication) 50mg, and Resident 176's oxycodone/acetaminophen (combination of two pain medications) 5/325 mg were not accurate. There were two hydrocodone/acetaminophen 7.5/325 mg tablets and controlled drug log indicated there should be three tablets. There were 8 tablets of tramadol 50mg in the bubble pack and the controlled drug log indicated there should be 9 tablets. There were 40 tablets of oxycodone/acetaminophen in the bubble pack and controlled drug log indicated there should be 41 tablets. LN 11 stated she gave these medications to the residents earlier. LN 11 stated she should have documented on the controlled drug count log at the time she administered the medications. During an interview with the DON on 11/2/21 starting at 11:02 a.m., the DON stated controlled drug count record should be signed at the time of medication administration. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration Controlled Substances, dated 11/17, indicated, .Controlled medications are obtained from the locked cabinet or safe, or medication cart .When a controlled medication is administered, the licensed nurse administering the medication immediately enters the following information on the accountability record when removing dose from controlled storage .a. Date and time of administration b. Amount administered c. Signature of the nurse administering the dose .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

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 medications were stored correctly for the cens...

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 medications were stored correctly for the census 130, when: 1. A medication cart was not locked and left unattended during medication pass, 2. Two medication bottles were left on top of the medication cart unattended and accessible to unauthorized personnel, 3. Disposed non-controlled medications (prescription medications with less risk of addiction and abuse) were retrievable and not properly destroyed, 4. Loose pills were found in the medication carts on wing B, C and D, and; 5. Temperature of a medication refrigerator on wing C was out of range. 6. A medication cart drawer was left open and unattended, These failures had the potential for medication misuse, drug diversion and medication ineffectiveness. Findings: 1. During a medication pass observation with Licensed Nurse (LN) 10 on 11/1/21 at 9:07 a.m., LN 10 entered room [ROOM NUMBER] to check Resident 100's blood pressure. LN 10 left the cup with medications on top of the medication cart in the middle of the hallway about 3 feet away from room [ROOM NUMBER] entrance and did not lock the medication cart when entering room [ROOM NUMBER]. At 9:12 a.m., LN 10 returned to the medication cart after she checked Resident 100's blood pressure and verified she did not lock the medication cart and she left medication unattended on top of the cart. LN 10 stated she should have locked the cart. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration dated 05/16, indicated, .During administration of medications, the medication cart is kept closed and locked when out of sight of the medication nurse. No medications are kept on top of the cart. The cart must be clearly visible to the personnel administering medications when unlocked . Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage dated 11/17, indicated, .The medication supply shall be accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized .medication supplies should remain locked when not in use or attended by persons with authorized access . 2. During a medication pass observation on 11/1/21 at 9:35 a.m., one bottle of aspirin and one bottle of vitamin C were left on top of the medication cart unattended in the hallway on the opposite side of room [ROOM NUMBER] on wing D. There was a certified nursing assistant near the cart. There was no nurse in the hallway. At 9:38 a.m., LN 9 came out of room [ROOM NUMBER]. LN 9 acknowledged she left two medication bottles on top of the medication cart. LN 9 added she usually leaves those medications up on top of the medication cart to avoid bending down to retrieve them. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Administration dated 05/16, indicated, .During administration of medications, the medication cart is kept closed and locked when out of sight of the medication nurse. No medications are kept on top of the cart. The cart must be clearly visible to the personnel administering medications when unlocked . Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage dated 11/17, indicated, .The medication supply shall be accessible only to licensed nursing personnel, pharmacy personnel, or staff members lawfully authorized .medication supplies should remain locked when not in use or attended by persons with authorized access . 3. During a medication pass observation and interview with LN 10 on 11/1/21 at 9:13 a.m., a drug disposal container for non-controlled medications, in the medication room on wing B, had multiple whole pills of different colors and sizes that were retrievable. There was no liquid solution or other method used to render the medications unusable. During the same observation pills were in the sharps container (a hard plastic container that is used to safely dispose of hypodermic needles and other sharp medical instruments), attached to medication cart 2 on wing B. LN 10 verified medications were discarded in the sharps container. LN 10 stated only sharps were to be discarded in the sharp container. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/1/21 at 9:56 a.m., LN 9 verified there were pills discarded in the sharps container attached to medication cart 2 in wing D. LN 9 stated, I see a yellow pill in there, lots of them. LN 9 stated only sharps were to be discarded in the sharps container. She stated non controlled medications were discarded in the disposal container in the medication room on wing D. The medication disposal container in the medication room on wing D had multiple whole pills of different colors and sizes that were retrievable. There was no liquid solution or other method used to render the medications unusable. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/2/21 starting at 11:02 a.m., the DON stated pills should not be discarded in the sharps containers. Non-controlled medications should be disposed of in the specific disposal containers in the medication rooms. The DON stated she was not aware that non-controlled disposed medications should be non-retrievable. Review of the facility policy titled, Disposal of Medications, Syringes and Needles Disposal of Medications, dated 12/12, indicated, .Methods of disposition of pharmaceutical hazardous and non-hazardous waste are consistent with applicable state and federal requirements, local ordinances, and standards of practice .the appropriate method non-controlled medication destruction is .Transfer medication to trash receptacle following destruction to unusable consistency *Mixing medications with an undesirable substance, such as used coffee grounds or kitty litter, and putting them in impermeable, non-descript containers, such as empty cans or sealable bags; will further ensure the drugs are not diverted . 4. During an inspection of medication cart 2 on wing D with LN 2 on 11/2/21 at 9:03 a.m., LN 2 verified there were two loose pills in the medication cart. During an inspection of medication cart 2 on wing B with LN 1 on 11/2/21 at 9:50 a.m., LN 1 verified there were eight and half loose pills in the medication cart. During an inspection of medication cart 1 on wing B with LN 1 on 11/2/21 at 10:11 a.m., LN 1 verified there were two and half loose pills in the medication cart. During an inspection of medication cart 1 on wing C with LN 11 on 11/2/21 at 10:25 a.m., LN 11 verified there were loose pills in the medication cart. During an interview with the DON on 11/2/21 at 11:02 a.m., the DON stated they need a different process for loose pills. Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage dated 11/17, indicated, .Medications are stored properly .to maintain their integrity and to support safe effective drug administration .Medication storage should be kept clean, well lit, organized and free of clutter . Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Ordering and Receiving From Pharmacy Provider Medications and Medication Labels dated 05/16, indicated, .Each prescription medication will be labeled . 5. During a concurrent observation and interview with LN 11 on 11/2/21 at 10:43 a.m., the temperature of the medication refrigerator in medication room on wing C was 29°F (degree Fahrenheit: unit of measurement). There were multiple medications in the refrigerator including insulin vials, four prefilled syringes of influenza vaccine, darbepoetin alfa injections (used to treat anemia) and one E-kit including drugs: insulin vial, lorazepam vial (used to treat anxiety), prochlorperazine (can treat nausea and vomiting) and promethazine (treats allergy symptoms) suppositories (medications inserted into the rectum). LN 11 verified the refrigerator temperature was 29°F and medications present in the refrigerator. During an interview with the DON on 11/2/21 starting at 11:02 a.m., the DON stated the normal temperature range for the medication refrigerator was 36°F to 46°F. The DON stated the thermometer in medication refrigerator on wing C may not be working. During an observation on 11/2/21 at 3:59 p.m., the temperature of the medication refrigerator in medication room on wing C was still of out range at 30°F. Review of the facility policy titled, Refrigerator/Freezer Checklist dated 5/97, indicated, .Adequate temperature of drug/food stored in the refrigerator will be maintained .Acceptable temperatures ranges for the refrigerator: 36F - 46F . Review of the facility policy titled, Medication Storage, dated 11/17, indicated, .Medications requiring refrigeration or temperatures between 2°C (36°F) and 8°C (46°F) are kept in a refrigerator with a thermometer to allow temperature monitoring .A temperature log or tracking mechanism is maintained to verify that temperature has remained within accepted limits . 6. During an observation conducted on 11/2/21 at 10:14 a.m., a medication cart was in a hallway with a medication cart drawer left open and unattended. The nurse in charge of the medication cart was standing inside the nurses' station while talking to the unit manager. The nurse and unit manager were both facing away from the medication cart. In an interview with LN 8 on 11/2/21 at 10:18 a.m., LN 8 confirmed the medication cart drawer was left opened. The LN stated she was getting an order and further stated the medication cart should not have been left open. Review of a facility policy titled, Medication Administration General Guidelines, dated 1/21, indicated, . During administration of medications, the medication cart is kept closed and locked when out of sight of the medication nurse .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare meals that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance when recipes were not followed for meal production. This ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prepare meals that conserve nutritive value, flavor, and appearance when recipes were not followed for meal production. This failure had the potential for 124 residents of a census of 130 not receiving the nutritional value of their meals. Findings: During an observation and interview on 11/2/21, at 8:50 a.m., [NAME] 2, took a pan out of the oven containing olive color peas. She added an unmeasured amount of the peas to the food blender to blend. She added an unmeasured amount of milk and butter to the mixture and continue to blend. This mixture was then placed in a pan, covered with aluminum foil and placed inside the steamer oven for lunch. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 9:34 a.m., [NAME] 2, stated she did not used a recipe (step-by-step preparation procedures, cooking details, portion sizes to maintain nutrient contents) to puree the peas. She eye-balled the ingredients, used about half a bag of peas, blended with milk and butter to an apple sauce consistency. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 3:21 p.m., the Registered Dietician (RD), stated the expectation was for cooks to follow the recipes for pureed foods and blend to an apple sauce consistency. During a review of the facility's recipe, titled Pureed Vegetables, page 22, indicated, 1. Complete regular recipe. Measure out the number of portions needed for puree diets. 2. Pureed on low speed to a paste consistency before adding any liquid. 3. Gradually add warm liquid if needed. (For 6 servings 1 to 3 ounces of milk or broth). During an observation on 11/2/21, at 9:40 a.m., [NAME] 2, placed an unmeasured amount of chicken nuggets in the food blender, added 7 ladle scoops of broth and mixed. Added the remaining unmeasured chicken nuggets, an unmeasured amount of broth with sliced mushrooms and proceeded to blend. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 9:40 a.m., [NAME] 2, stated she did not follow a recipe to pureed the chicken. When asked about why the chicken nuggets were used instead of the roasted chicken, [NAME] 2 stated they usually used a frozen meat instead of the main entrée for the pureed meals. During a review of the facility's recipe, titled Pureed Meats, page 18, indicated, 1. Complete regular recipe. Measure out the number of portions needed for pureed diets. 2. Puree on low speed to a paste consistency before adding any liquid. 3. Gradually add warm liquid (For 6 servings add 6 to 12 ounces of warm fluid or broth) . During a review of the facility's Cooks Spreadsheet (rotating menu types with measurements and approved by the Registered Dietician), titled Fall Menus Week 1 Tuesday, indicated, lunch menu: Baked chicken with [NAME] Sauce, boiled red potatoes, seasoned peas, parsley garnish, cornbread . the same lunch menu was scheduled for all diet textures (modified food to make it safer to eat and swallow). During an observation on 11/2/21, at 4:00 p.m., [NAME] 1 pulled a pan of corn out of the oven, placed on the steam table, added 2 scoops of mayonnaise, 3 handfuls of parmesan shredded cheese and mixed the ingredients. Then sprinkled chili powder to the mix. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 4:00 p.m., [NAME] 1 stated he did not follow a recipe to prepare the corn. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 3:21 p.m., the RD stated the expectation was for the cooks to follow the recipes.
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 ensure safe food production and minimize the potential for food borne infections when: 1. Open food packages (various cereal...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe food production and minimize the potential for food borne infections when: 1. Open food packages (various cereals, dill weed seasoning, and sliced cheese) were not labeled with open dates; and, 2. Kitchen equipment and floors were dirty and/or worn (steam table pans, fan, cutting boards and meat slicer), and metal shelves were rusty. These failures had the potential to expose 124 residents of a census of 130 to expired foods and placed these residents at risk for food borne infections (illness caused by consuming contaminated foods or beverages). Findings: 1. During an observation of the initial kitchen tour on 11/1/21, at 8:32 a.m., an opened 35 ounce bag of Toasted Oats, an opened 35 ounce bag of Corn Flakes, and an opened 28 ounce box of Farina hot wheat cereal in the dry storage area were not labeled with an open date. An opened 5.5 ounce bottle of dill weed in the prep area of the kitchen was not labeled with an open date. An opened 5 pound bag of sliced cheese in the refrigerator was found with no open date. During an interview on 11/1/21, at 1:48 p.m., the Food Service Director (FSD) confirmed the various cereals, the dill weed spice and the sliced cheese were not labeled with an open date. She stated that the expectation for any food that was opened should be labeled so staff know when to throw it out. The FSD stated it is a 14-day policy for using cheese once opened and that cheeses needed to be used or discarded within 14 days. She further stated that cheese is under the food code and is considered a potentially hazardous food that needed extra protection to minimize bacterial growth. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 3:29 p.m., the Registered Dietitian (RD) confirmed an opened package should be labeled with an open date. Review of the facility policy titled, Food Storage dated 10/29/18, indicated, .Opened packages of dry food which are to be stored will be dated upon opening .Refrigerated storage shall be maintained .opened containers will be dated and labeled 2. a. During a kitchen observation on 11/1/21, at 8:05 a.m., the dry storage floors had a black build-up material on the tiles (particularly under the shelving units). The walk-in refrigerator and walk-in freezer floors were found wet, had rubbish and litter on them. Under the walk-in refrigerator and freezer shelves there was a build-up of debris and dust. During an interview on 11/1/21, at 1:49 p.m. the Food Services Director (FSD), confirmed the walk-in refrigerator and freezer floors had rubbish and litter on the floor. She stated, it was about time to do a deep cleaning. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 8:40 a.m., the Maintenance Assistant, stated the floor guy quit, and the other guy is off today. The kitchen floor gets deep cleaning as needed. The Director of maintenance in on leave. I cannot verify how often the floor gets cleaned or if a Log exists. b. During a kitchen observation on 11/1/21, at 8:05 a.m., a large portable floor fan was blowing air towards the wet sanitized dishes. The fan had a build-up of gray/black particles, leaving a black smudge on finger when wiped across the fan. During an interview on 11/1/21, at 1:49 p.m. the FSD, confirmed the fan was dirty and removed the floor fan from the area. c. During a kitchen observation on 11/1/21, at 8:05 a.m., two metal shelving units, storing clean dishes, had rusty metal slots. During an interview on 11/1/21, at 1:49 p.m., the FSD confirmed the metal carts storing clean dishes needed refurbishing. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 3:21 p.m., the RD confirmed that she completed a Kitchen Assessment two weeks ago and documented the rusty dish storage carts. The assessment was given to the Facility Administrator. d. During a kitchen observation on 11/2/21, at 3:57 p.m., a meat slicer had rusty bolts. On the blade facing inside the grinder, there was a layer of dry black, orange/yellow build-up of food particles. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 4 p.m., the Assistant Food Services Director, (AFSD), confirmed the meat slicer had rusty bolts and was dirty. The AFSD, disassembled the meat slicer and sanitized it in the 3-compartment sink. e. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview on 11/2/21, at 3:57 p.m., the can opener had rusty blades. The AFSD confirmed the can opener had rusty blades. f. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview on 11/2/21, at 8:29 a.m., a cutting board had visible cuts, was discolored, and worn. The FSD confirmed the cutting board needed replacement. A review of the Facility policy, titled Sanitation and Cleaning, revised 10/29/18, indicated, 1. All kitchens .areas shall be kept clean, free from litter and rubbish .2. All .equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair and shall be free from .corrosions, cracks, rust .6. Meat slicers .should be cleaned and sanitized after each use . 7. All floors in the food preparation area and storage areas are washable .and cleaned daily. 13. Refrigerators and freezers to be cleaned monthly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection prevention practices to prevent the development and transmission of communicable (contagious) diseases and i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection prevention practices to prevent the development and transmission of communicable (contagious) diseases and infections when: 1. Five Residents (Resident 44, Resident 49, Resident 89, Resident 185, and Resident 320) were not offered hand hygiene prior to meals; and, 2. One staff entered the kitchen and did not wash hands prior to touching equipment. These failures had the potential to spread germs and make the residents ill in the facility for a census of 130. Findings: 1. During an observation on 11/2/21, at 11:51 a.m., Resident 49, Resident 89 and Resident 44 were not offered hand hygiene when lunch meal trays were passed out by staff. During an observation on 11/3/21, at 12:30 p.m., Resident 320 and Resident 185 were not offered hand hygiene when lunch meal trays were passed out by staff. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/2/21, at 12:23 p.m., Resident 44 was noted to be holding his urinary catheter (a flexible tube used to empty the bladder and collect urine in a drainage bag) with his left hand and eating a cookie with his right hand. Resident 44 acknowledged it was an infection control issue to be eating and holding his urinary catheter at the same time. Resident 44 further stated that staff did not offer to wash his hands before eating lunch. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 12:18 p.m., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 4, confirmed Resident 44 was holding his urinary catheter before lunch and stated, I should have taken him back to the sink and wash his hands again. She further stated that the risk of not performing hand hygiene could spread bacteria to the resident. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 12:28 p.m., Licensed Nurse (LN) 12, confirmed Resident 44 was known to hold his urinary catheter and staff would re-educate the resident to the risk. She stated that hand hygiene should have been done before Resident 44 ate his lunch meal. LN 12 further stated there was a risk of spreading bacteria when hand hygiene was not performed before eating. During an interview on 11/3/21, at 2:23 p.m., the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated that staff should offer hand hygiene to all residents before eating their meals. Review of the facility policy titled, Hand Hygiene Program, dated 6/6/20, indicated, .resident hand hygiene is performed .before meals . 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/2/21, at 8:40 a.m., Maintenance did not perform hand hygiene when he entered the kitchen and proceeded to touch the ice and the ice machine parts with his bare hands. During an interview on 11/3/21, at 3:35 p.m., Maintenance confirmed he was using his bare hands while handling the ice and looking at the ice machine parts. He further stated he attended an in-service on hand hygiene this year. During an interview on 11/2/21, at 3:29 p.m., the Registered Dietitian (RD), stated the Administrator and Maintenance Director were aware of Maintenance not following hand hygiene. The RD further stated that expectation for all staff entering kitchen was to wash their hands. She explained that maintenance should have known better, as ice was considered a ready to eat food. During an interview on 11/3/21, at 2:23 p.m., the IP stated that if non-kitchen staff needed to enter the kitchen, the expectation would be to wash their hands. She further stated hand hygiene in-service for all staff was provided last month. Review of the facility policy titled, Hand Hygiene Program, dated 6/6/20, indicated, .All personnel shall follow established hand hygiene procedures to prevent the spread of infection and disease to other personnel, residents, and visitors .
Feb 2019 9 deficiencies
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 ensure dignity and respect were maintained when staff...

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 dignity and respect were maintained when staff referred to the residents as feeders for 5 residents (Resident 99, Resident 120, Resident 27, Resident 58, and Resident 332) for a census of 144. These failures increased the potential to diminish residents' self-esteem and self-worth. Findings: Review of the admission Records indicated the following: Resident 99 was admitted to the facility in mid-2018 with diagnoses which included difficulty swallowing and slurred speech. Resident 120 was admitted to the facility in mid-2017 with diagnoses which included difficulty swallowing. Resident 27 was admitted to the facility in mid-2015 with diagnoses which included memory loss, tremors and muscle rigidity. Resident 58 was admitted to the facility in mid to late 2015 with diagnoses which included memory loss, dehydration, and difficulty breathing. Resident 332 was admitted to the facility in early 2019 with diagnoses which included memory loss. During an observation and concurrent interview on 2/21/19 at 12:35 p.m., Resident 99, Resident 120 and Resident 332 were in the [NAME] hall mini-dining room. Licensed Nurse 5 (LN 5) referred to the residents as feeders while talking to this surveyor as she stood in the hallway 2 feet from the dining room. During an observation and concurrent interview on 2/21/19 at 12:55 p.m., Certified Nurse Assistant 5 (CNA 5) referred to Resident 58 and Resident 27 as feeders while talking to this surveyor as she stood by the entrance betweeen Resident 58 and Resident 27 rooms. A review of the facility's in-service provided document titled Class Handout: Dignity and Reasonable Accommodation of Needs indicated, Residents have the right to be treated with respect. Calling the resident by their last name .unless they tell you they prefer another name. All residents will be treated in a manner which maintains and enhances their dignity. Review of the facility's record titled Your Resident's Rights, indicated that residents are To be treated with . respect, and full recognition of dignity, individuality, including . treatment and care of personal needs. In an interview on 2/22/19 at 10:50 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that staff were expected to address the residents with their preferred names. The DON further stated that staff were expected to not address the residents who require feeding assistance feeders. The DON acknowledged that it was considered a dignity issue.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to directly involve a resident and resident's representative in their own treatment decisions for one of 32 sampled residents (Resident 483) w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to directly involve a resident and resident's representative in their own treatment decisions for one of 32 sampled residents (Resident 483) when consent for a psychotropic medication was not obtained prior to administration. This failure resulted in the resident receiving treatment that they did not approve nor was adequately explained to them. Findings: Resident 483 was admitted to the facility in 2019 with diagnoses which included stroke, episodes of fainting, low blood pressure, and a generalized anxiety disorder. Review of Resident 483's clinical record included: A physician order, dated 2/9/19, directed, Resident does not have the capacity to understand choices and make healthcare decisions. A physician order dated 2/15/19 for [olanzapine] (a medication that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) 2.5 mg (milligrams, a medication dose measurement) orally to be given at bedtime. No diagnosis or specific behavior manifestation to be treated was present in the order. No behavioral or side effect monitoring was ordered. A physician notification form, dated 2/15/19, indicated the resident had an order for [olanzapine], and there was no informed consent for the medication from Resident 483's son. A physician's written response on the physician notification form, dated 2/16/19, to hold the [olanzapine]. A medication administration record, dated 2/19/19, indicated Licensed Nurse (LN) 6 administered [olanzapine] 2.5mg at 9:24 p.m. A Verification of Informed Consent form signed by the resident's physician for medication [olanzapine], dated 2/20/19, one day after the medication was administered. A progress note, dated 2/21/19, from LN 6 who administered the [olanzapine] on 2/19/19, indicated the doctor and the resident's son were notified the medication was given. In an interview on 2/21/19 at 10:47 a.m. with LN 1, she stated medications like [olanzapine] cannot be given without informed consent. In an interview and subsequent record review of Resident 483's medication administration record conducted on 2/22/19 at 8:05 a.m. with LN 2, LN 2 confirmed the medication was given on 2/19/19 and she did not know why the medication was given without informed consent. A facility policy titled Psychotropic Medication Use, dated 8/25/17, stipulated Prior to the administration of psychotropic medications, the nurse shall verify that the resident's health record contains documentation that resident/representative has given informed consent to the physician, including those residents admitted with pre-existing orders for psychotropic medications. In an interview with the Director of Nursing on 2/22/19 at 10:25 a.m., she stated the nurse needed to verify consent was obtained prior to administering medications such as [olanzapine].
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

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were turned every two hours as ordered by the physician for 1 of 32 sampled residents (Resident 100). This f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were turned every two hours as ordered by the physician for 1 of 32 sampled residents (Resident 100). This failure resulted in Resident 100 not receiving the needed treatment and care to prevent worsening of pressure ulcer (localized damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue). Findings: Review of the clinical record for Resident 100 included: An admission Record indicated Resident 100 was admitted to the facility mid to late 2016 with diagnoses which included stage IV (full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage or bone) pressure ulcer of sacral (buttocks) region. A Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) on admission, indicated the resident scored 15 out of 15 possible points on the Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS), which indicated no memory deficit. The MDS, indicated the resident had an unhealed stage IV pressure ulcer and at risk of developing pressure ulcers. The MDS, indicated the resident needed extensive assistance with Assistance of Daily Living (ADLs) -bed mobility and transfer. A physician's order, dated 10/23/18, indicated that the resident was to be on Turning protocol every 2 hours to sides. A Care Plan initiated on 8/26/16, indicated Assist /encourage resident to turn and reposition frequently. An observation on 2/19/19 of Resident 100 included: 8:40 a.m. - resident was observed in bed on her back. 10:30 a.m. - resident was in bed on her back, watching television. 12:30 p.m. - resident was in bed eating lunch. 2:30 p.m. - resident on her right side, propped with pillows. 3:50 p.m. - Licensed Nurse (LN ) 3 turned resident to right side and provided wound care. The wound had full-thickness tissue loss with no exposed bone, muscle or tendon. LN 3 changed the dressing and turned resident on her back. 4:30 p.m. - resident in bed on her back watching television. During an interview on 2/19/19 at 8:55 a.m., LN 3 stated that Resident 100 was only repositioned when needed. During an interview on 2/19/19 at 10:30 a.m., Resident 100 stated, No one has repositioned me. An observation on 2/20/19 of Resident 100 included: 7:55 a.m. - resident was in bed eating breakfast. 9:50 a.m. - resident was in bed on her back. 11 a.m. - resident was out of the room. 2:30 p.m. - resident was in bed on her back. 4:30 p.m. - resident was in bed on her back. During an interview on 2/20/19 at 7:55 a.m., Resident 100 stated, Woke up 5 a.m., took my medications, laying in bed on my back. Went back to sleep and woke up 7:20 a.m. in the same position. No one has turned me. During an interview on 2/20/19 at 9:50 a.m., Resident 100 stated, Nobody has been turning me or told me to turn. During an interview on 2/20/19 at 4:30 p.m., LN 3 stated that the resident was repositioned but not every two hours. Review of Activities for Daily Living (ADLs) for Resident 100 dated 2/9/19 and 2/19/19, indicated there was no documented evidence that Resident 100 was on a turning schedule every two hours. Review of facility document titled, Skin Integrity Protocol revised 3/3/11, indicated, Treatment orders must be continued until a discontinue order is received .A care plan will be implemented for each site .Preventive measures .include .repositioning. During an interview on 2/22/19 at 10:50 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that there was no policy for repositioning. DON further stated that if resident was identified in the MDS for at risk of pressure ulcers, it should be care planned. DON acknowledged that care plan and order should have been followed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the use of a smoking apron during smoking brea...

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 use of a smoking apron during smoking breaks for 1 resident (Resident 101), for a sample size of 32. This failure increased the risk for Resident 101 to sustain burn injuries. Findings: Resident 101 was admitted to the facility in late 2013 with diagnoses including stroke. Resident 101's Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool), dated 1/16/19, indicated a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS, a cognitive assessment tool) of 15/15, indicating Resident 101 was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident 101 required 1-person assistance to perform personal hygiene functions. Review of Resident 101's clinical record indicated a Physician's Order with a start date of 1/30/19 for divalproex [a medication] .FOR TREMORS. During two separate observations on 2/19/19 at 12:01 p.m., and 2/20/19 at 7:27 a.m., Resident 101 was observed smoking on the [NAME] patio without a smoking apron and without staff supervision. Resident 101 was observed with bilateral hand tremors. During an interview with Resident 101 on 2/20/19 at 7:35 a.m., Resident 101 stated she lights her own cigarettes. She stated she smokes 1-2 cigarettes before and after breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Resident 101 denied she was supervised by staff while she smoked. Resident 101 stated, The nurse makes me a cup of coffee before I go out [for a smoke]. I have tremors and it's gotten bad. I can't do it [make a cup of coffee] myself anymore. During an interview with Licensed Nurse (LN) 9 on 2/20/19 at 10:15 a.m., LN 9 stated Resident 101 wore her smoking apron 60% of the time while she smoked. LN 9 stated Resident 101 required a smoking apron because of her tremors. Review of Resident 101's Care Plan titled, RESIDENT IS AN ACTIVE SMOKER, dated 1/15/15, indicated, SMOKING APRON ON WHENEVER SHE IS GOING OUT TO SMOKE AS SHE HAS BILATERAL HAND TREMORS. Review of Resident 101's Smoking Risk assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 101 Requires Smoking Apron. A review of the facility policy titled, SMOKING, revised 12/23/14, indicated, All residents who smoke will be required to participate in a Resident Smoking Assessment conducted by a member of the interdisciplinary team to determine whether they exhibit the ability to smoke safely. As a result of the assessment, resident may require supervision and/or a smoking apron while smoking for safety. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/22/19 at 10:37 a.m., the DON confirmed Resident 101 did not wear an apron every time she smoked. During an interview with LN 9 on 2/22/19 at 11:30 a.m., LN 9 stated Resident 101 sometimes forgets to wear her smoking apron, but she is compliant with wearing the apron when asked to. LN 9 stated, She never refuses. LN 9 stated Resident 101 has tremors and needs the apron. LN 9 stated both the nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants were aware of what was on a residents' care plans. She stated she expected the care plans to be implemented and carried out.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify and/or document a specific diagnosis or condition to necessitate the administration of a psychotropic medication for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to identify and/or document a specific diagnosis or condition to necessitate the administration of a psychotropic medication for one of 32 sampled residents (Resident 483). This failure resulted in the resident receiving a medication without the proper monitoring or indication needed for appropriate use, effectiveness, and possible side effects, and therefore placed the resident at risk for harm. Findings: Resident 483 was admitted to the facility in 2019 with diagnoses which included stroke, episodes of losing consciousness, low blood pressure, and a generalized anxiety disorder. Review of Resident 483's clinical record included: A physician order, dated 2/15/19, for [olanzapine] (a medication that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) 2.5 mg (milligrams, a medication dose measurement) orally to be given at bedtime. No diagnosis or specific behavior manifestation to be treated was present in the order. No behavioral or side effect monitoring was ordered. A medication administration history record, dated 2/1/19-2/22/19, indicated [olanzapine] 2.5mg was administered by a Licensed Nurse (LN) 6 on 2/19/19 at 9:24 p.m. In an observation on 2/19/19 at 8:15 a.m., Resident 483 was resting in bed and being informed by a staff member that breakfast would be coming soon. Resident was calm and agreeable with staff. Resident 483 did not appear agitated and spoke in a calm and quiet voice. The facility's policy titled Psychotropic Medication Use, dated 8/25/17, directed Residents on psychotropic medications will be monitored for appropriate use, effectiveness, side effects, and possible dose reduction .The physician order for psychotropic medications will include the name of the medication, dose, route, frequency, diagnosis, and the specific behavior manifestation to be treated. In an interview with Licensed Nurse (LN) 1 on 2/21/19 at 10:47 a.m., LN 1 reported the resident's behavior was monitored and charted every shift while on [olanzapine]. LN1 acknowledged the first charted behavior and side effect monitoring for [olanzapine] was on 2/20/19 for agitation on the evening shift. An interview with LN 2 and concurrent record review was conducted on 2/22/19 at 8:05 a.m. LN 2 was unable to show behaviors and side effects for [olanzapine] were being monitored when the medication was administered on 2/19/19 at 9:24 p.m.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain aseptic techniques during medication administration for 1 resident (Resident 111), for a sample size of 6. This fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain aseptic techniques during medication administration for 1 resident (Resident 111), for a sample size of 6. This failure had the potential for Resident 111 to develop a blood infection. Findings: Resident 111 was admitted to the facility in early 2019 with diagnoses including osteomyelitis (a bone infection) of the lower leg. Review of Resident 111's clinical record indicated a physician's order with a start date of 1/16/19 for imipenem-cilastatin intravenous (an antibiotic medication administered directly into the veins) for osteomyelitis. During a concurrent interview and Medication Administration Observation by two surveyors from the Department on 2/20/19 at 8:07 a.m., Licensed Nurse (LN) 10 was observed touching the uncapped sterile tip of a flush (a syringe filled with fluid that is injected directly into a vein or artery) to her left gloved palm while she was cleaning the port of the peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC, an intravenous catheter connected directly into a large blood vessel). When the Department interrupted LN 10 from connecting the flush to the PICC port and informed LN 10 of their observation, LN 10 stated she needed a new flush. During an interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) on 2/21/19 at 10:58 a.m., the IP stated when accessing IV lines and PICCs, aseptic techniques should always be used. The IP stated the facility follows Association for Professionals in Infection Control and Epidemiology(APIC) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines for Infection Control and Prevention. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/22/19 at 10:37 a.m., the DON concurred a contaminated flush should not be administered to a resident. A review of the facility policy titled, Infection Control Program, revised 11/17/15 indicated, The Governing Board, through the Quality Assessment and Assurance and the Infection Control Committee, has adopted infection control policies and procedures as those that best reflect the needs and operational requirements of this community in the prevention and transmission of infections and communicable diseases as set forth in current .CDC guidelines and recommendations. A review of the CDC guidelines titled, Guidelines for the Prevention of Intravascular Catheter-Related Infections, 2011 (p. 28, 53) directed, Maintain aseptic technique for the .care of intravascular catheters .Minimize contamination risk by scrubbing the access port with an appropriate antiseptic .and accessing the port only with sterile devices . Accessed on 2/28/19 at 3:04 p.m., URL: https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/guidelines/pdf/bsi/bsi-guidelines-H.pdf
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure side rail (SR) assessments for entrapment (a position or situation from which it is difficult or impossible to esca...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure side rail (SR) assessments for entrapment (a position or situation from which it is difficult or impossible to escape) risk were completed prior to resident use for a census of 139 of 144 Residents. This failure had the potential to cause restricted exit from bed, increased risk of injury, and lead to a decline in functional status (an individual's ability to perform normal daily activities required to meet basic needs, fulfill usual roles, and maintain health and well-being). Findings: During observations conducted on 2/19/19 to 2/22/19, the bilateral (on each side of the bed) upper side rails were observed in the upward position on 139 of 144 Resident's beds. During an interview on 2/22/19 at approximately 9:00 a.m., with the Licensed Nurse (LN) 7, when asked to provide information to validate the Residents' were assessed for entrapment risk due to side rail use. LN 7, expressed an entrapment assessment had not been completed because . all of the mattresses are the same size. We do have new beds on [unit name] but they are not moved from unit to unit. All of the deminsions and size of the beds are the same . During a concurrent interview on 2/22/19 at 9:30 a.m., with the Administrator and Director of Environmental Services (DES), the Administrator and DES confirmed the facility did not have a process in place to assess for entrapment risk. Per the DES, measurements were not taken for entrapment risk. The DES stated, We only change the dimensions of the bed if the medical staff ask us to extend or widen the bed due to the Resident's size. We do no measure for entrapment risk. The Administrator agreed with the DES's statement. During an interview on 2/22/19 at 11:08 a.m., the DON, confirmed the facility did not have a policy or process in place to assess for entrapment risk. The DON validated the use of upper side rails was the standard practice at the facility. Per the DON, We use them (SR) as an enabler.
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 residents were served food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, for a census of 143, when...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were served food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, for a census of 143, when: 1. A Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 4 was observed picking up a dinner roll from residents' (Resident 72 and Resident 73) trays with her bare hands; 2. A storage bin contained an unidentified white powdery substance; and 3. 6 expired spice containers were available for use. These failures increased the potential for foodborne illness/allergies in a vulnerable population. Findings: 1. During a dining observation on 2/19/19 at 12:30 p.m., CNA 4 was observed delivering a meal tray to Resident 72. CNA 4 picked up the resident's dinner roll with her bare hands, cut and buttered it, and returned it to the resident's tray. CNA 4 then went back to the dining cart, removed another tray and delivered it to Resident 73. CNA 4 picked up the dinner roll with her bare hands, cut and buttered it, and returned it to the resident's tray. In an interview on 2/19/19 at 1:00 p.m., CNA 4 stated it was, Probably not facility policy to handle the residents' food with her bare hands. In an interview on 2/21/19 at 11:00 a.m., the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated when plates are uncovered and staff are assisting residents with their meals, food cannot be touched with a bare hand. 2. During a kitchen tour on 2/19/19 beginning at 8:05 a.m., a storage bin containing a white powdery substance was observed labelled with a best by date of 3/15/19, but did not identify what the item was. In an interview on 2/19/19 at 8:45 a.m., the Dietary Supervisor (DS) verified the white powdery substance in the bin was thickener, and it should have been labelled. According to the Federal Food Code 2017, Section 3-602.11 Food Labels, it instructed, Label information shall include: (1) The common name of the FOOD, or absent a common name, an adequately descriptive identity statement . Section 3-302.12 Food Storage Containers, Identified with Common Name of Food, also included, Certain foods may be difficult to identify after they are removed from their original packaging. Consumers may be allergic to certain foods or ingredients. The mistaken use of an ingredient .may result in severe medical consequences. 3. 6 spice containers were observed to be labelled as follows: 1) Cayenne Pepper. Labelled with an open date of 10/2/17 and the manufacturer label indicated it expired on 9/22/16. 2) Oregano. No open date on container and the manufacturer label indicated it expired on 3/22/16. 3) Black Sesame Seeds. No open date on container and the manufacturer label indicated it expired on 12/19/16. 4) Baking Powder. No open date on container and the manufacturer label indicated it expired on 12/21/17. 5) Rubbed Sage. No open date on container and the manufacturer label indicated it expired on 8/17/17. 6) [NAME] Pepper. Labelled with an open date of 12/30/17 and the manufacturer label indicated it expired on 6/16/16. A review of the Food Storage facility policy, last revised on 10/29/18, stipulated, Opened packages of dry food which are to be stored will be dated upon opening . In an interview on 2/19/19 at 8:45 a.m., the DS confirmed it is the facility policy to label items with the open date. The DS confirmed several of the spice containers were expired or not labelled properly.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document on the baseline care plan for one out of 32 sampled residents (Resident 483), information specific to the resident's immediate men...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document on the baseline care plan for one out of 32 sampled residents (Resident 483), information specific to the resident's immediate mental health and psychosocial monitoring and indication of treatment needs. This failure could result in patient care staff missing parts of Resident 483's individualized plan of care. Findings: Resident 483 was admitted to the facility in 2019 with diagnoses which included stroke, episodes of fainting, low blood pressure, and a generalized anxiety disorder. Review of Resident 483's clinical record included: A physician's order list containing the medications fluoxetine (a medication for depression) 10 mg (milligrams, a medication dose measurement) to be given daily starting 2/9/19, and trazadone (a medication for inability to sleep) 50mg to be given at bedtime as needed starting 2/12/19. There was no documentation in the baseline care plan in Resident 483's record related to the indications of use and monitoring for side effects for the ordered medications fluoxetine and trazadone. A facility policy titled Psychotropic Medication Use, dated 8/25/17, directed The care plan for each resident will specify the behavior and side effects to be monitored, non-drug interventions, and a method of evaluating the effectiveness of the medication. In an interview conducted on 2/22/19 at 10:25 a.m., the Director of Nursing stated the resident's care plans should reflect the specific mood and behaviors being monitored for residents receiving psychotherapeutic medications and the black box warning care plan does not take the place for those care plans.
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
  • • 29% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 19 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 53 deficiencies on record, including 2 serious (caused harm) violations. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 61/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Fair Oaks Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns FAIR OAKS HEALTHCARE CENTER an overall rating of 4 out of 5 stars, which is considered above average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 99% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This rating reflects solid performance across the metrics CMS uses to evaluate nursing home quality.

How is Fair Oaks Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates FAIR OAKS HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 29%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Fair Oaks Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 53 deficiencies at FAIR OAKS HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2019 to 2025. These included: 2 that caused actual resident harm, 50 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Fair Oaks Healthcare Center?

FAIR OAKS HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 CYPRESS HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 149 certified beds and approximately 142 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in FAIR OAKS, California.

How Does Fair Oaks Healthcare Center Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, FAIR OAKS HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (29%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Fair Oaks Healthcare Center?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Fair Oaks Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, FAIR OAKS HEALTHCARE CENTER 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Fair Oaks Healthcare Center Stick Around?

Staff at FAIR OAKS HEALTHCARE CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 29%, the facility is 17 percentage points below the California average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 19%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Fair Oaks Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

FAIR OAKS HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $8,990 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,169. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Fair Oaks Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

FAIR OAKS HEALTHCARE CENTER 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.