MAYERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

43563 HWY 299 E, FALL RIVER MILLS, CA 96028 (530) 336-5511
Government - Hospital district 99 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
13/100
#848 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: August 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Mayers Memorial Hospital received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns and a poor reputation among nursing facilities. It ranks #848 out of 1155 in California and is last in Shasta County at #10, placing it in the bottom half of local options. The facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 8 in 2024 to 15 in 2025. Staffing is an average strength with a turnover rate of 0%, which is much lower than the state average, but the nursing coverage has not been adequate at times, potentially impacting resident care. The facility has accumulated $62,258 in fines, which is concerning and higher than 84% of California facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. Specific incidents include a failure to maintain a clean environment for residents with infections, inadequate RN staffing on multiple occasions, and serious sanitation issues in food preparation areas, raising significant red flags for potential residents and their families.

Trust Score
F
13/100
In California
#848/1155
Bottom 27%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
8 → 15 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
✓ Good
$62,258 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for California. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
39 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 8 issues
2025: 15 issues

The Good

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

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Federal Fines: $62,258

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 39 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Aug 2025 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

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 2 of 7 sampled residents (Residents 17 and 19) ...

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 2 of 7 sampled residents (Residents 17 and 19) were treated with dignity and respect when the facility did not have portable oxygen tanks (can be taken anywhere) available and the residents had no choice but to use oxygen concentrators (a large, noisy, and not portable machine that requires electricity).This failure resulted in preventing Resident 2 and 7 from going anywhere there was not an electrical outlet, such outdoors, to appointments and out on pass with their family. This caused Resident 2 and 7 to feel embarrassed, confined, angry and anxious, which resulted in mental aguish and loss of dignity. During a record review of Facility's Resident Rights, undated, the resident's rights indicated, The resident has the right.(11) To be treated with consideration, respect and full recognition of dignity and individuality.A review of Resident 17's medical record indicated that Resident 17 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included, Vascular Dementia (decline in thinking skills caused by conditions that block or reduce blood flow to various regions of the brain), Heart Failure (heart muscle does not pump blood well), and Anxiety Disorder (feelings of unease to intense fear). A review of Resident 17's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a tool for evaluating and implementing a standardized assessment) Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, Section C assessing cognitive function) score, dated 7/18/2025, indicated Resident 17 rated 6/15, which equates to a severe cognitive impairment. Resident 17 was not their own representative (RP), does not make their own medical decisions, but is able to verbalize needs and preferences.A review of Resident 19's medical record indicated that Resident 19 was admitted on [DATE] for diagnoses that included, Dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving, and other thinking skills that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), Heart Failure, and Anxiety Disorder. A review of Resident 19's MDS, the BIMS score, dated 7/11/2025, indicated Resident 19 rated15/15, which equates to cognition intact. Resident 19 was their own RP, made their own medical decisions, and was able to verbalize needs and preferences.During an observation and interview on 8/5/25 at 12:00 pm, in the hall in front of the nurse's station with Resident 17, who stated, the portable oxygen tanks are not being filled because the machine is broken again, so we have to drag these bulky things around wherever we go, if you want to be out of your room. Some people stay in their rooms because they don't want to be tied to this machine; you must sit by a wall plug-in. It is embarrassing and I don't like it.During an observation and interview on 8/5/25 at 12:45 pm, in the dining room with Resident 19, who stated, we use these (concentrators) when they can't fill the other ones (portable oxygen tanks), the machines are bulky and have to be plugged in, and you have to have help. It can be troublesome.During an interview on 8/6/25 at 07:45 am, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) E, in the lobby, CNA E stated, the oxygen concentrators are oftentimes not working to fill portable tanks. We have had them fixed a lot but they keep on breaking. I have heard we may be going to a different company. We do have to help the residents take the concentrators with them to travel around, so residents are not stuck in their rooms. The cords can be a safety concern sometimes, like in the dining room.During an interview on 8/6/25 at 08:45 am, with [NAME] Clerk (WCL) G at the nurse' station, WCL G stated, I have been here since 6/11/25 and I know I have called the oxygen service provider to send a technician out at least 6 times since I started. It is frequent. They were supposed to come out on Friday 8/1/25, and just did not show up. I had to call on Monday 8/4/25, the provider was not aware that the technician did not show up. A lot of our residents go out of the facility with their families. When no portable oxygen tank is available, the family activities are curtailed, and some residents stay in their rooms because they do not want to drag the concentrators around.During an interview on 8/6/25 at 9:00 am, with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) B, outside the facility by the laundry building, ADON confirmed the concentrators have had to be fixed multiple times in addition to problems with operator errors. We have had technicians out quite a bit to fix different issues with the large concentrators. When the concentrators don't work the portable tanks cannot be filled, so the residents have to use either their room oxygen, or concentrators which must be plugged in to the electric outlets to work. Residents do need assistance to take the concentrator machine unit where there is an electrical outlet. This can be a problem for the residents because of the machine's size, and the potential safety concern with the cord.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

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 provide a homelike environment when 6 out of 8 reside...

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 provide a homelike environment when 6 out of 8 resident bathrooms observed were found to have unsanitary conditions around the toilets and floors.This was unsightly with the potential to cause health issues due to bacteria and cause the residents psychological stress and depression.During a review of the facility’s, “Resident [NAME] of Rights”, undated, the [NAME] of Rights indicated, (e ) The facility shall be clean, sanitary, and in good repair at all times.” During an observation and interview on 8/5/25 at 3:30 pm, while in resident room [ROOM NUMBER] with Family Member (FM) H. FM H stated, “Have you looked at the bathroom? It is disgusting.” Resident restroom [ROOM NUMBER] was observed to have a gap around the toilet base and the linoleum where the caulking (a waterproof filler or sealant used to seal cracks or gaps to prevent buildup and water damage), was torn and missing, grime had collected in the gap resulting in discolored buildup, which appeared to be dirty with the resemblance of urine or fecal matter buildup. In general, the linoleum was old, scratched up, and in disrepair. FM H stated, “I want it to be homelike here, and I would never allow my home restroom to look like this.” During an observation on 8/5/25 at 4:30 pm, in resident restroom [ROOM NUMBER], there was a gap between the linoleum and the toilet base with torn or missing caulking. The discolored buildup in the gap resembled dried urine or fecal matter. During an observation and interview on 8/6/25 at 9:30 am, with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) B, in resident restroom [ROOM NUMBER], the linoleum gap around the toilet with torn caulking and discolored buildup was observed, as well as the condition of the linoleum on the floor. ADON B confirmed the bathroom was is not in acceptable condition. During an interview on 8/6/25 at 11:45 am, with Environmental Services Manager (EVM) in ADON B's office, EVM stated,We know there are issues with floor disrepair and are working on them. During a review of the facility’s document titled, Housekeeping Principles,” with an effective date of 4/25/19, indicated the facility, “promotes a sanitary environment by incorporating infection control principles into housekeeping practices”. In the section titled, Procedure: Frictional Cleaning”, indicated, “Thorough scrubbing is used for all environmental surfaces that are cleaned in patient care areas”. The policy continues in the section, “Routine Cleaning of Horizontal Surfaces”, “…cleaning of non-carpeted floors and other horizontal surfaces is done daily and or frequently if spillage or visible soiling occurs”. During an observation on 8/4/25 at 1:44 pm, in resident restroom [ROOM NUMBER], the base of the toilet had dark grime collected resulting in discolored buildup on the caulking, which appeared to resemble dried urine. During an observation on 8/4/25 at 2:20 pm, in resident restroom [ROOM NUMBER], the base of the toilet was missing caulking, and had dark grime and loose dirt debris that encircled the base of the toilet. The floor had grime buildup, loose dirt debris, and a black scuff mark. During an observation on 8/4/25 at 2:25 pm, in resident restroom [ROOM NUMBER], the caulking at the base of the toilet was chipped and had yellow staining, which appeared to resemble dried urine. Caulking was partially missing from the base of the toilet and had a buildup of grime and loose dirt debris. The floor had dark grime buildup, loose dirt debris, and black scuff marks. During an observation on 8/4/25 at 2:27 pm, in resident restroom [ROOM NUMBER], the base of the toilet had grime collected resulting in discolored buildup on the caulking, which appeared to resemble dried urine. The floor had dark grime buildup and loose dirt debris. During an interview in the hallway with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) I on 8/6/25 at 7:36 am, when asked about the resident restrooms on the unit, LVN I confirmed the condition of the restrooms on the unit were, “not good and are unsanitary. My bathroom would not look like this”. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) B in the office on 8/6/25 at 10:14 am, when asked about the condition of the resident restrooms, the ADON B confirmed the restrooms had, “inadequate maintenance and they need to be addressed”.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0605 (Tag F0605)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to meet this requirement when three of five sampled residents (Residents 3, 5, and 29) with dementia (a brain problem that affec...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, observation, and record review, the facility failed to meet this requirement when three of five sampled residents (Residents 3, 5, and 29) with dementia (a brain problem that affects memory and behavior), received antipsychotic medications (drugs that regulate or control thinking and behaviors) without an adequate indication for use (target symptom or behavior) when: 1. Specific, measurable, behaviors that are not subjective;2. Non-pharmacologic (non- drug) interventions were tried to address residents' behaviors prior to administering antipsychotic agents, and;3. A physician's response to the pharmacist's recommendations for use of these medications was not done. These failures had the potential for unwanted and adverse medication side effects including; motor and sensory instability (unreliable thinking and ability to move), dizziness, drowsiness, increased risk of falls and fractures, and death caused by heart problems. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Residents with Dementia Antipsychotic Medication indicated: 1a.: The physician in conjunction with the interdisciplinary team (IDT) will add resident-specific, non-pharmacological (non drug) interventions upon admission, and routinely throughout therapy when needed and; 1b.: The IDT will continue to follow the specific non-pharmacological interventions to make sure they are the best fit for the resident. This will be done at least monthly. and;2. Upon initiation of an antipsychotic medication for a resident with a diagnosis of dementia [age-related decline in brain function], the Charge LVN will obtain from the physician an approved diagnosis for the antipsychotic medication and specific behaviors for its use. Whenever there is a change in the resident's medical condition or medical status, the consultant pharmacy, at the bequest of the facility, will review the resident's current medications. The consultant pharmacist will then recommend to the physician any specific dose reductions, additions/changes, and or discontinuations, based on need, labs, and the current dose.Clinical record review indicated Resident 3 was admitted for medical conditions that included unspecified dementia, chronic kidney disease, and emphysema (loss of ability of lungs to expand). Review of resident 3's physician orders indicated that on 6/17/25, his physician ordered Rexulti (brexpiprazole, an antipsychotic medication) for agitation, (undefined) related to unspecified dementia, unspecified severity, with other behavioral disturbances, which were also further undefined. Resident 3's physician orders indicated that he first received Rexulti on 5/10/25 for agitation which had not specified the specific target behavior or symptom.Review of Resident 3's care plan dated 5/12/25, indicated that resident had, an alteration in mood and behavior related to dementia as evidenced by physical aggression toward staff and peers, including verbal aggression and agitation toward staff/peers. The terms aggression and agitation were undefined, without example, creating a potential for subjective interpretation by various staff assessing Resident 3's behavior. Resident 3's care plan indicated an absence of non-pharmacologic approaches other than general statements such as anticipate the resident's needs, and approach the resident in a calm manner. Review of Resident 3's electronic medication administration record (eMAR) dated 5/11/25, indicated that Behavior Monitoring was constituted by verbal aggression, and agitation without further definition or examples of aggressive or agitated acts. Review of Interdisciplinary Team (IDT, a group of facility managers who oversee resident care) notes dated 7/1/25, had not addressed Resident 3's use of Rexulti. There was no discussion of what target symptoms the antipsychotic medication was prescribed for or what the expected risks and benefits were for Resident 3 by using this medication.Review of progress notes entered by Charge LVN (LN C) on 6/05/25 at 8:42 am, indicated only broad examples of aggression, which were mainly toward staff. LVN C indicated in that progress note that Rexulti may have been an inappropriate medication for Resident 3, Resident continues to have aggressive behaviors towards staff and peers. This morning resident got agitated that another resident was calling out to go to the restroom. Making threatening statements towards nursing staff stating he was going to fight the nurse and take care of him. These behaviors seem to continue to worsen and is becoming a safety issue for not only other residents but staff as well. Rexulti seems to be ineffective at this time.During a concurrent interview and observation on 8/5/25 at 9:15 am, of Resident 3 stated that he had problems with roommates he has had and, the alarms that were going off all the time. He appeared unkept, had long uncombed hair, and had difficulty communicating clearly. He currently had no roommate. In an interview on 8/6/25 at 10:57 am, LVN C stated that she couldn't recall any non-pharmacologic interventions for Resident 3. LVN C stated that Resident 3 was new, and that she was the charge nurse helping staff contact the medical provider about the resident's behaviors of throwing objects and threatening his roommates. She stated the as she recalls it, the provider just put in the order, but she couldn't recall what staff might have tried otherwise before starting an antipsychotic drug. LVN C stated that Resident 3 had received a dose of Clonidine (a blood pressure medicine) that was abruptly stopped; Resident 3's provider suspected it could have had an interaction with other medication and caused Resident 3's agitation. LVN C stated that Rexulti was ordered and started around the same time as stopping Clonidine, which made it difficult to asses what the Rexulti was actually contributing to the medication mix. LVN C confirmed that using the antipsychotic was aggressive, adding, there were other things that staff could try before aggressive treatment.Record review indicated Resident 5 was admitted to the facility for medical conditions that included a history of stroke, unspecified dementia, nerve pain, weakness, and need for assistance. Review of Resident 5's physician orders indicated that her physician ordered Rexulti 0.5 milligrams (mg, a unit of measure) by mouth once daily, on 1/22/25, for agitation related to dementia. No further definition of agitation was described. Resident 5's physician orders indicated that on 3/26/25 Resident 5's dose of Rexulti was increased to 1 mg, and that the medication was discontinued 5/14/25, and restarted as 0.5 mg on 5/28/25, at the recommendation of the resident's daughter.Review of IDT notes had not addressed Resident 5's use of Rexulti. There was no discussion of what target symptoms the antipsychotic medication was prescribed for or what the expected risks and benefits were for Resident 5, by using this medication.Resident 5's record titled, Order Summary dated 5/28/25 indicated, Monitor for the following behaviors: A) Verbal aggression toward staff and others; B) Physical aggression toward staff and others. There were no defining characteristics of verbal or physical aggression. Review of Resident 5's care plan dated 1/22/25 through 7/21/25, indicated Rexulti as the first intervention for the Resident 5's behavior of, Aggressive documented episodes with her roommates, Anger, Poor impulse control, and Attempt at leaving the facility unassisted. No nonpharmacologic approaches were included on the care plan. In an interview and observation on 8/4/25 at 3:30 pm, Resident 5 was observed to be socializing in activities and stated she doesn't need any medication, she's fine.In an interview on 8/5/25 at 12:44 pm, LVN B stated that Resident 5 received Rexulti after she had episodes of aggression toward others and staff, mostly consisting of threatening her roommate, hostility toward her granddaughter, and refusing showers and washing hair. In an interview and concurrent review on 8/5/25 at 3:21, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON confirmed that behaviors listed as aggressive could be more specific. DON confirmed that Resident 3 and 5's IDT notes had not addressed the use of Rexulti or included specific target behaviors, non-pharmacological interventions to be tried, and what the expected risks and benefits were for the use of the antipsychotic medication in accordance with the facility's policy, and should have.Review of Resident 29's clinical record indicated that he was admitted to the facility for conditions that included dementia and a need for staff assistance in carrying out activities of daily living. A review of Resident 29's physician's orders indicated that on 4/28/25 an order was entered by his physician for Zyprexa (olanzapine, an antipsychotic drug), Oral Tablet 5 mg, once daily at bedtime for aggressive behaviors related to dementia. A review of 29's e-MAR from January to July 2025, indicated that the facility had not monitored any behaviors for the use of Zyprexa for Resident 29.A review of Resident 29's pharmacist drug regimen review (DRR) dated June 2025, indicated the Pharmacist's (PHARM) documented, Contacted provider.Resident has no charted behaviors for at least 120 days at time of review. OBRA F329 (federal Omnibus Reconciliation Act, a federal act that impacts use of antipsychotics) states that the lowest effective dose of antipsychotics should be used to control symptoms. Please evaluate a trail of a lower dose would be indicated. If dose not reduced, please work with nursing staff on targeted behaviors. The record further indicated that this was the pharmacist's fourth month in a row this recommendation was made without Resident 29's physician responding. The PHARM DRR also included that Buspar (an antianxiety medication) had no behavior monitoring and documented, Resident has had minimal behaviors charted for Buspar in May. None in June at time of review. Please evaluate. If dose reduction not indicated, please work with nursing staff to target behaviors. The DRR indicated Resident 29's physician had not responded to this review since May 2025, a period of three months.In an interview DON on 8/6/26 at 2:46 pm, and concurrent review of Resident 29's care plan , DON stated, Non-pharmacologic approaches appears to be none. She confirmed that the documentation was not adequate for justification of using an antipsychotic, and that there should be more specific about behaviors.In an interview and concurrent record review on 8/7/25 at 9:00 am, PHARM confirmed that he had reviewed all of the above medications. PHARM stated that Rexulti is a medication specific to agitation and aggressiveness in patients with dementia. Pharmacist stated, When I reviewed these orders, I looked at specific instances of agitation and aggression that could be harmful to the resident or others. PHARM confirmed that he reminded the DON and nursing staff that the documentation of behaviors over the last 120 days of his review needed to be more specific to meet the standard of using an antipsychotic in a skilled nursing setting. PHARM confirmed that his request to consider Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) for Resident 29 had carried over four months in a row unaddressed by Resident 29's physician. PHARM stated that Resident 29 was declining as would be expected with his disease, but at this point Resident 29 was almost nonverbal (unable to speak), so many of the behaviors he may have had in the past may not be continuing as he becomes more incapacitated. PHARM added that the use of antipsychotic medications in the elderly has been associated with falls and poor clinical outcomes, and that doses should be continuously evaluated throughout their disease progression.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 pharmacy services were maintained for a census...

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 pharmacy services were maintained for a census of 69 when the controlled drug (medication that may be abused or cause addiction) record form was not filled out and signed accurately. This failure could result in diversion of the residents' unused controlled medications.During an inspection of the controlled medication bin located in the medication room on 8/4/25 at 1:22 p.m., the controlled medication bin was observed to be locked and sealed with a numbered zip tie, 9973377, which was different than the recorded tag number, 9973375, on the controlled count sheet.During an interview on 8/4/25 at 1:25 p.m. with Charged Nurse (CN) A, CN A confirmed that the number stated on the numbered zip tie was not the same as the number recorded and signed by her on the controlled count sheet. CN A acknowledged it was a mistake.During an interview on 8/4/25 at 1:32 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, I see the potential that someone can come and switch out the tag. The code on the lock should match with the record to minimize the risk of drug diversion.Review of the facility policy and procedure titled, discontinued Medications and Controlled Substance Disposal, dated 4/24/25, indicated, [NAME] Memorial Hospital District's Skilled Nursing Facility handles discontinued medications in a secure, safe, and legal manner.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This regulation was not met when pharmacy recommendations were not followed or responded to by the Physician, Director of Nursin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** This regulation was not met when pharmacy recommendations were not followed or responded to by the Physician, Director of Nursing or nursing staff for three of six sampled residents (Residents 3 ,5, and 29), for periods of up to six months (120 days).This had the potential for residents to remain on unnecessary medication and potentially exposing them to unnecessary unwanted and adverse side effects of those medications, which included falls, confusion and death by heart related problems. Findings: Review of the facility's policy titled, Residents with Dementia Antipsychotic Medication, dated 6/18/24, indicated, Whenever there is a change in the resident's medical condition or medical status, the consultant pharmacy, at the bequest of the facility, will review the resident's current medications. The consultant pharmacist will then recommend to the physician any specific dose reductions, additions/changes, and or discontinuations, based on need, labs, and the current dose. The physician will review the dosage recommendations and determine at such time if a dose adjustment is medically indicated or clinically contraindicated [not necessary]. The reason for the medication to continue to be medically indicated will be answered in the response section on the consultant's recommendation or in the physicians' progress note.Clinical record review indicated Resident 3 was admitted for medical conditions that included unspecified dementia, chronic kidney disease, and emphysema (loss of ability of lungs to expand).Review of resident 3's physician orders indicated that on 6/17/25 his physician ordered Rexulti (brexpiprazole, an antipsychotic medication that alters thinking or behavior disturbances) for agitation. Review of Resident 3's monthly Pharmacy Medication Regimen Review (MRR) records dated 1/25 to 7/25/25, indicated no signature or response to the Pharmacist's recommendations from Resident 's physician, from 3/25/25 to present, a period of five months. Clinical record review indicated Resident 5 was admitted to the facility for medical conditions that included a history of stroke, unspecified dementia, nerve pain, weakness, and need for assistance with activities of daily living.Review of Resident 5's physician orders indicated that her physician ordered Rexulti 0.5 milligrams (mg, a unit of measure) by mouth once daily on 1/22/25, for agitation related to dementia.A review of the, Beers Criteria for Potentially Inappropriate Medications, a set of guidelines developed by the American Geriatrics Society, indicated Antipsychotics as a class of medications that have the potential to be unsafe in patients greater than [AGE] years old. Review of Resident 5's MRR's dated 1/25 to 7/25/25 indicated that in January, PHARM indicated to the provider, The combination of gabapentin [a nerve pain medicine] and an opioid (a strong narcotic pain medicine), was a high risk combination per the Beers list. Please document a risk benefit analysis that addresses risk of fall/fracture and respiratory depression. Gabapentin is ordered for nerve pain in back. Is it effective? Nerve pain in back is an off-label use. Resident 5's physician had not responded to PHARM's recommendations for 10 months. Review of Resident 29's clinical record indicated that he was admitted to the facility for conditions that included dementia and a need for assistance in his activities of daily living.A review of Resident 29's orders indicated that on 4/28/25 an order was entered by his physician for Zyprexa (olanzapine, an antipsychotic medication), Oral Tablet, 5 mg per day, for aggressive behaviors related to dementia.A review of Resident 29's MRR dated June 2025, indicated the Pharmacist's (PHARM) comments: Contacted provider.Resident has no charted behaviors for at least 120 days at time of review. OBRA F329 (federal Omnibus Reconciliation Act, a federal act that impacts use of antipsychotics) states that the lowest effective dose of antipsychotics should be used to control symptoms. Please evaluate a trail of a lower dose would be indicated. If dose not reduced, please work with nursing staff on targeted behaviors. The record further indicated that this was the pharmacist's fourth month in a row this recommendation continued. Resident 29's June 2025 MRR also indicated concerns for behavior documentation for the use of Buspar (an antianxiety medication), Resident has had minimal behaviors charted for Buspar in May. None in June at time of review. Please evaluate. If dose reduction not indicated, please work with nursing staff to target behaviors. No response was indicated in the physician's signature line.In an interview and concurrent record review on 8/7/25 at 9:00 am, PHARM confirmed that he had reviewed all of the above medications for Resident 29. PHARM confirmed that he reminded the DON and nursing staff that the documentation of behaviors for antipsychotics needed to be more specific to meet the standard of using an antipsychotic in a skilled nursing setting. PHARM confirmed that his request to consider Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR) for Resident 29 had carried over four months in a row unaddressed by the Physician, DON, and nursing staff.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication rate did not exceed 5% for 2 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 40 and 4).1. For Resident 40, a licensed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication rate did not exceed 5% for 2 of 6 sampled residents (Resident 40 and 4).1. For Resident 40, a licensed nurse was unable to administer Resident's 40's doxycycline, a medication to treat and prevent infections, with the rest of resident's morning medications when doxycycline was not available to be administered per Physician Orders.2. For Resident 4, a licensed nurse did not administer Resident 4's omeprazole, a medication to treat certain conditions where there is too much acid in the stomach, as ordered by the physician.As a result, 2 errors were identified out of 31 opportunities for error during the observation of medication administration; the facility medication error was 6.45%.1. During an observation of medication administration on 8/5/25 at 7:05 a.m., Licensed Nurse (LN) B was observed to prepare and administer Resident 40's morning medications which did not include Resident 40's doxycycline. During an interview on 8/5/25 at 7:10 a.m. with LN B, LN B stated, doxycycline was not available. Resident ran out short somehow, and I don't know why. Reconciliation of the observation of medication administration with Resident 40's current Physician Orders indicated an order, dated 7/30/25, doxycycline oral tablet, 100 mg (milligram, unit of measurement) by mouth two times a day for bronchitis (an inflammation of the bronchial tubes, the airways that carry air to your lungs) until 8/8/25. During an interview on 8/5/25 at 7:35 a.m. with the Charge Nurse (CN), the CN stated, RX [prescription] got extended by the provider, but the medication was still not received from the pharmacy. During another interview on 8/5/25 at 7:38 a.m. with LN B, LN B stated, the dose was just taken out of the emergency medication box and administered.During another interview on 8/5/25 at 11:59 a.m. with the CN, the CN stated, the pharmacy was contacted to follow up on the missing doses of doxycycline. During an interview on 8/5/2025 at 12:07 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, the expectation is to have the full dose of medication available for medication administration. If short [the quantity], the pharmacy needs to send the remaining quantity in a timely manner. A review of facility policy titled, Administering Medications, dated 9/2023, indicated Medications and treatment shall be administered as prescribed.retrieve medication from patient medication drawer.2. During an observation of medication administration on 8/5/25 at 7:58 a.m., LN B was observed to prepare and administer Resident 4's morning medications which included Resident 4's omeprazole. All medications were given together. Breakfast was already served and Resident 4 had consumed approximately 1/2 of his breakfast. Reconciliation of the observation of medication administration with Resident 4's current Physician Orders indicated an order, dated 5/17/25, for omeprazole oral capsule delayed release 20 mg, give 1 capsule by mouth two times a day for GI (gastrointestinal) protection give on empty stomach before breakfast. During an interview on 8/5/25 at 11:55 a.m. with LN B, the LN B stated according to the Physician Orders, Resident's omeprazole should have been given on empty stomach to protect Resident's stomach. Omeprazole was given to Resident after breakfast. LN B stated the order summary on the MAR (Medication Administration Record) did not match with the prescription label.During an interview on 8/5/25 at 12:10 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated, the nurses are expected to follow the Physician Orders. The nurses should make sure the MAR and Physician Order match. The MAR should have been updated to administer Resident's omeprazole to 7 a.m. allowing the nurse to have enough time to administer the medication before breakfast.A review of facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Administering Medications, dated 9/2023, the P&P indicated Medications and treatment shall be administered as prescribed.The 6 rights.the Right drug: read re-read med [medication] orders and drug label.the Right Time: times given are correct .recheck EMAR [Electronic Medication Administration Record] and medication bottle labels to insure patient name, medication, and directions match.
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 medications were stored correctly, when:1. An expired 3 ml (milliliter, unit of measure) insulin lispro pen, medicatio...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure medications were stored correctly, when:1. An expired 3 ml (milliliter, unit of measure) insulin lispro pen, medication used to treat high blood sugar levels, was found in the medication cart. 2. An expired 5 ml multidose vials of Tuberculin purified protein derivative testing agent, a solution used in a skin test to diagnose latent lung infection, was found in the medication room B's refrigerator. These failures had the potential for medication error, misuse, or administering expired and ineffective medications to the residents.1. During an inspection of medication cart Hall #2 with Licensed Nurse (LN) A on 8/4/25 at 1:19 p.m., an expired insulin lispro pen was found with an expiration date of 7/22/25 on the label. During an interview on 8/4/25 at 1:20 p.m. with LN A , LN A acknowledged that the insulin pen was expired and needed to be removed from the refrigerator. LN A stated, “expired medications will have reduced efficacy.” During a review of insulin lispro’s Provider Information (PI), last revised 9/2023, the PI indicated, “Do not use insulin lispro past the expiration date printed on the label .Throw away all opened vials after 28 days of use, even if there is insulin left in the vial.” During an interview on 8/4/25 at 1:35 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, the nurses should be checking for outdates every time they take over the cart. The insulin pens should be dated and replaced when they are expired. expired medications will not be effective. Review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, “Medication Procurement, Storage & Security” dated 3/2025, the P&P stated, “Drugs and biologicals are stored under the conditions recommended by the manufacturer…medications with shortened expiration dates are labeled with the new expiration date after first use. Example include insulin…outdated medications are removed from drug storage areas monthly…outdated, mislabeled, recalled, or otherwise unusable drugs and biologicals are not available for patient use and are stored separately…” 2. During an inspection of medication room B’s refrigerator on 8/4/25 at 8:43 a.m. with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) B, an expired 5 ml multi-dose vial of tuberculin purified protein derivative testing agent was found with “open date of 5/22/25” and “discard after 6/21/25” on the label. A review of the label on the product box indicated, “Discard opened product after 30 days.” During an interview on 8/4/25 at 8:54 a.m. with ADON B, ADON B confirmed that the tuberculin purified protein derivative testing agent was expired and needed to be removed from the refrigerator. ADON B stated, “It should have been removed from the active medication storage. The expired medication could be less effective and dangerous for a resident.” Review of the facility P&P titled, “Medication Procurement, Storage & Security” dated 3/2025, the P&P stated, “Drugs and biologicals are stored under the conditions recommended by the manufacturer…outdated, mislabeled, recalled, or otherwise unusable drugs and biologicals are not available for patient use and are stored separately…”
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

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 and control practices were followed when a blood pressure monitor (device used to measure blood p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection prevention and control practices were followed when a blood pressure monitor (device used to measure blood pressure) was not disinfected according to manufacturer's instructions after being used during medication pass observation. This failure had the potential to transmit blood-borne pathogens or bodily fluids between residents.During a medication pass observation with Licensed Nurse (LN) A on 8/5/25 at 8:30 a.m., LN A used a blood pressure monitor to measure Resident 40's blood pressure inside the resident's room. The blood pressure monitor was then taken out of resident room's and placed on the medication cart without being cleaned and disinfected.During a medication pass observation with LN A on 8/5/25 at 7:28 a.m., LN A used the same blood pressure monitor to measure Resident 13's blood pressure inside the resident's room. The blood pressure monitor was then taken out of resident's room and placed on the medication cart without being cleaned and disinfected.During a medication pass observation with LN A on 8/5/25 at 7:45 a.m., LN A used the same blood pressure monitor to measure Resident 2's blood pressure inside the resident's room. The blood pressure monitor was then taken out of resident's room and placed on the medication cart without being cleaned and disinfected.During an interview with LN A on 8/5/25 at 8:25 a.m., LN A acknowledged that the blood pressure monitor and cuffs were not cleaned and sanitized between patients. LN 1 stated, ideally blood pressure monitor and cuffs could be wiped to reduce risk of infection.During an interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/5/25 at 12:12 p.m., the DON stated, the blood pressure monitor and cuffs needed to be sanitized and disinfected between each resident to reduce risk of infection.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Cleaning, disinfecting, and Sterilization, dated 5/2021, the P&P indicated, The following guidelines are general rules for ensuring that supplies and equipment are adequately cleaned, disinfected or sterilized. Specific policies for high-level disinfection or sterilization are maintained by the respective department.personal must have proper training on processing instruments (through either sterilization or high level disinfection) with competency testing upon hire, annually and periodically as needed.During a review of facility provided document by the DON on 8/5/25 t 4:36 p.m., untitled, the document stated, cleaning recommendations for your [brand name] wrist blood pressure monitor are important to maintain its hygiene.Monitor Casing: use a soft, dry cloth or a cloth dampened with water and a mild detergent to clean the monitor's exterior surface.Cuff: similar to the monitor casing, clean the cuff with a soft, moistened cloth and a mild, neutral detergent.regularly clean your blood pressure monitor to maintain accuracy and hygiene.
Jun 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 implement care planned fall prevention interventions (a set of proa...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement care planned fall prevention interventions (a set of proactive measures designed to minimize the risk of falls in individuals) for 2 of 4 residents sampled for falls who had been identified as high risk for falls (Resident 1 and 2) when: 1. Resident 1's care planned intervention for staff to follow Resident 1 to his room and assist him with toileting or lying down was not followed. 2. Resident 2's care planned intervention to ensure that Resident 2 was wearing non-skid socks or footwear was not followed. These failures resulted in avoidable falls with broken hips for both Resident 1 and 2 which and rehospitalizations for surgical repairs. This had the potential to negatively impact the residents' physical and emotional well-being and subject them to further falls with injuries. Findings: A review of the facility's policy titled, FALLS-SNF (Skilled Nursing Facility) dated 5/22/23, indicated that a fall is an unplanned descent to the floor which may either be observed or unobserved. The policy indicated the facility is committed to maintaining resident safety by identifying those residents who are at risk for falls, at high risk of injury from falls and implement evidence-based interventions to prevent falls and injury. For residents identified as at risk for falls, the policy indicated that the facility would implement fall prevention measures such as addressing fall risks on the residents' care plan and providing non-skid footwear or shoes. A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia (memory and decision-making problems), rheumatoid arthritis (arthritis that deforms joints), prostate cancer, vision problems, and high blood pressure. A review of Resident 1's Morse Fall Scale (a fall risk assessment with scores of High Risk-45 or higher, Moderate Risk-25 to 44, and Low Risk- 0 to 25), dated 1/18/24, 3/19/24, 8/24/24, and 10/4/24, was conducted. Resident 1 was at a high risk for falls with a score of 90, due to a history of falls, severe cognitive impairment (ability to remember and make sound decisions), impulsiveness (acts before thinking about the consequences), poor safety awareness, poor vision, and balance problems while sitting and walking. A review of Resident 1's post fall Nursing Notes indicated that on: 4/19/24, Resident 1 was found in his room by a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), after breakfast on the floor between his recliner and bathroom. 8/10/24, Resident 1 was found on the floor in his room when a CNA heard a thump after lunch. 8/12/24, Resident 1 was found on the floor in his room next to his wheelchair, after supper. 8/24/24, Resident 1 was found on the floor in his room after sliding out of his wheelchair while trying to get into bed at 2 pm. 9/16/24, Resident 1 was found on the floor in his room after attempting to transfer himself from his wheelchair to bed at 4:20 pm. On 10/24/24, Resident 1 was seen by a CNA from the hallway attempting to transfer himself from his wheelchair to his bed and fell on the floor, which resulted in a broken right hip. A review of Resident 1's Nursing Note dated 10/31/24 at 11:10am, written by the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT, a group of facility managers who discuss resident problems and find solutions), indicated that on 10/24/25 at 11:30 am, Resident 1 had a witnessed (observed by another person) fall in his room when he attempted to transfer himself from his wheelchair to his bed. The wheelchair alarm was sounding but the CNA could not reach him in time to prevent the fall. Resident 1 was then transferred to the emergency room (ER) where it was determined he had sustained a right hip fracture that required surgery to be repaired. A review of Resident 1's care plan titled, The Resident is at High Risk for Falls created 9/29/20, included the following interventions: Resident is not to be left alone in room sitting in wheelchair, he enjoys lying in bed. When [Resident 1] is heading toward his room follow him and assist him to the bathroom or to bed. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/13/25 at 2 pm, the DON confirmed that the facility failed to implement Resident 1's care planned interventions by not following him to his room and assisting him back to bed or to the bathroom, which resulted in an avoidable fall with a right broken hip on 10/4/24. 2. Resident 2 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, depression, anxiety, insomnia (difficulty sleeping), repeated falls, chronic pain, heart failure, lung disease, some loss of bowel and bladder control, arthritis, osteoporosis (bone loss), and fractures of the upper spine. A review of Resident 2's Morse Fall Scale, dated 6/23/24, indicated that Resident 2 was at high risk for falls with a score of 90. Resident 2's risk factors included, unsteady on her feet, balance problems, cognitive impairments, and prior falls with injuries and a broken hip. Resident 2 had sustained 11 falls on 4/3/24, 4/8/24, 5/19/24, 8/9/24, 8/27/24, 9/6/24, 9/9/24, 9/20/24, 9/24/24, 10/8/24 which resulted in a broken right hip, and on 1/6/25 which resulted in a broken left hip. A review of Resident 2's At High Risk for Falls care plan, created 6/28/23, included the following interventions: Ensure that the resident is wearing appropriate non-skid footwear when ambulating or mobilizing in a wheelchair. Make sure shoes are comfortable and not slippery. A review of a statement written by CNA 1 on 1/6/25 at 11:15 am, who witnessed Resident 2's fall on 1/6/25 indicated, I had just got done cleaning the resident from a loose bowel movement and she was placed in her wheelchair. While cleaning up the bathroom, the resident made an attempt to get to her recliner, I was not aware she intended to self-transfer to the recliner. During the self-transfer I turned around and saw her slippers slide out from underneath her. She fell from the standing position on her side and landed on her left hip. She hit her left hip first and then her head on the floor. A review of the Interdisciplinary Post Fall committee meeting note dated 1/8/25 at 1:20 pm, indicated the root cause of Resident 2's fall was due to, resident's footwear inappropriate and that Resident 2 was transferred by ambulance to the ER at 11:30 am on 1/6/25, and admitted for surgical repair of a broken left hip. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 on 6/17/25 at 1:45 pm, LVN 1 indicated that she was on duty when Resident 2 fell on 1/6/25. LVN 1 confirmed that Resident 2 was wearing slippers that were not non-skid footwear or shoes, and that Resident 2's care plan was not followed. LVN 1 stated she, threw them [the slippers] out after Resident 2 fell.
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview, record review, facility policy review and video surveillance review, the facility failed to ensure that the pharmacist was responsible for establishing a system of records of recei...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, record review, facility policy review and video surveillance review, the facility failed to ensure that the pharmacist was responsible for establishing a system of records of receipt and disposition of all controlled medications (medications that have a high potential for abuse and addiction) in sufficient detail to enable an accurate reconciliation, and to ensure that these drugs were handled and administered in a safe and secure manner. This failure allowed narcotic medications to be diverted (stolen or misused) without detection, compromising the facility's ability to ensure the safe and effective use of medications. Residents were placed at potential risk of unrelieved pain, undertreatment, and harm from diverted medications. Findings: A review of the facility's policy titled, Controlled Substance Storage, Receiving, Tracking and Documenting dated 6/25/09, indicated, Receiving and tracking of controlled substances is done in a consistent manner to prevent and detect diversion. An interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) and Director of Safety and Security (DSS) on 6/19/25 at 11:13 am, revealed that the facility identified a narcotic reconciliation issue on 2/14/25 when a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) had requested additional narcotics for Resident 1 when the medication was too soon to be refilled. Video surveillance on 2/4/25 showed the LVN in the locked medication room putting cassetts of narcotics in her jacket. The facility immediately terminated the LVN's employment on 2/18/25 and made the proper agency referrals. The DSS indicated that a detailed narcotic audit was done from August 2024 to February 2025 and reflected that 2550 narcotic tablets and 2 vials of Morphine (a narcotic) liquid were missing. DSS stated, we audited only back to August and determined that there was missing paperwork [yellow control sheets] on 85 narcotic cassettes and 2 vials of liquid morphine. According to the DSS, the facility had identified numerous contributing factors to the theft and loss of narcotic medications to, lack of overflow accountability and pharmacy not tracking yellow control sheets. The DSS stated, the root cause analysis was processes were not followed as we had lots of leadership changes. In an interview with the Pharmacist on 6/19/25 at 12:15 pm, he stated that he was alerted by the DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency, a government agency that enforces the prevention of narcotic diversion and drug trafficking) software system that it was too soon when he tried to refill Resident 1's narcotic pills. He then notified the DON and DSS to begin an investigation. The Pharmacist stated, According to the DEA, once I fill the narcotic and it goes to nursing I am no longer responsible. The Pharmacist confirmed he had no knowledge of his responsibilities according to the Federal regulations and confirmed he had not established and maintained records of receipt and disposition of all controlled medications, performed routine audits to reconcile narcotic drug usage, identify narcotic use discrepancies, or collaborated with facility staff to ensure safe, secure, and appropriate use of narcotic/controlled medications.
May 2025 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

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 interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent physical and verbal abuse for two of six sampled residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent physical and verbal abuse for two of six sampled residents (Resident 3 and Resident 4) when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A was rough with Resident 3 and CNA H cursed and threw personal care items toward Resident 4. These failures violated Resident's 3 and 4's right to be free from abuse and caused Resident 4 to fear CNA H. These failures and had the potential to subject residents to physical harm, mistreatment and negatively impact their emotional and psychosocial well-being. Findings: Review of the facility ' s policy and procedure titled, Abuse, Resident dated 3/2/2023 indicated that the facility, .ensure that each patient has the right to be free from abuse (verbal, sexual, physical and mental) and The facility prohibits mistreatment . Review of admission records for Resident 3 indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including dementia (loss of memory and ability to make sound decisions), chronic pain (pain that lasts longer than three months), and weakness. Review of Resident 3 ' s Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS an assessment tool), dated 1/30/25, indicated Resident 3 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, an assessment of a resident's memory and decision-making skills with a score from 0 to 15), score of 3 out of 15 which is a severe impairment. Review of a nursing note by Licensed Nurse (LN) C dated 10/30/24 at 2:20 PM, indicated that Resident 3 was, .emotional and distraught during conversation . after the abuse by CNA A. During an interview on 4/25/25 at 12:32 PM, with Resident 2, who was Resident 3 ' s roommate, Resident 2 indicated that she saw CNA A push at and be rough with Resident 3. Review of admission records for Resident 4 indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia. Review of Resident 4 ' s Quarterly BIMS, dated 4/6/25, indicated Resident 4 scored 3 out of 15, a severe impairment. During an interview on 4/24/25 at 1:48 PM, with CNA I, CNA I stated that she was in the room when CNA H pushed Resident 4 and said, [F***] it, I ' m done and threw a clean brief (adult diaper) and a container of wet wipes on Resident 4 ' s chest and left the room. CNA I indicated that after CNA H left Resident 4's room, and that Resident 4 said he didn ' t like CNA H taking care of him because she can get aggressive, and it scared him. During an interview on 4/24/25 at 3:48 PM, with CNA H, CNA H stated that she tossed the brief and wipes to CNA I, not Resident 4, and left the room. During an interview on 5/27/25 at 12:56 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON confirmed that both CNA A and CNA H were terminated and and stated that her expectations for staff were that they, need to treat the residents with respect, dignity, and care as if they are in their own home.
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation of an allegation of staff to resident abuse was conducted for one of six sampled residents (Resident 3). Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a thorough investigation of an allegation of staff to resident abuse was conducted for one of six sampled residents (Resident 3). This failure had the potential to put all residents of the facility at risk for staff to resident abuse. Findings: Review of a facility policy titled, Abuse, Resident dated 3/2/2023 indicated that, 5. a) The facility will investigate all suspected incidents .i) Obtain written statements by all persons involved while facts are fresh in their minds. Review of a facility policy titled, Guidelines for Conducting Investigation Accidents/Incidents dated 10/8/2019, indicated that, 1. The Licensed Nurse on duty at the time an accident or incident occurs will .a. i. Conduct staff/resident interviews. Review of Resident 3 ' s Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS an assessment tool) dated 1/30/25, reflected that Resident 3 scored 3 out of 15 possible points on a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, an assessment of memory and decision-making skills), which indicated severely impaired cognition. During an interview on 4/25/25 at 12:32 PM, with Resident 2, who was Resident 3 ' s roommate, Resident 2 indicated that she saw Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A push at and be rough with Resident 3, and confirmed that the facility had not interviewed her about the incident. During a review of the facility ' s investigation of alleged abuse of Resident 3, no records were found of an interview with Resident 3 ' s roommate, Resident 2. During an interview on 5/27/25 at 12:56 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON confirmed that there was no interview conducted with Resident 2 regarding Resident 3 ' s abuse allegation, and there should have been since Resident 2 witnessed the incident.
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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident 4 was monitored specifically for any problems resu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure Resident 4 was monitored specifically for any problems resulting from the abuse he experienced when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) H was rough with Resident 4 and threw personal care items at him on 1/10/25, when they did not complete change in condition charting (documentation done just after an unexpected incident occurs that had a negative effect on a resident to communicate the resident's condition to other healthcare providers), and alert charting (ongoing documentation of monitoring for 72 hours after an accident, injury, or incident to reassess if any problems occurred over time resulting from the accident, injury, incident), was initiated late. These failures had the potential for staff to not be fully informed and intervene if Resident 4's mental and medical status declined which could result in delays in care and a decline in Resident 4's physical and emotional well-being. Findings: Review of a facility policy titled, Charting and Documentation dated 3/5/2025, indicated that, All skilled and unskilled services will be recorded .Any significant change in condition and Narrative entries are required for all changes in condition .abuse/unusual occurrences. Review of a facility policy titled, Abuse, Resident dated 3/2/2023, indicated that the facility will, (7) Monitor patient and assess if abusive behavior could be repeated and (10) Chart the occurrence in nurse ' s notes. Review of admission records for Resident 4 indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including dementia (loss of memory and ability to make sound decisions). During a review of Resident 4's progress notes after the reporting of abuse of Resident 4 by staff on 1/10/25, no Change in Condition charting was found. During a review of Resident 4's progress note by Licensed Nurse (LN) D, dated 1/12/25 at 12:42 PM, indicated that alert charting was added for Resident 4 two days after he experienced abuse by CNA H. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/24/25 at 2:49 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed Resident 4's documentation was missing Change in Condition documentation and that alert charting documentation should have been started on Resident 4 right away after he experienced abuse by CNA H on 1/10/25.
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

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 their abuse reporting policy was followed for six of 14 resid...

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 their abuse reporting policy was followed for six of 14 residents (Resident 1, Resident 2, Resident 3, Resident 4, Resident 5, and Resident 6) sampled for abuse when: 1. Resident 1 had an altercation with Resident 6 and the follow-up investigation was not sent to California Department of Health (CDPH) as per facility policy. 2. Resident 4 was accused of an altercation with Resident 3 and Resident 5 and the follow-up investigation was not sent to the CDPH as per facility policy. 3. Resident 2's family member (FM) was accused of verbally abusing Resident 2 and the facility did not report the alleged abuse to the CDPH withing 24 hours per facility policy. This failure had the potential to subject residents to mistreatment, neglect or abuse. Findings: 1.A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Abuse, Resident revised 3/2/23, indicated Results of investigation are reported to, with documentation of dates and times, as appropriate . State Survey, Certification Agency and any other agency according to state law. DHS (Department of Health Services or CDPH) Licensing and Certification. A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included vascular dementia with other behavioral disturbance (a type of dementia [memory, thinking and cognitive abilities are affected] caused from a lack of blood flow to the brain, leading to damage and eventual loss of brain cells with mood changes, agitation, and aggression.) Resident 1 made her own health care decisions. A review of Resident 6's admission Record indicated Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia, major depressive disorder, and chronic pain. A review of an Entity Reported Incident (a federally required report sent to CDPH concerning an alleged abuse) dated 9/13/24, indicated Resident 1 abused Resident 6. No other details were provided. A review of the facility's document titled Investigation Tool dated 9/16/24, indicated Resident 1 threw a cheese and crackers plate at Resident 6 on 9/13/24. During a concurrent interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) A and document review on 3/28/25 at 2:01 pm, the Investigation Tool for the altercation between Resident 1 and Resident 6 was reviewed. The DON confirmed that the result of the investigation should have been sent to the CDPH, but the DON was unable to provide proof that the results were sent. 2. A review of Resident 4's admission Record indicated Resident 4 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, stroke (blood supply is blocked to the brain leading to brain damage) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 3's admission Record indicated Resident 3 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included weakness, pain, depression and heart failure. A review of Resident 5's admission Record indicated Resident 5 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included lung disease, depression, and chronic pain. A review of the facility's Entity Reported Incident dated 11/18/24, indicated Resident 4 slapped Resident 3 on the wrist on 11/17/24. A review of the facility's document titled Investigation Tool dated 11/19/25, indicated an investigation was conducted for the altercation between Resident 4 and Resident 3 but there was no documentation that the report was sent to the CDPH. A review of the facility's Entity Reported Incident dated 1/13/25, indicated Resident 4 yelled at Resident 5 on 1/12/25. A review of the facility's Investigation Tool dated 11/13/25, indicated an investigation was conducted for the altercation between Resident 4 and Resident 5 but there was no documentation that the report was sent to the CDPH. During a concurrent interview with the DON A and document review on 4/1/25 at 11:29 am, Investigation Tool for the altercations between Resident 4 and Resident 3, and between Resident 4 and Resident 5 were reviewed. The DON A confirmed that there was no record that the investigations for these incidents were reported to the CDPH, and they should have been. 3.A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Abuse, Resident revised 3/2/23, indicated Call Department of Health Services (DHS) Licensing and Certification [CDPH] no later than 2 hours after allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegations involves abuse or results in serious bodily injury, or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury. A review of Resident 2 admission Record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses that included dementia, mood disturbance and anxiety. A review of Resident 2's progress note dated 9/22/24 at 12:12 pm, by Registered Nurse (RN) C, indicated resident had distressing visit with [Family Member, FM] today. A written review of the interaction with Resident 2 and her FM by RN C dated 9/22/24 (Sunday) at 12:00 pm, indicated Today at lunch time [Resident 2's FM name] came for a visit. I was notified by a CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] that they were concerned about conversations heard in room. I went and stood outside room since door was open a little along with a CNA. We overheard [FM] cussing at patient letting her know how much of a [NAME] she was and the fact that no one knew she would live this long. [FM] said F* about every other word and continued to belittle resident for quite some time. A review of the facility's Entity Reported Incident received by the CDPH on 9/24/24 at 9:44 am (Tuesday), indicated that on 9/22/24 at 12:00 pm .Resident 2's (FM) visited, and the CNA and Nurse overheard him verbally abusing her about living so long and used profanity. During a concurrent interview with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and review of the Entity Reported Incident on 3/28/25 at 3:20 pm, the interaction between Resident 2 and FM was reviewed. The ADON indicated the incident was reported 46 hours after the incident and should have been reported to CDPH withing 24 hours but was not.
Jan 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent verbal abuse for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent verbal abuse for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when Registered Nurse (RN) A yelled and cursed at Resident 1 and told Resident 1 to not use her call light. This mistreatment caused Resident 1 distress and feelings that her needs were not met and had the potential to affect all residents under the care of RN A and negatively impact their quality of life and emotional well-being. Findings: Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Abuse, Resident dated 3/23/2023, indicated that the facility .ensure that each patient has the right to be free from abuse (verbal, sexual, physical and mental) and The facility prohibits mistreatment . Review of admission records for Resident 1, indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), Age related cognitive decline (difficulty thinking and making decisions), insomnia (difficulty sleeping), diabetes (high sugar in the blood), depression, and hypertension (HTN-high blood pressure). Resident 1 had a BIMS score (Brief Interview for Mental Status-an assessment tool used by facilities to screen and identify memory, orientation, and judgement status of the resident) of 14 out of 15, which indicated she had good memory and decision making skills. Review of the facility document titled, Resident Abuse Investigation Questionnaire dated 8/12/24, showed that Resident 1 indicated that RN A had yelled and sworn at her. Review of facility's document titled, Investigation Tool Form SNF indicated that Resident 1 accused RN A of verbally abusing her on 8/11/24, that Resident 1 was upset by how she was talked to, and that Resident 1 didn't want RN A to be her nurse again. During an interview on 1/28/25 at 3:08 PM, Resident 1 stated that she liked it at the facility very much. Review of a written witness statement from Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) C dated 8/13/24, showed that CNA C indicated Resident 1 stated RN A, gave her nothing but trouble and that Resident 1 stated she wanted another nurse to bring her medication. Review of a written witness statement from CNA D dated 8/14/24, indicated that RN A showed frustration with Resident 1 due to Resident 1 using the call light a lot. CNA D indicated that every time Resident 1 used her call light RN A went down and turned it off. CNA D stated RN A told her, This is bull**** your not going down there just ignore her. CNA D indicated that RN A told her to come to Resident 1's room with her. When they entered Resident 1's room, RN A started yelling at Resident 1 and told CNA D, for the rest of the night, she is not allowed to touch her call light unless it was an emergency and this is why all the residents f****** hate her and no one is gonna to come back down to help her including any CNAs. CNA D indicated that RN A told Resident 1, this is bull**** you keep pushing your button for little stupid bull**** and it's gonna f****** stop. CNA D indicated that Resident 1 asked RN A if she was the boss and RN A replied, You're damn straight I'm the boss so stop your sh**. CNA D indicated that later on that night Resident 1 requested her inhaler, and RN A told CNA D, She's [Resident 1] is being f****** ridiculous, if she's wearing oxygen then she can breathe. RN A did take Resident 1 her inhaler and slammed the inhaler down on Resident 1's bed side table and stated, Here, take it and hurry up. Two attempts to contact RN A for an interview were made on 1/29/25 and 1/30/25, RN A did not return the calls. A review of an email RN A sent to the facility dated 10/30/24, indicated, That the particular patient [Resident 1] was difficult to work with .Looking back I would definitely slow down and take a little more time with her. During an interview on 1/28/25 at 3:24 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON confirmed that the facility investigation substantiated that RN A had verbally abused Resident 1 and the facility terminated their relationship with RN A.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure five of seven sampled residents (Resident 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) ...

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 five of seven sampled residents (Resident 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5) were free from verbal abuse when Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 verbally abused Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. This failure had the potential to negatively impact Resident 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5's sense of security, increased loss of dignity, and humiliation and emotional, and psychological well-being. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s clinical record, Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia (memory loss), anxiety (fear of the unknown), Spinal stenosis (a narrowing of the spinal canal in the lower part of your back), and high blood pressure. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment) dated 3/27/24, indicated, Resident 1 was cognitively intact (able to think and reason). During an interview on 5/24/24, at 9:30 a.m., with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated, I have a hard time sitting up due to pain. CNA 1 told me she would not give me my food if I didn ' t sit up. I let her know I was unable to sit up due to the pain in my back. CNA 1 turned and walked out of the room without giving me my food. CNA 1 was not kind and shouldn ' t be working in this profession. During an interview on 5/24/24, at 2:14 p.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated, I was sitting at the nurses station charting, when I heard CNA 1 tell Resident 1, she was not going to give him his tray because he would not sit up. CNA 1 was very rude and disrespectful. During a review of the facility ' s Progress Notes (PG), type, Event Note, dated 5/13/24, at 3:50 p.m., the PG indicated, Activities Aide reported, I observed when I was charting on 5/11/24 approximately 5:30 p.m., a traveling CNA, CNA 1, was working the front she was in the room with Resident 1 and she was refusing to give him his meal because he would not sit up, her tone was very rude, and another CNA ended up giving Resident 1 his tray. During a review of the facility ' s PG, type, Nursing Note, dated 5/15/24, at 2:03 p.m., the PG indicated, CNA 1 put Resident 1 ' s dinner tray on his table, told him to sit up or she would take his tray away. Resident 1 said he eats in this position all the time. CNA 1took his tray away. Resident 1 stated he had a horrible night because of CNA 1. During a record review of a facility document titled, Report od Suspected Dependent Adult/Elders Abuse (SOC 341), dated 5/31/24, the SOC 341 indicated CNA 2 stated, CNA 1 was in Resident 1 ' s room refusing to give him his tray because he would not sit up. During a review of Resident 2 ' s clinical record, Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included stroke, obesity, hearing loss, and arthritis. The most recent MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 2 was cognitively intact. During interview on 5/24/24, at 2:45 p.m., with RN, RN stated, CNA 1 came out of Resident 2 ' s room and yelled down the hall, Resident 2 is too big for me. During a review of the facility ' s PG, type, Event Note, dated 5/13/24, at 3:50 p.m., the PG indicated Activities Aide reported I heard her telling Resident 2 she was to big and could not get her tray closer to her, then CNA 1 walked out in to the hallway and was yelling I need help Resident 2 is a Hoyer and to big for me it ' s a 2 man job. During a review of the facility ' s PG, type, Nursing Note, dated 5/15/24, at 2:10 p.m., the PG indicated, the CNA 1 told Resident 2 she was too big to have her dinner tray while in her recliner. The CNA 1 was heard yelling down the hall to another coworker, I cannot do Resident 2 by myself; she is too heavy. During a record review of a facility document titled SOC 341, dated 5/31/24, the SOC 341 indicated, CNA 2 heard CNA 1 telling Resident 2 she was too big and could not get her tray close to her, then CNA walked out into the hallway and was yelling, I need help Resident 2 is a Hoyer and to big for me. During a review of Resident 3 ' s clinical record, Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included obesity, Fibromyalgia (Widespread musculoskeletal pain accompanied by fatigue and trouble sleeping), and diabetes. The most recent MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 3 was cognitively intact. During an interview on 5/24/24, at 12:00 p.m., with Resident 3, Resident 3 stated, CNA 1 is a bad CNA and very abrupt. During an interview on 5/20/24, at 2:50 p.m., with RN, RN stated, Resident 3 stated CNA 1 is a bad CNA. During a review of the facility ' s PG, type, Event Note, dated 5/13/24, at 5:50 p.m., the PG indicated Resident 3 reported to RN CNA 1 is a bad CNA During a review of the facility ' s PG, type, Nursing Note, dated 5/15/24, at 2:15 p.m., the PG indicated Resident 3 had an alleged abuse on 5/11/24 on night shift. Nursing Description: CNA 1 is a bad CNA. This is what Resident 3 had to say about CNA 1, but Resident 3 would not elaborate. When asked what happened Resident 3 just said, nothing would be done anyway. During a record review of a facility document titled, SOC 341, dated 5/31/24, the SOC 341 indicated, RN reported Resident 3 stated CNA 1 is a bad CNA. During a review of Resident 4 ' s clinical record, Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Parkinson ' s disease (uncontrollable shaking), Cancer, and history of falling. The most recent MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 4 was cognitively intact. During an interview on 5/20/24, at 10:00 a.m., with Resident 4, Resident 4 stated, CNA 1 is unprofessional, not respectful, and made me feel pretty small. CNA 1 snapped at me and Resident 1 and said this is not my first rodeo. During a review of the facility ' s PG, type, Event Note, dated 5/13/24, at 3:50 p.m., the PG indicated Resident 4 reported to RN that he never wants CNA 1 to take care of him. Stated, She doesn't listen to me and told Resident 4, This is not my first rodeo. During a review of the facility ' s PG, type, Nursing Note, dated 5/14/24, at 1:00 p.m., the PG indicated Resident 4 stated this am that he never wants CNA 1 to take care of him. CNA 1 doesn't listen and would state, This is not my first rodeo. Resident 4 stated he'd rather lay in urine than to be cared for by CNA 1. During a record review of a facility document titled, SOC 341, dated 5/31/24, the SOC 341 indicated, Resident 4 reported to RN that he never wants CNA 1 to take care of him again. CNA 1 doesn ' t listen and would state, this is not my first rodeo. Resident 4 stated he would rather lay in his own urine than be cared for by CNA 1. During a review of Resident 5 ' s clinical record, Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer ' s (memory loss), hip replacement, anxiety, and arthritis. The most recent MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 5 was cognitively intact. During an interview on 5/24/24, at 11:30 a.m., with Resident 5, Resident 5 stated, CNA 1 doesn ' t treat people well. CNA 1 is bossy, and she was the worst. CNA 1 continued to rush her and made her feel terrible. Resident 5 doesn ' t want CNA 1 to ever take care of her again and she should not be allowed to take care of people. During a review of the facility ' s PG, type, Event Note, dated 5/13/24, at 3:50 p.m., the PG indicated Resident 5 reported to RN that a CNA 1 rushes me and refused to help me to the toilet. During a review of the facility ' s PG, type, Nursing Note, dated 5/13/24, at 3:50 p.m., the PG indicated Resident 5 had an alleged abuse on5/11/24 on night shift: Nursing Description: CNA 1 rushes me and refused to help me to the toilet. I would rather have anyone but CNA 1 care for me, stated, Resident 5. During a record review of a facility document titled SOC 341, dated 5/31/24, the SOC 341 indicated, RN reported that Resident 5 stated, CNA 1 rushes me and refuses to help me to the toilet. I would rather have anyone but her care for me. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, [Facility Name] Policy and Procedure Abuse, Resident, dated 3/2/2023, the P&P indicated, verbal abuse is defined as, the use of oral, written, or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to residents or their families, or with in hearing distance, regardless of age, ability to comprehend, or disability. Policy, It is [Facility Name] intent to ensure that each patient has the right to be free from abuse (verbal, sexual, physical, and mental) including corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion. Residents must not be subjected to any of the above by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff, other residents, consultants, volunteers and other agencies that service the resident, family, staff members, legal guardians, friends or other individuals
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 two of two residents (Resident 1 and Resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of two residents (Resident 1 and Resident 2), sampled for unsafe wandering (a random, aimless or repetitive search for an exit that is non-goal-directed), and elopement (a resident leaves the premises or a safe area without the facility's knowledge and supervision) was assessed and monitored for unsafe wandering and elopement. Resident 1 and Resident 2 eloped from the facility and had no wander/elopement risk assessments at the time of their elopements. These failures resulted in Resident 1 eloping from the facility from an unknown exit at an unknown time and being found in the facility ' s parking lot by a staff member who happened to go out to the parking lot. And Resident 2 eloping from the facility and being found by law enforcement at a gas station four-tenths of a mile away, in the middle of the night. Findings: A review of the facility ' s policy titled, Elopement Policy, dated 5/8/24, indicated that the facility must Complete an elopement risk assessment upon admission ., and Identify residents who wander and/or who are at risk for elopement . A review of the facility ' s policy titled, Wandering Resident Protocol, dated 12/21/22, indicated that, Each new patient should be evaluated as to whether or not he/she presents a wandering risk. All patients, at any time, should be observed and evaluated as being a wandering risk, and If evaluation indicates the patient is at risk for wandering, use of the Wanderguard signaling device [a device that alarms and alerts staff when the resident exits through a facility door] as recommended. Review of Resident 1 ' s face sheet indicated that he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of anoxic brain injury (when the brain does not get oxygen causing brain cell death and problems with thinking and decision making). Record review of Resident 1 ' s Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a screening tool used to identify cognitive conditions) indicated a score of 3 (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment). Record review of Resident 1 ' s progress notes for 8/18/24 indicated he was found unharmed in the parking lot of the facility at 1:35 PM, the facility did not know when or through which door he exited, he stated to staff that he was looking for a cigarette. The progress note indicated that Resident 1 was wearing a Wander Guard and that the Wander Guard was functioning that day. Review of Resident 1 ' s Wandering Risk Assessment indicated that the assessment was completed on 8/18/24 at 1:38 pm, and the elopement risk assessment for Resident 1 was completed on 8/18/24 at 1:39 pm, after he eloped from the facility and was returned to the facility by staff. Review of Resident 2 ' s face sheet indicated that she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with medical diagnoses including cancer, depression, and anxiety. Review of Resident 2 ' s BIMS, indicated a score of 11 (a score of 8-12 suggests moderate cognitive impairment). Review of Resident 2 ' s progress notes for 4/2/24 indicated that she was missing from her room at 12:40 AM on 4/2/24 and was found 3:14 AM at a gas station (four-tenths of a mile away from the facility, by law enforcement. The record indicated that at 8:20 AM on 4/2/24, a Wander Guard was placed on Resident 2. Review of Resident 2 ' s Elopement Risk Assessment indicated the assessment was completed on 8/22/24 at 9:43 am, and Resident 2 ' s Wandering risk Assessment was completed on 8/22/24 at 9:44 am, nearly 5 months after she eloped from the facility and was returned to the facility by law enforcement. During an in interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 2), LVN2 stated that there was some previous wandering in the halls with Resident 2 but, not outside to her knowledge. During an interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 8/28/24 at 4:09 PM, in the ADON ' s office, she confirmed that Resident 1's Wandering Risk Assessment and Elopement Risk Assessment was not done until he actually eloped, two months after he was admitted . The ADON confirmed that Resident 2's Wandering Risk Assessment and Elopement Risk Assessment was not done until she actually eloped, 5 months after she was admitted .
May 2024 6 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

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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents sampled for abuse (Resident 10) was 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 ensure one of three residents sampled for abuse (Resident 10) was free from physical and verbal abuse, when confidential informant (CI1) witnessed the Director of Nursing (DON) yelling at and shaking Resident 10's wheelchair. This failure resulted in physical and verbal abuse to Resident 10 and had the potential for a decline in Resident 10's psychosocial wellbeing and isolation. Findings: During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Abuse, Resident, dated 7/15/2022, included the following statement, For all intents and purposes, the word patient(s) refers to all customers receiving health care services in our facilities, including inpatients, outpatients, residents, and clients, the P&P indicated, each patient has the right to be free from abuse (verbal, sexual, physical and mental) including corporal punishment and isolation. Patients must not be subjected to any of the above by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff, other patients, consultants, volunteers, and other agencies that service the patient, family members, legal guardians, friends, or other individuals. During a review of Resident 10's clinical record, Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included high blood pressure, intellectual disability (limits to a person's ability to learn at an expected level and function in daily life), need for assistant at home and no other household member able to render care, and traumatic brain injury (sudden trauma causes damage to the brain). The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment) dated 02/12/24, indicated that Resident 10 was cognitively intact (able to think and reason.) During an interview on 5/6/24, at 10:00 a.m., with Resident 10, Resident 10 stated, when I go down the hallway, I have to wheel myself backwards in my wheelchair and look over my shoulder. I was in front of the nurses station by the DONs office when I bumped my wheelchair into another residents chair. The resident I bumped into yelled out, I said sorry. The DON came out of the office and yelled at me and told me I was not supposed to wheel myself down the hallway backwards. The DON grabbed my chair and turned me around, shook my chair and said I had to go forward. I was very embarrassed, and I cried. Now I am afraid to leave my room because I don't want to get yelled at. During an interview on 5/7/24, at 11:00 a.m., with Confidential Informant (CI)1, CI1 stated the DON has a problem when anyone makes too much noise, including residents. The DON yells at people constantly. Resident 10 was hit by a car and has had a stroke and Resident 10's right side extremities are too weak to use adequately. Resident 10 has to wheel herself backwards to get around. About a month ago Resident 10 was wheeling herself down the hall and accidently bumped into another resident. The other resident yelled out. This was close to the DON's office and nurses station. DON came out of her office yelling at Resident 10 about the incident. DON stated she cannot keep wheeling backwards. DON grabbed Resident 10's wheelchair and physically shook it and turned her around to try to make her steer to her frontwards. Resident 10 was so embarrassed and in tears. During an interview on 5/7/24, at 11:45 a.m., with CI2, CI2 stated Resident 10 told her the DON was yelling or speaking to her in a very loud manner and grabbing Resident 10's wheelchair. I know that DON does not talk to people appropriately.
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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure professional food safety and sanitation practices were in place when: 1. the interior of the microwave oven was not cle...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure professional food safety and sanitation practices were in place when: 1. the interior of the microwave oven was not clean; 2. two expired food items were available for use; 3. one food item was not labeled with a use-by date; 4. one canned item had a dent on its seam. These failures had the potential to result in foodborne illness for a facility with a census of 79 residents who consumed food prepared in the facility. Findings: A review of The Food Code of the United States Public Health Service, and Food and Drug Administration, dated 2022, indicated the following: 4-602.13 Nonfood-Contact Surfaces. The presence of food debris or dirt on nonfood contact surfaces may provide a suitable environment for the growth of microorganisms (germs) which employees may inadvertently transfer to food. And, The label on packages intended for consumer sale must contain a combination of a sell-by date and use-by instructions which makes it clear that the product must be consumed within the number of days determined to be safe. Additionally, food products must be protected from physical contamination. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview, on 5/6/24, at 10:10 AM, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) confirmed the microwave used to prepare resident food had red-colored material splattered on its ceiling and sides. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview, on 5/6/24, at 10:29 am, CDM confirmed two plastic bags containing grated cheese were dated 5/1/24. CDM stated the cheese should have been discarded three days from the date written on the bags. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview, on 5/6/24, at 10:35 am, CDM confirmed three bagels were in a plastic bag with no date on it. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview, on 5/6/24, at 10:40 am, CDM confirmed one sealed bottle of a nutritional shake had a printed expiration date of 5/1/24. During a concurrent kitchen observation and interview, on 5/6/24, at 10:48 AM CDM confirmed one large can of soup was dented along its seam, and should have been discarded.
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

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 report abuse allegations on 4/8/24 and unknown date for Resident 10 an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed report abuse allegations on 4/8/24 and unknown date for Resident 10 and reported late for Resident 50 and 278 when: 1. One of three sampled residents (Resident 10) was verbally and physically abused. 2. Two of three sampled residents (Resident 50 and 278) were reported late. Findings: 1. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Abuse, Resident, dated 7/15/2022, included the following statement, For all intents and purposes, the word patient(s) refers to all customers receiving health care services in our facilities, including inpatients, outpatients, residents, and clients, the P&P indicated, each patient has the right to be free from abuse (verbal, sexual, physical and mental) including corporal punishment and isolation. Patients must not be subjected to any of the above by anyone, including, but not limited to, facility staff, other patients, consultants, volunteers, and other agencies that service the patient, family members, legal guardians, friends, or other individuals. Procedure: 5. Investigation: b) any person who becomes aware of a report of potential physical or mental abuse will inform the licensed nurse on duty. The licensed nurse will: ix) notify Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) - Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) and Director of Quality (DIQ). X) notify ombudsman. Xi) call Department of Health Services Licensing and Certification no later than two hours after allegation is made. C) i) complete form State of California 341 (SOC 341). During a review of Resident 10's clinical record, Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included high blood pressure, intellectual disability (limits to a person's ability to learn at an expected level and function in daily life), need for assistant at home and no other household member able to render care, and traumatic brain injury (sudden trauma causes damage to the brain). The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment) dated 02/12/24, indicated, Resident 10 was cognitively intact (able to think and reason.) During an interview on 5/7/24, at 11:00 a.m., with Confidential Informant (CI)1, CI1 stated the DON has a problem when anyone makes too much noise, including residents. The DON yells at people constantly. Resident 10 was hit by a car and has had a stroke and Resident 10's right side extremities are too weak to use adequately. Resident 10 has to wheel herself backwards to get around. About a month ago Resident 10 was wheeling herself down the hall and accidently bumped into another resident. The other resident yelled out. This was close to the DON's office and nurses station. DON came out of her office yelling at Resident 10 about the incident. DON stated she cannot keep wheeling backwards. DON grabbed Resident 10's wheelchair and physically shook it and turned her around to try to make her steer to her frontwards. Resident 10 was so embarrassed and in tears. CI1 stated I am afraid for my job. I did not know who else to report it to but the DON. During an interview on 5/7/24, at 11:45 a.m., with CI2, CI2 stated Resident 10 told her the DON was yelling or speaking to her in a very loud manner and grabbing Resident 10's wheelchair. CI2 stated, I did not know this was a reportable incident. During an interview on 5/8/24, at 10:00 a.m., with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 4, CNA 4 stated, I do no know who the abuse coordinator is or if there is an abuse coordinator. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/8/24, at 3:30 p.m., with Social Service (SS), Resident 10's Progress Note (PN), dated 4/8/24 was reviewed. The PN indicated, Resident 10 filled a grievance regarding her roommate and feeling unsafe. Resident 10 reported not being able to sleep and being scared to sleep as her roommate has thrown things at her in the middle of the night. Social Services report to the charge nurse on duty and DON. SS stated, when she returned to work the next day, she found the grievance note from Resident 10 and reported it to the Charge nurse and Director of Nursing (DON). 2. During a review of Resident 50's clinical record, Resident 50 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included conduct disorder, high cholesterol, and Dementia (forgetful). The most recent MDS dated [DATE], indicated, Resident 50 was severely cognitively impaired. During a review of Resident 278's clinical record, Resident 278 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included behavioral disturbances, high cholesterol, and sleep apnea. During a record review of state of California-Health and Human Services Agency. Unusual Incident/Injury Report (SOC 342), dated 4/22/24, at 2:35 p.m., the SOC 342 indicated, during a chart review from the weekend, a nursing note was discovered stating that on 4/19/24 at 4:57 p.m. a CNA witnessed Resident 278 hitting Resident 50 while walking in the hallway. DON During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/7/24, at 10:00 a.m., with DON, Resident 278's PN was reviewed. The PN indicated, on 4/19/24, at 4:57 p.m., Resident 278 hit Resident 50's head while walking on the hallway. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/7/24, at 12:00 p.m., with Director of Staff Development (DSD), the RELIAS (education for abuse for all staff) dated 2022, was reviewed. DSD confirmed in the RELIAS program Section 3: Screening and Reporting Abuse, Staff are educated to report suspected abuse with in two hours to the abuse coordinator, DON, law enforcement, and the state of California Health and Human services. 2. On 5/09/2024 at 12:15 PM during a concurrent interview and record review regarding abuse reporting with the Quality Manager (QM) the QM stated, I interviewed the resident and she gave a real detailed account and it was virtually the same as staff. Staff didn't want to report it and we have to change that culture. Maybe a good thing can come out of this now that we know and they feel comfortable reporting. It should be a just culture and people shouldn't be afraid to say something if they see it. The QM confirmed the staff witness did not report the abuse of Resident 10 when the Director of Nursing yelled and shook her wheelchair because there was not a culture that supported reporting. As to a written report the QM stated, I looked and didn't find anything. On record review there was no regulatory required documentation that the facility reported the incident to the California Department of Public Health.
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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

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 review and revise the Care Plans for two of four sampled residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise the Care Plans for two of four sampled residents (Residents 27 and 128) when information about their risk for elopement (leaving the facility without staff's knowledge) and exit alarm devices was not included in their Care Plans. This failure had the potential to put the residents at risk for accidents related to elopement. Refer to F 689. Findings: A review of Resident 27's clinical record indicated they were admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 27's diagnoses included anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain damage and a prior heart attack. Resident 27's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score was three, which indicated severe cognitive (intellectual) impairment. A review of Resident 27's physician's orders for May 2024 showed a verbal order entered on 12/9/23 for, Wander guard (a device that emitted an audible alarm when the resident approached an exit) applied to left ankle for safety Change Q (every) 90 days every shift for elopement check Q shift. A review of Resident 27's Care Plan showed no entries about elopement risk or a Wanderguard ® device. A review of Resident 128's clinical record indicated they were admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 128's diagnoses included dementia, anxiety, and legal blindness. Resident 128's BIMS score was seven, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A review of Resident 128's physician orders for May 2024 showed a phone order entered on 4/24/24 for, Wander guard applied to resident for safety Change Q 90 days and per shift for proper use. two times a day. A review of Resident 128's Care Plan showed no entries about elopement risk or a Wanderguard ® device. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 5/9/24, at 10:59 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated they usually discussed elopement risk in the resident's Care Conference. ADON confirmed the Wanderguards ® and elopement risk were not on Resident 27's and Resident 128's Care Plans and should have been. They were in the middle of drafting a new elopement policy which had not yet been approved.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

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 make sure the environment was free of all accident ha...

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 make sure the environment was free of all accident hazards for two of four sampled residents (Residents 27 and 128) when they had orders for Wanderguard ® (a device worn on the body that caused an alarm to sound at exit doors) placement, with no follow-up or monitoring. This failure had the potential to put the residents at risk for accidents related to elopement (leaving the facility without staff's knowledge). Refer to F 657. Findings: A review of Resident 27's clinical record indicated they were admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 27's diagnoses included anoxic (lack of oxygen) brain damage and a prior heart attack. Resident 27's BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status) score was three, which indicated severe cognitive (intellectual) impairment. A review of Resident 27's physician's orders for May 2024 showed a verbal order entered on 12/9/23 for, Wander guard applied to left ankle for safety Change Q (every) 90 days every shift for elopement check Q shift. Review of Resident 27's Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed no monitor for nursing to document elopement behaviors. Record review of a Multidisciplinary Care Conference - V2, note, dated 3/26/24, indicated the healthcare team met on 3/20/24 to discuss Resident 27's care. Resident 27's cognitive status was described as, Alert, oriented to self only, confusion & memory loss. For physical functioning, Resident 27 ambulated (walked) independently with cueing (verbal reminders). There was no note about risk of elopement or a Wanderguard ® device. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 5/09/24, at 10:38 AM, at Resident 27's bedside, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4 confirmed there was no Wanderguard ® present on Resident 27's body. LVN 4 stated that if a resident was an elopement risk, they usually put a monitor in the MAR. A review of Resident 128's clinical record indicated they were admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 128's diagnoses included dementia, anxiety, and legal blindness. Resident 128's BIMS score was seven, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A review of Resident 128's physician orders for May 2024 showed a phone order entered on 4/24/24 for, Wander guard applied to resident for safety Change Q 90 days and per shift for proper use. two times a day. Review of Resident 128's MAR showed no monitor for nursing to document elopement behaviors. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 5/9/24, at 10:59 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) confirmed Resident 27 was not wearing a Wanderguard ® as ordered, and there was no Care Conference note about it. ADON stated they usually did an initial elopement risk assessment on admission. Resident 27 may have voiced a desire to leave when they were first admitted . ADON confirmed the lack of documentation and stated they were in the middle of drafting a new elopement policy and it had not yet been approved.
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 F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet the required daily Registered Nursing (RN) hours for Payroll Based Journaling (PBJ) staffing information submitted to th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet the required daily Registered Nursing (RN) hours for Payroll Based Journaling (PBJ) staffing information submitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Failing to meet the required hours the facility did not ensure an adequate level of staff is working at a given time, potentially leading to inadequate care of residents and adverse clinical outcomes. FINDINGS During a concurrent record review and interview on 05/09/24 at 12:33 PM, the Quality Manager (QM) confirmed the required RN coverage was not met for 20 days of the first Federal Quarter of 2024 (The first Federal Fiscal Quarter begins October 1st of the prior year, in this case, October 1st, 2023). The QM stated, It is all here and matches the PBJ report on these dates. We did not have an RN present on the schedule. We do have them in other roles and we encourage them to clock in when they are giving resident care. Referring to the XML template (computer staffing sheet) the QM stated, It is the 7 group (designation) only which are RN's and these are the days they worked and will show a deficit on the PBJ. The QM provided and reviewed with the surveyor a copy of the XML Submission Form. Gaps in RN Coverage were pointed out by the QM and are as follows: 10/2, 10/3, 10/4, 10/10, 10/16, 10/1,7 10/18, 10/23, 10/23, 10/24, 10/31, 11/01, 11/06, 11/13, 11/14, 11/20, 11/27, 11/28, 11/29, 12/11, 12/18, 12/26 and 12/28/2023. The QM read the list aloud and confirmed the dates no RN's were listed for resident care as required by CMS.
Dec 2023 1 deficiency 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff had the knowledge and resources (cleanin...

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 staff had the knowledge and resources (cleaning supplies or cleaning materials), required to provide a safe and sanitary environment which promoted the prevention of the spread of infections when 2 of 2 sampled residents (Resident 1 and 2) had C-Diff infections, (C-Diff, a highly contagious bacteria in the intestines that could cause severe diarrhea, inflammation of the colon, abdominal discomfort, lack of appetite, weight loss, isolation, extended hospital stays, and/or death) and resided in a locked memory care unit for dementia (an enclosed living space for residents with dementia, a disease that caused an inability to think, reason, or remember) and; 1. Licensed Nurses (LN) and Certified Nurse Assistants (CNA) used cleansing wipes, with the brand name of, CaviWipes 1 to disinfect (cleaning with a chemical liquid that destroyed bacteria) on objects that were used for resident care on infected and non-infected residents as well as on surfaces touched by infected residents and staff did not know that this product did not kill C-Diff.; and 2. Residents 1 and 2) were not provided with dedicated (used by one resident) medical equipment such as blood pressure cuffs, thermometers, and stethoscope (a device used to listen to a pulse or heartbeat), when they had C-Diff. (according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), C-diff bacteria produced spores that could live on surfaces for months and years); and 3. Cleaning and disinfecting supplies that were approved to kill C-Diff were not available for use to clean the rooms of Resident 1 and 2 or the shower which was shared by 18 other residents. These failures resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ, situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident), when 2 out 2 sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 2) had C-Diff. and precautions were not taken to kill this bacteria, which had the potential to infect 18 other residents who resided in that memory care unit. An IJ was declared on 12/8/2023 at 2:40 pm, at F880, in the presence of the facility Director of Quality (DOQ) and Interim (temporary) Director of Nurses/Infection Preventionist (DON/IP), when the facility staff lacked adequate cleaning supplies, knowledge, and practices that were required to prevent the spread of C-Diff that included use of dedicated medical equipment such as; blood pressure cuff, thermometer, and stethoscope, and adequate cleaning and disinfection procedures had not been followed when cleaning resident rooms or a shared resident shower room. The facility DOQ provided an acceptable immediate action plan, (a plan to correct these deficient practices immediately) on 12/8/2023 at 4:47 pm. The actions to remove the IJ situation included training/education for facility staff that included the facility ' s C-Diff policy and procedure (P&P), use of dedicated medical equipment for residents that were positive for C-Diff, and aquiring approved cleaning and disinfectant supplies (use of a cleaning products that contained bleach) that were approved to kill C-Diff. The IJ was removed onsite by surveyors on 12/13/2023 at 1:22 pm, when the facility was able to demonstrate the immediate plan of action had been implemented, facility staff were knowledgeable on the C-Diff policy and procedures, dedicated medical equipment was present in the facility, and approved cleaning and disinfectant supplies for residents who had C-Diff were available for staff use. 4. LN A and CNA B were observed touching a contaminated blood pressure cuff that had been exposed to COVID and C-Diff, without wearing gloves. 5. CNA C was observed providing direct resident care to two separate residents and touching CNA C ' s own body in between direct resident care, without performing hand hygiene (HH, cleansing hands with an alcohol-based gel rub or washing hands with soap and water). These failures had the potential to spread infection to all 20 residents who resided in the memory care unit, staff and visitors and result in a serious infectious disease outbreak and negatively impact the residents' ability to attain or maintain their highest practicable level of physical and emotional well-being. Findings: 1. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Infection Prevention Plan, dated 5/17/22, indicated, facility staff would be educated about infection prevention and control guidelines and methods. During a review of the facility ' s undated P&P titled, Clostridium Difficile C. difficile, indicated, facility staff would be educated on the prevention of the spread of C-Diff. A review of Resident 1 ' s undated admission Record, indicated, Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of unspecified dementia (Inability to think, remember, or recall information) and was not her own responsible party (RP). A review of Resident 1 ' s Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool), dated 11/12/23, indicated Resident 1 did not have good cognition (ability to think or be understood). A review of Resident 1 ' s Order Details, dated 11/25/23, indicated, Stools for PCR (test to determine if a person had C-Diff) had been ordered. A review of Resident 1 ' s Physician ' s Note, dated 11/29/23, indicated Resident 1 was diagnosed with C-Diff. During an interview on 12/6/23 at 1:10 pm, CNA D stated, Resident 1 was positive for C-Diff and was on contact isolation precautions. CNA D stated, a cleansing wipe with the brand name of CaviWipes 1 was used to clean Resident 1 ' s commode (a portable toilet that looked like a chair), after Resident 1 ' s use. CNA D incorrectly stated, CaviWipes 1 required a five-minute wet time (the amount of time a disinfectant was required to remain wet on a surface to kill specific bacteria or viruses), and stated CNA D did not know if CaviWipes 1 was an effective cleaning agent in the prevention of the spread of C-Diff. A review of Resident 2 ' s undated admission Record, indicated, Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnosis of unspecified dementia and was not her own RP. A review of Resident 2 ' s Quarterly MDS, dated 11/12/23, indicated Resident 2 did not have good cognition. A review of Resident 2 ' s Order Details, dated 11/30/23, indicated the facility suspected Resident 2 had C-Diff and the physician had ordered a stool sample. A review of Resident 2 ' s Immunology-Serology (type of laboratory test) report, dated 11/30/23, indicated Resident 2 tested positive for C-Diff. During an interview on 12/6/23 at 1:24 pm, LN E stated Resident 1 and Resident 2 had tested positive for C-Diff. LN E stated, CaviWipes 1 had been used to clean the vital sign cart (portable medical equipment used to check the blood pressure, temperature, and pulse) in-between each resident use and the vital sign cart was used for all 20 residents that resided in the facility ' s memory unit. LN E incorrectly stated, when cleaning objects touched by residents, a five-minute wet time was required for the disinfectant to be effective and stated CNA E did not know if CaviWipes 1 killed C-Diff. During an interview on 12/6/23 at 1:30 pm, CNA F stated, CaviWipes 1 was used to clean high touch resident areas (areas that were touched often by residents). CNA F confirmed using CaviWipes 1 to clean door handles, resident bed rails, and handrails (rails attached to the wall for residents to hold while walking). CNA F stated CNA F, assumed CaviWipes 1 killed C-Diff and did not know if CaviWipes 1 killed C-Diff. During an interview on 12/7/23 at 7:45 am, LN A stated, CaviWipes 1 was used to clean the electronic blood pressure cuff in-between each resident use and LN A liked to spray Lysol on the electronic blood pressure cuff, directly after using the CaviWipes 1 LN A stated that the use of a cleaning product that contained bleach would be effective in prevention of the spread of C-Diff, but did not know if Lysol or CaviWipes 1 contained bleach. LN A stated she did not know if Cavi Wipes 1 killed C-Diff. During an interview on 12/7/23 at 3:44 pm, CNA H stated, CNA H used CaviWipes 1 to clean and disinfect objects the residents touched and did not know if CaviWipes 1 killed C-Diff. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/8/23 at 7:47 am, CNA B was observed cleaning the electronic blood pressure cuff. CNA 1 stated the electronic blood pressure cuff was cleaned with CaviWipes 1 after each resident use and did not know if CaviWipes 1 killed C-Diff. During a review of the CaviWipes 1 label, the label did not include C-Diff as a bacteria that the product killed. During an interview on 12/8/23 at 8:31 am, DON/IP confirmed bleach wipes were not available for facility staff to clean and disinfect with on the memory unit during the C-Diff outbreak. DON/IP stated, she had not ordered bleach wipes, though she knew that use of bleach for cleaning and disinfecting C-Diff was the preferred cleaning agent in order to kill C-Diff spores. 2. During a review of the facility ' s undated P&P titled, Clostridium Difficile C. difficile, indicated, Dedicated patient care equipment shall be used. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Isolation Precautions, dated 9/29/16, indicated, residents that were suspected for or tested positive for C-Diff would be placed on Contact Precautions and Dedicated patient-care equipment should be considered for the patient. The P&P included a chart that indicated a residents placed on Contact Precautions would be provided with Dedicated Equipment. During an interview on 12/6/23 at 1:39 pm, CNA F stated, there was no dedicated vital sign equipment being used for Resident 1 or Resident 2, confirmed Resident 1 and Resident 2 had tested positive for C-Diff, and that there was one portable vital sign cart that was used for all 20 residents that resided in the memory unit. (Resident 1 was on contact isolation for C-Diff precautions for 12 days, and Resident 2 was on contact isolation for C-Diff for seven days). A review of Resident 1 ' s Order Details, dated 11/25/23, indicated, Stools for PCR (test to determine if a person had C-Diff) had been ordered. Resident 1 was on contact isolation for C-Diff precautions for 12 days without dedicated medical equipment. A review of Resident 2 ' s Immunology-Serology report, dated 11/30/23, indicated Resident 2 tested positive for C-Diff. Resident 2 was on contact isolation for C-Diff precautions for seven days without dedicated medical equipment. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/7/23 at 7:45 am, LN A was observed walking out of Resident 1 ' s room carrying an electronic blood pressure cuff (small battery-operated blood pressure cuff that wrapped around the resident ' s wrist). LN A confirmed there was no dedicated vital sign equipment for Resident 1 or Resident 2 and stated the electronic blood pressure cuff was used for all residents. During an interview on 12/8/23 at 8:31 am, DON/IP stated use of disposable (dedicated for one person then thrown away) vital sign equipment was ideal and should be used for residents that had C-Diff. DON/IP stated, staff did not notify her that they needed dedicated vital sign equipment for Resident 1 or Resident 2, and indicated it was the staff's responsibility to do so. A review of the undated record titled, Job Description, Department: Infection Control, indicated, the Infection Control Nurse (IP), Confers with medical and nursing staff to determine appropriate implementation of isolation precautions. 3. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Housekeeping Principles, Infection Control, dated 11/27/23, indicated, the facility promoted a sanitary environment by incorporating infection control practices into housekeeping practices. The P&P indicated housekeeping, Personnel are oriented and trained in proper .techniques regarding infection control. During a review of the facility ' s undated P&P titled, Clostridium Difficile C.difficile indicated, An Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)-registered sodium hypochlorite-based disinfectant shall be used for environmental surface disinfection after cleaning in accordance with label instructions; generic sources of hypochlorite (i.e., household chlorine bleach), also may be appropriately diluted and used (diluted 1:10 with water). Contact Precautions shall be used for patients with known or suspected C. difficile-associated disease. During an interview on 12/6/23 at 1:10 pm, CNA D stated, CaviWipes 1 were the only cleaning supplies available for CNAs to use when cleaning Resident 1 ' s commode. CNA D stated CaviWipes 1 were used to clean Resident 1 ' s commode after each use, and then housekeeping staff would deep clean Resident 1 ' s room, including Resident 1 ' s commode daily. During an interview on 12/6/23 at 1:30 pm, CNA F stated, CaviWipes 1 were the only cleaning supplies available for staff to use when cleaning resident door handles, wheelchair handles, and handrails. During an observation on 12/6/23 at 3:31 pm, CNA D was observed wiping down the handrails on the memory unit with CaviWipes 1 while residents wandered in the hallway utilizing the handrails to walk. During a concurrent observation, interview, and record review on 12/7/23 at 1:34 pm, with Housekeeper (HSK) 1, the housekeeping closet located in the facility ' s memory care unit was observed. HSK 1 stated for normal, everyday cleaning, E23 was used to clean resident rooms and the shower. HSK pointed to a clear plastic container on the wall that had E23 written on a label. A description of the cleaner was printed on paper an attached the wall near the clear plastic container. HSK reviewed the paper on the wall and confirmed the paper on the wall indicated, E23 was a neutral disinfectant to be used for cleaning the floors inside and outside of bathrooms and could be used to spray and wipe inside and outside restrooms, but did not kill C-Diff. HSK 1 stated on 12/2/23, five days after Resident 1 and 2 tested positive for C-Diff, a bottle of household bleach had been provided for housekeeping staff to use when cleaning and disinfecting the isolation rooms with C-Diff. HSK 1 stated bleach was not being used in the shower room for daily cleaning by housekeeping staff and stated the housekeeping staff was using E23 to clean the shower room. HSK 1 stated HSK 1 did not know bleach should be used when cleaning the shower room, located in the facility ' s memory unit. During an interview on 12/7/23 at 1:44 pm, with CNA L, CNA L stated, the housekeeping staff cleaned the shower room in the memory unit once a day. CNA L stated there was not a specific time that housekeeping staff cleaned the shower room, sometimes housekeeping staff cleaned the shower in the morning and sometimes housekeeping staff cleaned the shower in the afternoon. CNA L stated, in between each resident shower, the CNA who provided the shower, would clean the shower room with CaviWipes 1. During a review of the CaviWipes 1 label, the label indicated that this producte did not contain bleach or kill C-Diff. During a concurrent observation, interview, and record review, on 12/7/23 at 1:55 pm, with Environmental Services Manager (EVSM), a green contact isolation sign was observed outside of Resident 2 ' s door and EVSM stated the contact isolation sign should have been yellow. EVSM stated the green contact isolation sign indicated housekeeping staff did not need to clean the resident ' s room with bleach. EVSM stated the housekeeping staff relied on the isolation signage to determine how the room would be cleaned and disinfected. EVSM stated there was a yellow contact isolation sign that indicated, special considerations were needed. EVSM stated the yellow contact isolation sign was housekeeping ' s cue to clean with bleach and not with E23. EVSM confirmed the housekeeping staff was not provided with bleach for cleaning the special consideration contact isolation rooms until 12/2/23, seven days after the facility knew they had positive C-Diff infections. During an interview on 12/7/23 at 2:14 pm, DON/IP stated, after a resident on contact isolation used the shower room, LNs or CNAs (who ever provided the shower) were expected to call the housekeeping staff to clean and disinfect the shower room. DON/IP stated, when the housekeeping staff was not available to clean and disinfect the shower room, it was the responsibility of LNs and CNAs to clean and disinfect the shower room with the appropriate cleaner. DON/IP stated the shower room needed to be cleaned and disinfected with bleach after Resident 1 and Resident 2 used the shower room and confirmed bleach was not made available to staff until 12/2/23, seven days after the facility knew they had positive C-Diff infections. During an interview on 12/7/23 at 3:40 pm, CNA L stated all 20 memory care unit residents utilized the shower room located on the memory care unit. CNA L stated the shower room was cleaned after each resident use by the CNA who gave the resident a shower. CNA L stated use of CaviWipes 1 was available to staff for cleaning the shower. CNA L confirmed, there was no bleach available for CNA L to clean the shower room. CNA L stated that CNA L did not call housekeeping to clean or disinfect the shower room with bleach after providing showers to residents that were on contact isolation. During an interview on 12/7/23 at 3:48 pm, with CNA M, CNA M stated in between each resident shower, CNA M cleaned the shower room with CaviWipes1. CNA M stated they provided Resident 1 and Resident 2 with a shower on 12/6/23, was aware both residents had been diagnosed with C-Diff, and stated they had not called housekeeping to clean the shower room with bleach after Resident 1 or Resident 2 were showered. CNA M stated the housekeeping staff had cleaned the shower room that morning and CNA M did not know whether or not the shower room had been cleaned after CNA M had showered Residents 1 and 2, that same morning. During an interview on 12/8/23 at 8:31 am, DON/IP stated when a resident had symptoms and was suspected (to think that someone might have an illness without laboratory testing results), to have C-Diff, the resident would be placed on contact isolation. DON/IP stated reviewing the CaviWipes 1 label, with the DOQ, on 12/7/23, that the CaviWipes 1 label did not indicate CaviWipes 1 killed C-Diff. DON/IP confirmed that facility staff were using CaviWipes 1 for cleaning objects touched by residents with C-Diff, including high touch areas, for 13 days, before they were given bleach wipes, and that housekeeping was not provided bleach to clean the C-Diff rooms for 7 days, after the facility was aware that there were C-Diff infections. A review of the undated record titled, Job Description, Department: Infection Control, indicated, the Infection Control Nurse (IP) Monitors proper use of germicides, cleaning products, antiseptics, and disinfectants throughout the facility and indicated the IP Monitors methods of asepsis, sterilization, and disinfection employed throughout the facility. 4. During a review of the facility ' s undated P&P titled, Clostridium Difficile (C. difficile), indicated, Full barrier precautions (gowns and gloves) shall be worn when staff is in contact with patients with CDI During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Infection Prevention Plan, dated 5/17/22, indicated, a goal of limiting the transmission of infections associated with procedures. The P&P indicated a component of prevention of the spread of infection was hand hygiene (washing hands with soap and water or use of an alcohol-based hand gel). During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Isolation Precautions, dated 9/29/16, indicated, After glove removal and hand hygiene, hands should not touch potentially contaminated environmental surfaces or items. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/7/23 at 7:45 am, LN A was observed entering Resident 1 ' s room with medication and an electronic blood pressure cuff. LN A was observed placing the electronic blood pressure cuff onto Resident 1 ' s wrist and then placing the electronic blood pressure cuff onto Resident 1 ' s table, next to Resident 1 ' s breakfast tray. LN A was observed carrying the electronic blood pressure cuff to the counter next to Resident 1 ' s sink and placing it on a paper towel. LN A removed LN A ' s gown and gloves and washed hands with soap and water. LN A picked up the uncleaned electronic blood pressure cuff with bare hands, held the electronic blood pressure against LN A ' s chest area of the uniform top, walked into the nurse ' s station room, and placed the uncleaned electronic blood pressure cuff onto the medication cart (a cart on wheels that contained all resident medication). Approximately 7-10 minutes later, at 8:02 am, LN, A was observed wiping the electronic blood pressure cuff with a CaviWipes 1 and immediately spraying the electronic blood pressure cuff with Lysol and left the nurse ' s station room with the electronic blood pressure cuff. LN A returned to the nurse station room and confirmed LN A touched the uncleaned electronic blood pressure cuff with bare hands, directly after use on a resident with C-Diff, and placing the electronic blood pressure cuff on the medication cart. LN A confirmed LN A should have worn gloves and not placed the electronic blood pressure cuff on the medication cart prior to cleaning and disinfecting and did not know that Cavi Wipes 1 did not kill C-Diff. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/8/23 at 7:47 am, CNA B was observed standing outside of an isolation room cleaning the electronic blood pressure cuff with CNA B ' s bare hands. CNA B stated the resident was positive for COVID and confirmed CNA B should have had on gloves and did not. 5. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Infection Prevention Plan, dated 5/17/22, indicated the, Infection Prevention Plan was designed to ensure the safety of patients, staff, and visitors within its healthcare environment by reducing the risk of acquiring a healthcare-associated infection (HAI). The P&P indicated, all residents .will be considered potentially infectious, and standard precautions are indicated for all patients. The P&P indicated Hand hygiene procedures were required when coming into direct contact with all residents and resident items. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/8/23 at 8:06 am, CNA C was observed for 10 minutes assisting Resident 3 and Resident 4 to eat breakfast in the hallway of the facility ' s memory unit. CNA C was observed placing bare hands onto Resident 4 ' s shoulder and arm. CNA C provided Resident 4 with a bite of food and then walked over to Resident 3. CNA C was observed to touch Resident 3 ' s arm and rub Resident 3 ' s back. CNA C provided Resident 3 a bite of food and walked over to Resident 4. CNA C was observed touching CNA C ' s own arms and hair. CNA C touched Resident 4 ' s arm, provided Resident 4 a bite of food and while walking back to Resident 3, CNA C rubbed CNA C ' s eyes with bare fingers and provided Resident 3 a bite of food. CNA C had not performed hand hygiene for the entirety of the observation. CNA C confirmed not performing hand hygiene before or after assisting Resident 3 and Resident 4 with eating breakfast or when touching Resident 3 or Resident 4 ' s body. CNA C confirmed touching CNA C ' s own arm, face, and rubbing own eyes with CNA C ' s fingers, not performing hand hygiene before or after touching self, and stated CNA C should have. CNA C stated the facility expectation was to perform hand hygiene before and after resident care or touching self. CNA C stated the purpose of hand hygiene was to prevent the spread of infection to residents, self, and staff. During an interview on 12/8/23 at 8:31 am, DON/IP stated facility staff should not touch uncleaned medical equipment with bare hands and expectations for cleaning medical equipment after resident use, was to wear gloves while cleaning medical equipment. DON/IP stated uncleaned medical equipment should not be placed against the body and staff were expected to perform hand hygiene before and after resident care or touching themselves with their bare hands.
Nov 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 F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

The following reflects the findings of the California Department of Public Health during an abbreviated standard survey for one facility reported incident. Facility Reported Incident: 867595 The inspe...

Read full inspector narrative →
The following reflects the findings of the California Department of Public Health during an abbreviated standard survey for one facility reported incident. Facility Reported Incident: 867595 The inspection was limited to the specific facility reported incident investigated and does not represent the findings of a full inspection of the facility. Representing the Department: 22705, Health Facilities Evaluator Nurse A deficiency was issued at F 557 for facility reported incident 867595. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to treat one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) with dignity and respect, when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A left Resident 1 alone in the dining room, unattended with the lights turned off, after dinner. This failure resulted in Resident 1 feeling rushed and had the potential to result in a decline in psychosocial well being. Findings: The California Department of Public Health received a report from the facility on 10/27/23, which indicated CNA A left Resident 1 in the dining room, unattended with the lights turned off. A review of Resident 1's record indicated she was admitted with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's, anxiety, and high blood pressure. Resident 1 was her own responsible party and made her own healthcare decisions. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment tool), included a BIMS (brief interview for mental status, maximum score of 15) score of 15 which indicated no cognitive impairment. During an interview on 10:20 am, Resident 1 said she felt rushed at meal times. She said she likes to get set up and that takes a while and sometimes she is not done yet and the CNAs want everyone out of the dining room so they can take residents to bed. On the evening of 10/27/23, she was finishing her ice cream when the CNA said she was leaving with another resident. Resident 1 said she told the CNA she was coming but was finishing her ice cream. The CNA left and turned off the lights as she left the room. Resident 1 said she was able to still see but felt like she was rushed. She said did not feel like she was abused or yelled at but she was rushed and not given enough time to finish her meal. CNA B provided a written statement that CNA A told her Resident 1 was refusing to leave the dining room. CNA B went to the dining room and found Resident 1 sitting at the table and the lights had been turned off, like they do when the room was empty. CNA A provided a written statement that indicated that Resident 1 was the only resident in the dining room and she was trying to hurry Resident 1 because another resident wanted to go to bed and call lights were going off. Resident 1 said she was coming so CNA A said she was turning off the lights. CNA A said there was still light in the dining room. CNA A said she saw another CNA in the hall and told her that Resident 1 was coming out of the dining room. On 11/2/23 at 11:05 am, the video (no audio) of this incident was viewed with Director of Quality Improvement (DQI) and the charge nurse (CN). Resident 1 was the only resident in the dining room when CNA A talked to her. Resident 1 was sitting in a wheelchair and placing things from the dining table onto her walker and was not eating. CNA A then walked out and turned off the lights. The table where Resident 1 was sitting was dark. There was one table under a light after CNA A turned out the lights but the table where Resident 1 sat, was in the dark. After the lights were turned out Resident 1 placed the rest of her things on her walker, then CNA B came in and talked to Resident 1 and walked beside Resident 1 as she wheeled herself out in her wheelchair and pushed her walker. DQI said Resident 1's table was dark and CNA A should not have turned out the lights. DQI said there was no reason to turn out the lights while any resident was still in the dining room.
May 2023 12 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 F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
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 F0558 (Tag F0558)

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 accomodate preferences for 1 of 26 sampled residents wh...

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 accomodate preferences for 1 of 26 sampled residents when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 had not used the shower chair that the resident preferred, even after she asked him to. (Resident 32) This failure caused Resident 32 discomfort and violated her right to have her preferences accomodated. Findings: Record review on 05/03/23 at 10:46 am, indicated that Resident 32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnoses that included vascular dementia, diabetes, stroke, depression, hypothyroidism (an underactive thyroid gland) and high blood pressure. Resident 32's Responsible Party was her daughter (RP32) per admission documents on 12/27/22. Resident 32 preferred to have a reclining shower chair for comfort and prevention of back pain during showers. In Resident 32's medical record, the Director of Nursing (DON) documented, Spoke with resident about her asking for her reclining shower chair and CNA refused and that the shower was uncomfortable and she had to sit up straight. A review of the Interdisciplinary Team Notes (IDT, a group of facility managers who oversee resident care), for Resident 32 indicated, On her shower day [Resident 32] stated that [CNA 1] put her in a shower chair that was not comfortable and she requested that he use a shower chair that leans back, [CNA 1] continued to put her in the regular shower chair. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 5/3/23 at 5:15 pm, the DON confirmed that Resident 32 had asked CNA 1 to use the reclining shower chair, instead of the straight back shower chair, because it hurts her back. The DON confirmed that CNA 1 ignored Resident 32's request for the shower chair preference and had not made an effort to accomodate her.
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

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 grievances and complaints were prompt...

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 grievances and complaints were promptly reviewed, investigated, resolved, and documented for 1 of 26 sampled residents. (Resident 75) This had the potential for quality of care issues and neglect to continue for all residents in the facility, which could lead to negative clinical outcomes. Findings: A review of the facility's undated policy titled, Nursing Homes Residents' Rights, indicated to file a complaint or grievance, You may talk with the Resident Council in your nursing home, you may talk with a staff person you trust, or the facility administrator and talk with the long-term care Ombudsman. A review of the facility's policy dated [DATE] titled, Reporting Concerns, indicated Long Term Care will maintain records in a Concern/Grievance log, and all original documentation will be kept in the Performance Improvement Office, and studied for continuous quality improvement. During a follow up interview on [DATE] at 2:05 pm, Resident 75 stated, I did not get my bath this Monday, they always tell me they never have time. I am scheduled to get my baths on Mondays and Fridays. I have told the staff in Resident Council meetings, but nothing changes. Who else would I report this to? During an interview on [DATE] at 3:15 pm, Director of Nursing (DON) stated, The Social worker follows up on grievances or complaints. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:55 pm, Social Services (SS) stated, I follow up on some of the complaints. I do not track or log the complaints or grievances. I don't understand the question for follow up. I will start a new system or process to track the complaints. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:55 pm, the Activity Director (AD) stated, I do help with some of the complaints, and Social Services assists with some, depending on what the complaint is. If Social Services cannot resolve, we give them all to the Director of Quality and Risk Management [DQR]. During an interview on [DATE] at 8:30 am, DQR confirmed there is no process to follow up on complaints and grievances. DQR stated, I usually follow up on the complaints and give the families my card if there are further problems, but we do need a system to track and follow up. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:35 pm, the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) confirmed there is no complaint or grievance process, and they will develop and implement one as soon as possible.
CONCERN (D)

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 two out of three sampled residents, (Resident 5...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two out of three sampled residents, (Resident 5 and Resident 182) were free from abuse and neglect when: 1. Resident 5 was verbally abused by her roommate, Resident 7. 2. A Licensed Nurse LN (A) was verbally rude, disrespectful, and did not provide care when requested for Resident 182. This failure caused Resident 7 and Resident 182 increased anxiety, loss of dignity, and humiliation. Findings: A review of the facility's policy revised and approved 3/2/23 titled, Abuse, Resident, indicated verbal abuse is defined as any use of oral, written or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to patients/residents or their families, or within hearing distance, regardless of age, ability to comprehend, or disability. Examples include but are not limited to threats of harm, saying things to frighten a resident. Mental abuse includes, but is not limited to, humiliation, harassment, threats of punishment or deprivation. A review of the facility's policy revised and approved 3/2/23 titled, Abuse, Resident, indicated each patient/resident has the right to be free from abuse (verbal, sexual, physical and mental) including corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion. The facility prohibits mistreatment, neglect, and the misappropriation of patient property. A review of a facility policy, not dated, titled, Nursing Homes Residents' Rights indicated each resident has the right to be free from abuse and neglect by anyone in the facility, including staff members, other residents, volunteers, family, friends, or any other individual. There are different kinds of abuse including physical, verbal, sexual, emotional, financial, and neglect. 1. Resident 5's record was reviewed. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included, chronic pain, anxiety, shortness of breath, and diabetes. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool), dated 04/4/23, indicated that Resident 5 was cognitively intact (able to think and reason). During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/3/23 at 12:00 pm, with Director of Nursing (DON) Resident 5's, Progress Note dated 04/25/23, was reviewed. The progress note indicated on 4/25/23 at 2:38 am, [Resident 5] was moved to another room because of physical threats from her roommate [Resident 7]. [Resident 5] verbalized that she was scared because she cannot walk and is afraid that her roommate, [Resident 7], will find her in the night and try to hurt her. DON stated, I did not know that was a reportable event. Resident 7's record was reviewed. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included, anxiety (fear of the unknown), depression, and history of falling. The most recent MDS, dated [DATE], indicated that Resident 7 was cognitively intact. During a review of Resident 7's Progress notes dated 4/25/23, the progress note indicated on 4/25/23 at 2:10 am, CNA was alerted to Resident 5 and 7's room. Resident 7 was observed yelling obscenities at her roommate and making physical threats towards Resident 5. CNA further reported that when she walked past Resident 5 and 7's room she heard Resident 7 yelling at Resident 5, shut her up before I do. CNA witnessed, [Resident 7] attempting to get out of her recliner to go after [Resident 5]. During an interview on 5/4/23 at 4:00 pm, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, I did not know yelling and physical threats toward a resident was a reportable event. 2. Resident 182 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included vascular dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), history of falling, anxiety, diabetes, chronic pain, and heart disease. During a review of Resident 182's medical record, Licensed Nurse (LN A) documented on a Behavior Note on 5/2/23 at 3:15 am, Resident continues to exhibit behaviors such as uncontrolled anxiety, stating she can't breathe, loss of independence, continuing to turn light on, after nursing staff met all resident needs. Nurse [LN A] informed resident and family member, the call light needs to be reserved for actual needs. Resident stated she would try to work on not using the call light for unnecessary reasons. During a review of Resident 182's medical record, a document dated 5/2/23 at 10:56 am, titled Physician's Note indicated, Resident has a prognosis of one year or less, End stage congestive heart failure. During a review of Resident 182's medical record, a document dated 5/2/23 at 11:52 pm, created by LN A titled, Behavior Note LN A documented, Nurse entered the room and asked to speak to [FM], Resident yelled at nurse again stating, quit yelling at me. LN A documented Resident 182 was non-complaint with elevating legs and had a diagnosis of Vascular Dementia. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 9:20 am, Family Member (FM) stated, I have complaints about the care here, but I am afraid of retaliation and my sister told me not to send the email I wrote to update the Director of Quality and Risk Management [DQR]. He gave me his card when we were in acute care told me to please let him know if we need anything. I was the caregiver for almost two years, but I cannot meet all of her needs now. The doctor told me Resident 182 has one year or less to live. I was on the phone last night with Resident 182 and I heard the nurse yelling at her, I was so upset. FM was crying when she stated, I am not sure how to file a formal complaint or what to do, I cannot come every day and she has not had a shower or bath since she was admitted on [DATE]. She was recommended a bedside commode and the Certified Nursing Assistant told us she doesn't need one, but I am afraid she will fall trying to go to the bathroom, especially at night. Resident 182 has dementia an she forgets things. During a review of Resident 182's medical record, a document dated 5/3/23 at 1:23 pm, titled, Social Services Progress Note indicated, Reported no shower had been given since admission, the nurse on 5/2/23 pm yelling at resident and resident had called [FM] panicking because she could not breathe well. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 1:02 pm, the DQR stated, I will not let [LN A] come back, I cannot believe she actually documented [Resident 184] could not use the call light. I will fax the report we are doing for the alleged abuse, and I am suspending the nurse until the investigation is complete.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility staff recognized and reported allegations of a...

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 the facility staff recognized and reported allegations of abuse for two of two sampled residents (Residents 5 and 7) within two-hours, when resident 7 was verbally abusive and threatened resident 5 on 04/25/23 at 2:38 am, and this was not reported until 05/04/23 at 2:40 pm, 15 days later. This failure had the potential to delay the identification, and implementation of appropriate corrective actions, and placed other facility residents at risk for potential abuse. Findings: During a review of the facility's Competency Course for Education titled, Safeguarding Resident Rights in Nursing Facilities, dated 2022, the Competency Course indicated, You have the ethical and legal responsibility to protect the rights of the people your organization takes care of. A safe environment includes the right for people to be free from abuse and neglect. Every person working in a healthcare organization is responsible for protecting the people in their care from abuse. Abuse is defined as physical, sexual, financial, emotional and verbal. During a review of the facility's Competency Course for Education titled, Abuse and Neglect in the Elder Care Setting dated 2018, the Competency Course indicated, You will be able to: indicate the prevalence of abuse, identify types of abuse and neglect, recognize the signs or indicators of abuse or neglect, explain the responsibilities of a mandated reporter and identify was to prevent abuse. Types of abuse are verbal, physical During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, [NAME] Memorial Hospital District Policy and Procedure Abuse, Resident dated 04/05/23, indicated, Definition: the willful infliction of injury, intimidation, pain or mental anguish. Abuse is such that is apparent to anyone observing an incident, reading a record that described abusive episodes or has been told one has been abused. Policy: It is [NAME] Memorial Hospital District's intent to ensure that each patient has the right to be free from abuse (verbal, sexual, physical and mental). Patients must not be subjected to any of the above by anyone. Procedure: Screening, Training, Prevention, Identification, Investigation, Protection, and Reporting. Report immediately or within two hours to the local law enforcement agency, the Licensing and Certification Program and the Ombudsman. Resident 5's record was reviewed. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis that included, Chronic pain, anxiety, shortness of breath, and diabetes. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated 04/4/23, indicated that Resident 5 was cognitively intact (able to think and reason). During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/3/23 at 12:00 pm, with Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 5's Progress Note dated 04/25/23, was reviewed. The progress note indicated on 4/25/23 at 2:38 am, [Resident 5] was moved to another room because of physical threats from her roommate, [Resident 7]. [Resident 5] verbalized that she was scared because she cannot walk and is afraid that her roommate, [Resident 7], will find her in the night and try to hurt her. DON stated, I did not know that is was abuse and I needed to report it. Resident 7's record was reviewed. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis that included, anxiety (fear of the unknown), depression, and history of falling. The most recent MDS dated [DATE], indicated that Resident 7 was cognitively intact (able to think and reason). During a review of Resident 7's Progress notes dated 4/25/23, the progress note indicated, on 4/25/23 at 2:10 am, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was alerted to Resident 5 and 7's room. Resident 7 was observed yelling obscenities at her roommate and making physical threats towards Resident 5. CNA further reported that when she walked past Resident 5 and 7's room she heard Resident 7 yelling at Resident 5, shut her up before I do. CNA witnessed, [Resident 7] attempting to get out of her recliner to go after [Resident 5]. During an interview on 5/4/23 at 4:00 pm, with the DON, she stated, I did not know yelling and physical threats toward a resident was abuse.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a care plan for two of two sampled residen...

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 that a care plan for two of two sampled residents (Resident 5 and 7) was revised and updated to reflect an abuse allegation. This failure had the potential for resident's individual care needs to go unrecognized, and a risk for a decline in residents physical, mental, and psychological status. Findings: During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Care Plans-SNF dated 06/03/21, the P&P indicated, Licensed staff promptly alerts the physician to any changes that suggest a need to alter the plan of care. Changes in the resident's condition that require a change in the plan of care shall be documented in the resident's clinical record. Licensed staff will review resident care plan with weekly nursing update. Resident 5's record was reviewed. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included, chronic pain, anxiety, shortness of breath, and diabetes. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated 04/4/23, indicated that Resident 7 was cognitively intact (able to think and reason). Resident 7's record was reviewed. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included, anxiety (fear of the unknown), depression, and history of falling. The most recent MDS, dated [DATE], indicated that Resident 7 was cognitively intact (able to think and reason). During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/4/23 at 1:00 pm, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON confirmed there was no documentation regarding the abuse allegation that occurred on 4/25/23 for Resident 5 and 7 in their care plans and there should have been. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/5/23 at 3:10 pm, with the Director of Quality, the DRQ confirmed there was no documentation regarding the abuse allegation that occurred on 4/25/23, for Resident 5 and 7 in their care plans and there should have been.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

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 that 4 of 26 sampled residents (Residents 75, ...

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 that 4 of 26 sampled residents (Residents 75, 77, 181 and 182), received assistance with activities of daily living to attain or maintain their independence when: 1. Routine grooming activities were not completed for Resident 182. 2. Routine and scheduled showers and toileting were not completed for Residents 75, 77, 181 and 182. These failures had the potential to result in residents feeling depressed with poor self-esteem, and had the potential to contribute to skin breakdown, infection, and negatively impact their ability to attain or maintain their highest practicable level of well-being. Findings: A review of a facility policy titled, Quality of Life-Dignity revised August 2009, indicated residents shall be treated with dignity and respect at all times. Treated with dignity means the resident will be assisted in maintaining and enhancing his or her self-esteem or self-worth. Resident shall be groomed as they wish to be groomed. A review of a policy (booklet) not dated titled, Nursing Homes Residents' Rights indicated when you need personal assistance your facility must provide a call light system in all resident rooms, bathrooms, and bathing facilities. Your facility must make sure the call light is within reach, respond to your call light in a timely manner, respond to call lights in a courteous manner, and attempt to anticipate your needs by placing items within your reach. A review of a policy revised 3/7/22 titled, Baths: Bed, Partial, Shower for Acute and Long-Term Care to promote a feeling of well-being and stimulate circulation. The bed bath is utilized for patient/resident unable to use a shower. Showers are used for resident bathing on scheduled days twice weekly and as needed (prn) or as requested. This policy also indicated allow resident as many choices as possible, for an example what time they would like to shower, what outfit they would like to wear, and what personal care supplies they would like to use. 1. Resident 182 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for diagnoses that included vascular dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), history of falling, anxiety, diabetes, chronic pain, and heart disease. During an observation on 5/3/23 at 9:40 am, Resident 182's hair had not been combed or braided. Resident 182 was not neat or groomed and her hair was disheveled. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 11:00 am, Family Member (FM) stated, They never help [Resident 182], I come in and do it for her. I don't know what to do or who to report this to. During an interview on 5/4/23 at 11:30 am, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) D stated, We don't tell anyone if we are short staffed, we just do what we can do. I don't know the policy, I can find out for you. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 12:45 pm, Director of Quality and Risk (DQR) stated, I am working on this, and I will fax you an investigation of what happened last night. Yes, I agree the nursing staff needs to take care of Resident 182, it is not the daughter's responsibility to come in every day. 2a. Resident 75 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for diagnoses that included a need for assistance at home and no family to render care, diabetes, chronic pain, and heart disease. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set, (MDS, a resident assessment tool) dated 2/28/23, indicated that Resident 75 was cognitively intact (able to think and reason) and required extensive assistance with transfers, toileting, and bathing. A review of Resident 75's ADL care plan dated 2/28/23, indicated Resident 75 was dependent on staff for activities for daily living (ADLs- hygiene, toileting, grooming, and bathing) related to Resident 75'd limited physical mobility. This care plan indicated Resident 75 has an ADL self-care deficit and needs assistance. After a review of Resident 75's medical record, documents titled, ADL, bathing indicated Resident 75 had one bath for May 2023 as of 5/5/23, three baths in April 2023, and three baths March 2023. According to the Shower Schedule Resident 75 should have received 2 baths per week, or about 17 baths over that time frame. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 1:58 pm, Resident 75 stated, I get so tired of waiting on the staff when I have to use the bathroom in the mornings, sometimes it takes up to an hour to get help. The staff tells me I have to wait, and I know they are feeding other residents, but I get tired of holding it. I also did not get my bath again this Monday. I am scheduled to get my baths every Monday and Friday, but they keep missing them and I feel dirty. I want to go home, but I don't have enough hours for home health aides to help me. I just want to be clean and go to the bathroom, I need help. During an interview on 5/5/23 at 2:10 pm, Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) confirmed Resident 75 has the right to go to the bathroom when needed, and not wait on staff. CNO indicated that other nurses can assist if all the Certified Nursing Assistants are busy, and there is always a charge nurse on the hall to assist. CNO also agreed Resident 75 waiting to use the bathroom and not getting her baths are unacceptable. CNO stated, We will start education as soon as possible to resolve this problem. b. Resident 77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for diagnoses that included dementia, diabetes and cardiac disease. A review of the most recent MDS, dated [DATE], indicated that Resident 77 had a severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 3 out of 15. A review of Resident 77's ADL care plan revised 2/15/23, indicated Resident 77 is totally dependent on staff for ADLs, due to limited physical mobility. After a review of Resident 77's medical record, documents titled, ADL, bathing indicated Resident 77 had no baths for May 2023 as of 5/5/23, only two baths in April 2023, and only two baths March 2023, and should have received 2 baths per week. c. Resident 181 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for diagnoses that included vascular dementia, stroke, high blood pressure, and diabetes with a primary language of Spanish (Castilian). A review of the most recent MDS, dated [DATE], was blank where Resident 181's cognition was supposed to be assessed. A review of Resident 181's ADL care plan dated 2/25/23, indicated Resident 181 was dependent on staff for ADLs because of her limited physical mobility. This care plan indicated Resident 181 has an ADL self-care deficit and was non-ambulatory. After a review of Resident 181's medical record, documents titled, ADL, bathing indicated Resident 181 had no baths for May 2023 as of 5/5/23, one bath in April 2023, one bath March 2023, and four baths in February 2023, and should have been bathed twice a week. d. Resident 182 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for diagnoses that included vascular dementia, history of falling, anxiety, diabetes, chronic pain, and heart disease. After a review of Resident 182's medical record documents titled, ADL, bathing indicated Resident 181 had no baths in April or May 2023, and should have been bathed twice a week. During an interview on 5/5/23 at 12:50 pm, the CNO confirmed the above documentation for bathing and that the residents were not bathed twice a week as their policy indicated. CNO stated, I will start training as soon as possible, this is terrible. I will make sure the residents get their showers or baths as scheduled. During an interview on 5/5/23 at 10:20 am, DQR stated, I agree this is bad, one or two baths a month. That is not acceptable, I will follow up with the nursing staff for bathing and showers. It is also unacceptable to have to wait to use the bathroom, we need to do more education. During an interview on 5/5/23 at 10:50 am, LN E stated, I am not sure who keeps track of the baths when they are not done, the nurse on the hall should be updated to follow up. As far as waiting to use the bathroom while other residents are eating, there should always be someone to help answer the lights on the floor.
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 that 1 of 26 sampled resident's environment was...

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 that 1 of 26 sampled resident's environment was free from accident hazards when the facility equipment was stored in the resident's bedroom and the resident's assistive devices were moved out of her reach. (Resident 182) This failure had the potential to increase Resident 182's risk for fall and injuries and violated her right to have a homelike bedroom environment. Findings: A review of the facility's undated policy titled, Nursing Homes Residents' Rights indicated resident right categories include the following: quality care, quality of life, and living accommodations. Resident 182 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for diagnoses that included vascular dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), history of falling, anxiety, diabetes, chronic pain, and heart disease. During an observation on 5/3/23 at 9:30 am, Resident 182's room was full of equipment such as Hoyer lifts, stand up lifts, extra wheelchairs, and facility care supplies on the A bed. Resident 182 was sitting on the side of her bed and stated, I don't know what all that is, I can't see out the door. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 9:55 am, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) D stated, they told us to move all the equipment and lifts out of the hall since the state is here, we are not allowed to keep all the equipment in the halls. I don't know who put them all in there, they have been in Resident 182's room since last night. I just do what I am told, maybe because she has an empty side in her room. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 10:05 am, CNA B stated, This is my first day back since my Friday. I have no idea why all this equipment is in here. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 10:15 am, Licensed Nurse (LN) C stated, I am registry, I have no idea why they put all that equipment in Resident 182's room. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 10:55 am, LN B stated, Management told us to move the lifts out of the halls, we are just doing what we are told. I did not check, no I did not know she cannot reach her walker. We do not have a storage room; we normally keep all the equipment in the hall. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 11:05 am, Director of Nursing (DON) stated, I thought we could not have equipment in the halls, I did not know we could use one side of the hall. No, I did not know Resident 182 cannot reach her walker or wheelchair. I will get someone to move the equipment out of that room. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 11:15 am, Family Member (FM) stated, Oh my goodness, we brought in her personal walker and wheelchair, they just put her name on it. She needs that to go to the bathroom. How can they just move all her things over there? She could fall. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 11:40 am, the Director of Quality and Risk Management (DQR) stated, This is unacceptable, I will get this moved out of here and interview the [FM]. I gave her my card and told her to let me know if she had any problems or concerns. Yes, Resident 182 needs her walker and wheelchair for safety.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

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 competent nursing staff when: 1. The facility s...

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 competent nursing staff when: 1. The facility staff did not understand the different types of resident abuse and the abuse policy process or to whom they should report abuse to. 2. The facility staff did not know how to implement the facility's resident grievance process. 3. The facility staff did not know that translation services were available for residents who did not speak English. 4. Facility staff did not know the process for reporting missed resident showers. This failure to ensure competent staff for facility's abuse process resulted in alleged abuse not being reported to California Department of Public Health (CDPH), the Ombudsman (resident advocacy group) and the Police, and had the potential for grievances to go unresolved and for residents who did not speak English to not have their needs met. Findings: A review of a policy revised and approved [DATE], titled Abuse, Resident, indicated verbal abuse is defined as any use of oral, written or gestured language that willfully includes disparaging and derogatory terms to patients/residents or their families, or within hearing distance, regardless of age, ability to comprehend, or disability. Examples include but are not limited to threats of harm, saying things to frighten a resident. Mental abuse includes, but is not limited to, humiliation, harassment, threats of punishment or deprivation. A review of a policy revised and approved [DATE], titled Abuse, Resident, indicated each patient/resident has the right to be free from abuse (verbal, sexual, physical and mental) including corporal punishment and involuntary seclusion. The facility prohibits mistreatment, neglect, and the misappropriation of patient property. A review of the facility's undated policy titled, Nursing Homes Residents' Rights indicated each resident has the right to be free from abuse and neglect by anyone in the facility, including staff members, other residents, volunteers, family, friends, or any other individual. There are different kinds of abuse including physical, verbal, sexual, emotional, financial, and neglect. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:02 pm, Licensed Nurse (LN) B stated, I am not sure who the abuse coordinator is, I can find out for you. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:20 pm, LN C stated, I do not know who the abuse coordinator is, I just started here, it is my fifth shift. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:25 pm, Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDS) stated, I do not know who the abuse coordinator is, but I will find out for you. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:45 pm, Social Services (SS) stated, I don't know who the abuse coordinator is. I would assume the Director of Quality and Risk Management (DQR), but I am not sure. I can find out for you. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:55 pm, Activities Director (AD) stated, I do not know who the abuse coordinator is. I record the complaints and send an email to the appropriate department after Resident Council meetings every month. In between I think they tell the nurses? During an interview on [DATE] at 4:00 pm, Director of Nursing (DON), stated I did not know yelling and physical threats toward a resident was a reportable event. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:20 pm, Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) stated, I don't know who the abuse coordinator is, I think we decided yesterday it will be the Administrator moving forward. 2. A review of the facility's undated policy titled, Nursing Homes Residents' Rights indicated to file a complaint or grievance,You may talk with the Resident Council in your nursing home, you may talk with a staff person you trust, or the facility administrator and talk with the long-term care Ombudsman. A review of the facility's policy, dated [DATE], titled, Reporting Concerns, indicated Long Term Care will maintain records in a Concern/Grievance log, and all original documentation will be kept in the Performance Improvement Office, and studied for continuous quality improvement. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:15 pm, DON stated, The Social worker follows up on grievances or complaints, is that what you are asking? During an interview on [DATE] at 3:55 pm, SS stated, I follow up on some of the complaints, I do not track or log the complaints or grievances. I don't understand the question for follow up. I will start a new system or process to track the complaints. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:55 pm, AD stated, I do help with some of the complaints, and Social Services assists with some, depending on what the complaint is. If Social Services cannot resolve, we give them all to the DQR. 3. A review of the facility's undated policy titled, Nursing Homes Residents' Rights indicated, If you are not able to understand these rights because of a language or hearing problem, the facility must provide an interpreter for you. If you lack the ability to understand these rights, the facility must explain these rights to your representative unless other legal provisions have been made. A review of the facility's policy, dated [DATE], titled, Interpretation Services indicated the facility provides communication aids (at no cost) to Limited English Proficient (LEP) persons, including current and prospective patients/residents, clients, family members, to ensure a meaningful opportunity to apply for, receive or participate in, or benefit from the services offered. Language interpretation is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week telephonically in over 150 languages. Account number for the facility provided for all employees to use. The operator can create a conference call up to six parties. This policy indicated each employee can schedule an appointment, call for an appointment, request a female or male interpreter for sensitive calls, set up a conference call, and provides tips for successful communication. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:10 pm, CNA A stated, I don't speak Spanish .we have some staff that speaks Spanish like the [NAME] Clerk (WC) he does .I don't know our policy for translation, no one has given me a number or anything, but I will find out for you. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:10 pm, LN C stated, I speak just a few words .I have an application with google on my phone I use at other facilities, but no one here has shown or explained to me what to do .I did not get a policy or a number to call, I get the WC if I need another person. No, I don't know the word for pain, like I said I use the phone application called English to Spanish. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:20 pm, the AD stated, We use the staff to translate, I don't know our policy for translation. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:40 pm, DQR stated, Yes, I confirm the staff does not follow the policy for translation services, our policy needs to be updated as well. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:20 am, the DON stated, I agree with DQR, we need to implement the translation policy .We need to educate the staff, the CNAs and nurses for translation number to call for safety . During an interview on [DATE] at 9:27 am, LN E stated, The nursing staff do not implement the translation line, they use staff members to translate. 4. A review of the facility's policy, revised [DATE], titled, Baths: Bed, Partial, Shower for Acute and Long-Term Care to promote a feeling of well-being and stimulate circulation. The bed bath is utilized for patient/resident unable to use a shower. Showers are used for resident bathing on scheduled days twice weekly and as needed (prn) or as requested. This policy also indicated allow resident as many choices as possible, for an example what time they would like to shower, what outfit they would like to wear, and what personal care supplies they would like to use. A review of the facility's undated policy titled, Nursing Homes Residents' Rights indicated Your facility protects the rights of choice in schedules and services. Residents have the right to make reasonable choices about schedules, request a bath or shower at the time of day you choose. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:10 am, CNA B stated, We just report no baths were done to the oncoming CNAs, no one has told us what to do if we are short staffed. We document when the bathing is done in the computer. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:30 am, CNA D stated, We don't tell anyone if we are short staffed, we just do what we can do. I don't know the policy, I can find out for you. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:10 pm, CNO confirmed residents waiting to use the bathroom and not getting her baths are unacceptable and a dignity problem. CNO stated, We will start education as soon as possible to resolve this problem. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:50 am, LN E stated, I am not sure who keeps track of the baths when they are not done, the nurse on the hall should be updated to follow up. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:20 am, DQR stated, This is bad, one or two baths a month. That is not acceptable, I will follow up with the nursing staff for bathing and showers. It is also unacceptable to have to wait to use the bathroom, we need to do more education.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0744 (Tag F0744)

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 identify the specific needs of and develop individualiz...

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 identify the specific needs of and develop individualized plans of care for three of four sampled residents with dementia (the loss of cognitive functioning - thinking, remembering, and reasoning) in order to promote a high quality of life. (Residents 77, 181 and 182). This has the potential for residents with dementia to have ongoing fear, anxiety, behaviors and injuries due to the facility not recognizing and analyzing interventions tailored to their specific needs and prevent those with dementia from attaining or maintaining their highest practicable level of physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings: According to the Alzheimer's Foundation of America, November 2016, article accessed at: https://www.alzfdn.org/AboutDementia/definition.html), titled, About Dementia, dementia is a general term to describe a group of symptoms related to loss of memory, judgment, language, complex motor skills, and other intellectual function, caused by the permanent damage or death of the brain's nerve cells, or neurons. However, dementia is not a specific disease. There are many types and causes of dementia with varying symptomology and rates of progression. Resident 77 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dementia, diabetes and cardiac disease. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set, (MDS, a resident assessment tool) dated 5/01/23, indicated that Resident 77 had a severe cognitive impairment with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Score of 3 out of 15. A review of Resident 75's care plans reflected that there was no individualized care plan developed which addressed how the facility was going to manage her dementia. Resident 181 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for diagnoses that included vascular dementia, stroke, high blood pressure, and diabetes and her primary language was Spanish. A review of the most recent Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], was blank where Resident 181's cognitive abilities were to be assessed. A review of Resident 181's care plans reflected that there was no individualized care plan developed which addressed how the facility was going to manage her dementia. Resident 182 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for diagnoses that included vascular dementia, history of falling, anxiety, diabetes, chronic pain, and heart disease. A review of Resident 182's care plans reflected that there was no individualized care plan developed which addressed how the facility was going to manage her dementia. During an interview on 5/3/23 at 2:15 pm, Licensed Nurse (LN) C stated, No, they do not give us specific interventions or instructions for residents with dementia. During an interview on 5/4/23 at 10:24 am, Director of Nursing (DON) stated, We transfer residents to our dementia unit if the resident gets too bad, it is a good unit and there is usually a waiting list, but I agree they need to educate more in this facility about dementia, approaches, the disease process. During an interview on 5/4/23 at 9:22 am, the MDS Nurse stated, I put dementia [care plans]under cognitive impairment, not dementia specifically. I do not add specific interventions for dementia, but I will start. During an interview on 5/4/23 at 9:27 am, LN E stated, The nursing staff do not implement the dementia interventions or the translation line. During an interview on 5/5/23 at 12:35 pm, The Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) confirmed education was needed for dementia care and approaches to residents, as well as the families. CNO confirmed the dementia care specific interventions should be on the care plan of all residents with dementia.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that dietary staff had appropriate competencies to carry out the functions of food and nutrition services when two quat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that dietary staff had appropriate competencies to carry out the functions of food and nutrition services when two quaternary sanitizer (Quat, a solution used to sanitize kitchen work surfaces) buckets had not been changed for day shift, and when tested were not at the required concentration level for effectiveness for sanitizing surfaces in the kitchen. This failure had the potential to cause foodborne illness (stomach illness acquired from ingesting contaminated food) to all residents. Findings: During a record review of the facility's policy dated 4/1/2004 titled, Law and Regulatory Affairs indicated the Oasis Multi-Quat sanitizer is registered with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as a food contact surface sanitizer. The product can be used at an active ingredient concentration equal or between 150 and 400 ppm, (parts per million, a unit of measure) on food contact surfaces. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/3/23 at 12:46 pm, the Dietary Manager (DM) checked the Quat sanitizer white buckets located in the prep sink area. DM dipped Quat test strip into the first Quat white bucket for ten seconds, it showed as yellowish color. DM compared Quat test strip with Quat test strip paper container and stated the Quat sanitizer was not in the correct concentration, well below the needed concentration for sanitization. DM then dipped Quat test strip into the second Quat white bucket for ten seconds, it showed as yellowish color. DM confirmed the second bucket was also well below the needed concentration of at least 200 ppm, for sanitizing safely. DM confirmed both tests for Quat solution was at a level of 0 and the Quat buckets had not been emptied or changed during the day shift. A review of the Quat strip paper container instructions indicated, Dip paper in quat solution for 10 seconds and should be a neutral level with a strip color of medium green. During a follow up interview on 5/3/23 at 2:30 pm, DM confirmed the dietary staff needs more education to make sure the Quat solution is checked often and changed as needed for safety in the kitchen. DM confirmed all staff should check the Quat strip to maintain effective sanitization every shift and as needed, and the soiled cloths need to be changed to prevent cross contamination.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food preparation and storage ...

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 safe and sanitary food preparation and storage practices in the kitchen when: 1. Six dry storage bins had white and yellow-colored dried sticky substances on the lids and bottom of bins. 2. Five of the kitchen drawers had sawdust particles on the inside corners, six kitchen drawers had yellowish sticky food particles on the inside of the drawers which stored cooking utensils. 3. The kitchen microwave had yellowish food splatter on the inside including the top and both sides. 4. There was a wet dirty blue cloth stored under the cook preparation (prep) sink with visible black colored dirt and grime on the bottom of cabinet and covering the pipes. 5. The cooking utensils had dried food particles. 6. The oven had dried grease and dried food particles on the inside door, around the edges of the oven door, and on top of the oven. 7. Chipped paint on all of the white shelves in the three-door reach in refrigerators were not easily cleanable. 8. The top and side of the toaster had dried food particles and black dried grime. 9. There were multiple areas of pink colored food splatter behind the kitchen appliances. 10. The pipes beside the cooking stove were covered with black debris and cumulative dust. 11. There were frozen French fries in a bag opened, exposed to air in the freezer with no date or time. 12. There were multiple areas of chipped white paint on two separate wooden cabinets and shelves that had stored mixing bowls which had the potential to contaminate the clean metal bowls and containers. 13. All metal shelves in the walk-in refrigerator had a buildup of black debris and grime. 14. The walk-in refrigerator had red, brown, and orange flaking on the floor all throughout the inside. 15. Kitchen cabinets (Burney) were missing drawers and had cupboard doors that would not close. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:21 pm, six dry storage bins had dried food, yellow colored sticky substances on the lid and bottoms of the bins used for storing dry ingredients. The Dietary Manager (DM) confirmed all the dry bin containers were not clean, and this could cause cross contamination and result in foodborne illness. During a review of an undated facility policy titled, Cleaning Schedules/Procedures the policy indicated that the dietary supervisor should routinely check cleaning schedules and cleanliness of the kitchen using the food service evaluation form (checklist). Cleaning for all refrigerators, oven, storage containers, and food carts should be done weekly and/or as needed, and appliances cleaned after each use. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:22 pm, five of the kitchen drawers located across from walk in freezer had saw dust particles on the inside corners, six of the drawers across from the stove had yellow sticky substances on the inside of the drawers and yellow and brown colored substances on the edge of the inside of the drawers. The DM confirmed all eleven drawers storing cooking utensils were unsanitary and could result in cross contamination and foodborne illness. DM also stated the sawdust in the left back corners of the five drawers were cause by worn and damaged cabinet and drawers and needed replaced to keep clean. During a follow up interview on 5/2/23 at 3:10 pm, the Director of Quality and Risk Management (DQR) stated, We will need to replace these cabinets and drawers, I can see they are damaged and I will place a call to get this started. We had already planned to replace many items in the kitchen, we just have not got to it yet. 3. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:23 pm, the microwave had yellow dried food splatter on the inside top and both sides. The DM confirmed the yellow substances inside the microwave was food splatter which could cause cross contamination and foodborne illness. 4. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:24 pm, a wet soiled blue towel was found under the cook preparation sink with visible black dirt and grime on the bottom of the cabinet surface and covering the pipes. DM confirmed this area was unsanitary and removed the wet blue cleaning towel and stated, They must have been trying to clean this area and left the cloth under here. DM confirmed this unsanitary area could cause cross contamination and the potential for foodborne illness. According to the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) Federal Food Code 2017, (C) Non-food contact surfaces of equipment shall be kept free of accumulation of dust, dirt, food residue, and other debris. The presence of food debris or dirt on nonfood contact surfaces may provide a suitable environment for the growth of microorganisms which employees may inadvertently transfer to food. If these areas are not kept clean, they may also provide harborage for insects, rodents and other pests. 5. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:25 pm, the cooking utensils stored in the kitchen drawers had dried food particles present. DM confirmed all cooking and serving utensils should be kept clean and dry in the drawers to prevent cross contamination with food that could cause foodborne illness. The DM then removed all utensils out of the drawer to rewash and stated the utensils would all be air-dried for proper storage. 6. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:27 pm, the kitchen oven had a buildup of dried grease, dried food particles on the inside of the oven door, around the edges of the door, and on the top and sides of the oven. DM confirmed this unsanitary oven could cause cross contamination and foodborne illness. 7. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:31pm, the white shelves in the three-door refrigerator had chipped paint on all the shelves and were not easily cleanable. The DM confirmed the white shelves had chipped paint and needed to be replaced, DM also confirmed these shelves could cause cross contamination and foodborne illness. 8. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:35 pm, the top and sides of the toaster had had dried food particles and a black dried substance. DM confirmed this cooking appliance was unsanitary and could lead to cross contamination and foodborne illness. 9. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:36 pm, there were multiple areas of pink colored food and liquid splatter on the wall behind the food processor and toaster. The DM confirmed these pink areas looked like food splatter and could cause cross contamination and foodborne illness while preparing food on the counters. 10. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:38 pm, the pipes beside the stove were covered with a buildup of black debris and cumulative dust. DM confirmed the pipes needed to be cleaned and this these unclean areas could lead to cross contamination and foodborne illness. 11. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:40 pm, there were frozen french fries uncovered in a bag with no label or opened date. The DM confirmed all frozen foods should be covered completely to prevent freezer burn and threw out the bag of french fries immediately while confirming their policy was not followed. A follow up interview on 5/2/23 at 12:43 pm, Dietary Aide (DA) A stated, I am the one that used the french fries last night, I forgot to seal and label the bag. I did not follow our policy for frozen foods. Freezer burn could occur, or something could be out of date, lose the flavor of food. I just got in a hurry. 12. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 12:45 pm, there were two cabinets used for food storage, clean cooking pans and clean mixing bowls that had chipped paint throughout the cabinets and on all of shelves. DM confirmed the cabinets were not easily cleanable and could cause cross contamination and foodborne illness and indicated that she had asked for new cabinets multiple times. DM stated, They will have to remove all of this to replace these worn storage cabinets, including the top shelf. During a follow up interview on 5/2/23 at 3:15 pm, the DQR stated, Yes, I know these cabinets need to be replaced, I am working on it. The whole [NAME] will have to come out. 13. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 1:31 pm, all the metal shelves in the walk-in refrigerator had a buildup of dried black debris and grime. DM confirmed the shelves had not been pressure washed in many months due to the weather and the dirty shelves could cause cross contamination and foodborne illness. During a follow up interview on 5/2/23 at 3:20 pm, DQR stated, All of these shelves look horrible, and we will get them pressure washed as soon as possible. 14. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/2/23 at 1:45pm, the walk-in refrigerator had red, brown, and orange colored flaking on the entire floor at the doorway to the back, all through the inside of the refrigerator. DM confirmed the walk-in refrigerator had rust throughout and it was hard to clean and stated, We need a new one. DM confirmed all the rust present could cause cross contamination and foodborne illness. During a follow up interview on 5/2/23 at 3:30 pm, DQR stated, No, it won't fall in, but we do need to replace this refrigerator. Yes, there is a lot of rust in here. During a review on of the FDA Food Code Annex (FDA FCA), dated 2017, the FDA FCA indicated, Floors that are of smooth, durable construction and that are nonabsorbent are more easily cleaned. Requirements and restrictions regarding floor coverings, utility lines, and floor/wall junctures are intended to ensure that regular and effective cleaning. 15. During the initial kitchen tour (Burney annex) on 5/2/23 at 11:15 am, two sets of cabinets were observed to have two drawers that were missing and several misaligned doors that would not fully close. On 5/3/23 at 12:25 pm, during a concurrent observation and interview, the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) confirmed the cabinets were in poor repair and stated, Yes. They need to be fixed. On 5/04/23 at 9:00 am, during a concurrent observation and interview, the [NAME] stated, The cabinets are bad. They need repaired, just look at them. We would normally put plastic storage bags and utensils in the drawers but not now. We don't use them. During an interview on 5/5/23 at 2:10 pm, the Registered Dietician confirmed the kitchen was unsanitary and stated, I have been updating leadership after I complete my check list the kitchen needs to be cleaned. We do need more staff, hopefully they will replace the cabinets and do all the repairs needed.
Feb 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 F0697 (Tag F0697)

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 that one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), who was on...

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 that one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), who was on Hospice (end of life care), was provided with treatment for pain management in a timely manner, when it took the facility over 14 hours to determine that they could not get Resident 1's physician ordered tramadol (a narcotic pain reliever). This resulted in Resident 1's pain increasing to a level 10 the worst pain imaginable, and had the potential to negatively impact his quality of life and emotional well-being. Findings: Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for Hospice care and passed away on [DATE] at 9:46 AM. A review of the facility's policy titled, Pain Management dated [DATE], indicated that the facility was .committed to providing appropriate, safe pain management for all patients, and that Emphasis will be placed on improving the outcomes of pain management including comfort, side effects, complications and patient satisfaction, and The single most reliable indicator of the existence and intensity of pain is the patient's self-report. Pain is an extremely subjective experience and as such, the patient is the best judge of the intensity and relief of pain. The policy's stated purpose was to: 1. Reduce incidence and severity of pain and 2. Enhance patient comfort and satisfaction. Further review of the policy indicated that when a patient was unable to self-report pain, the following nonverbal indicators may be used: a) vocalizations (crying, moaning, grunting), d.posturing and muscle tensing, and e. Irritability. The policy indicated that the pain scale to be used was from 1-10, with a pain level of five being moderate, and a pain level of 10 being Severe Pain and that .unsatisfactory pain relief will be reported to the physician. A review of Resident 1's Nursing Progess notes indicated: On [DATE] at 11:57 AM, Hospice Manager (HM) A documented, Call received from nursing staff. Patient had complained of pain and discomfort. Patient had Tylenol ordered and had been given Tylenol with no relief. MD contacted and waiting for orders. Hospice nursing will follow up. On [DATE] at 12:10 PM, HM A documented, New orders received from MD .Orders were given to the primary nurse . On [DATE] at 4:30 PM, HM A documented, Hospice nurse was called by primary nurse and told that she could not get the tramadol order to go into the computer. Hospice on call, nurse will put the order in for primary nurse and follow up on patient care. On [DATE] at 5:01 PM, (4 hours after initial order was received), HM A documented, New order for tramadol placed. Nursing notified of order. On [DATE] at 6:24 PM, (6 and a half hours after Resident 1 had complained of pain), Travel Nurse (TN) A documented, Three phone attempts made to clarify if Tramadol needs to be delivered to patient. No answer at nursing station. On [DATE] at 1:13 AM, (13 hours after Resident 1 had complained of pain), HM A documented, A call was received from the nursing staff that the patient was in pain and needed tramadol. The staff did not have the tramadol. Hospice nursing staff went to [the hospital pharmacy] and there was no tramadol in the Pyxis [an emergency drug supply machine]. Hospice nurse went to [the facility] to remove tramadol from another patient's pills to give to the patient. The patient continued to be restless while hospice nurse was at the facility. On [DATE] at 1:23 AM, TN A documented, Called hospice nurse [HM A] .to request pain medication for resident. She stated she will bring medications. A review of Resident 1's EMAR (Electronic Medication Administration Record) reflected that on [DATE] at 6:23 PM, he received Tylenol (a mild pain reliever) 650 milligrams (mg) for a pain level of 5 (Moderate pain) and had an order for Tramadol 50mg every 4 hours as needed for severe pain. On [DATE] at 2:26 AM, (14 hours later) Resident 1 was given tramadol 50 mg, that was borrowed from another resident because they never aquired the medication for him. The record indicated that by that time Resident 1's pain level was at 10 (severe). In an interview on [DATE] at 2:52 PM, TN A confirmed that she had been assigned to Resident 1's care on the evening of [DATE]. TN A indicated that she had been concerned that she was unable to provide adequate pain control to Resident 1. TN A indicated that she had not been able to get the order in the computer system and that tramadol was not available in the pharmacy's Pyxis. TN A further indicated that she continued to be unable to obtain the tramadol for many hours to come, due to her delay in getting the order in the computer and the unavailability of tramadol in the contingency (emergency) supply. TN indicated that she had been instructed to call the nursing supervisor at the hospital (this is a shared campus where the hospital has the Administrative staff, a Pharmacy and another Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF), and is located 17 miles from the stand alone SNF where TN A and Resident 1 were), if she had any problems, but every time she called she was transferred 2-3 times each time and was only able to get help by calling the hospice nurse (HM A), who finally contacted her at 1 AM. In an interview on [DATE] at 3:22 PM, Nursing Home Resident Advocate (RA) 1 indicated that she received a call from TN A in the evening on [DATE]. RA 1 stated, she was really upset. She said they had no tramadol available. She had to borrow it from another resident's profile. In an interview on [DATE] at 4:00 PM, HM A stated that the situation had been difficult. HM A confirmed that she had put Resident 1's order for tramadol into the computer system around 2:00 PM on [DATE]. HM A indicated that she had followed up several times, but the tramadol had not been delivered. HM A iindicated that on [DATE] at 1 AM, she received another call from TN A stating that Resident 1 still did not have his tramadol. HM A indicated that TN A also told her, the nurse who was on duty prior to [TN A] had also reported that Resident 1 was agitated. HM A stated that the root cause of Resident 1 not getting his tramadol was, the order didn't get it into the computer right. HM A stated that in order to resolve the situation, she personally went to the hospital pharmacy to get the tramadol but that this was not the facility's typical process. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:38 AM, Family Member (FM) 1 stated that the day and night before Resident 1 died, he was very agitated and she was concerned about his pain control. FM A, stated that on [DATE], They called to get something for him and it wasn't until late that night that they gave him something. In a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 12:03 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) A reviewed Resident 1's EMAR and Nursing Progress notes for [DATE] and [DATE]. ADON A confirmed that there had been a four hour delay getting Resident 1's tramadol order entered into the electronic Physician's Order system and another 10 hours before they realized they did not have any tramadol available. She confirmed that during this delay, Resident 1's pain increased from a level of 5 to 10, and went uncontrolled and untreated for 14 hours, during which time he could have had up to 3 doses. ADON A confirmed that the facility never aquired tramadol for Resident 1 and that they had resorted to borrowing one from Resident 2. ADON A stated, This is not typical for pain control. If a medication is not there, she [TN A] should call her nursing supervisor. It is not part of our policy to borrow medications. Medications should not be borrowed. ADON A added, Moving forward we will use this as a learning experience. Our procedure is to let the nursing supervisor handle the situation. My understanding is that the nurse called hospice instead. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:14 PM, Pharmacist (Pharm) A stated that TN A, should have called the nursing supervisor to obtain the medication from Pyxis once the order had been entered, but this person didn't call the right person for help. Pharm A indicated that the root cause of the situation was that TN A was not familiar with the correct pharmacy process and was unaware that the Pyxis was out of tramadol.
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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 timely aquire and administer pain medication to one of three sample...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to timely aquire and administer pain medication to one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) who was on Hospice (end of life care), when his physician ordered tramadol (a narcotic pain reliever) and they facility nurse did not know how to enter the order into their computer system and their Pharmacy was out of tramadol. This resulted in Resident 1 waiting 14 hours with untreated and uncontrolled pain and the facility subsequently borrowed the medication from another resident. This had the potential to negatively impact Resident 1's quality of life, physically and emotionally, by having his pain left untreated for 14 hours and had the potential for Resident 1 to receive the wrong medication, because it was not dispensed by a Pharmacist. Findings: Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for Hospice care and passed away on [DATE] at 9:46 AM. A review of the facility's policy titled, Medication Administration SNF dated [DATE], indicated, No medication shall be used for any patient other than the patient for whom it is prescribed. A review of the facility's policy titled, Pain Management dated [DATE], indicated that the facility was .committed to providing appropriate, safe pain management for all patients, and that Emphasis will be placed on improving the outcomes of pain management including comfort, side effects, complications and patient satisfaction. A review of the facility's Nursing Progress notes for Resident 1 indicated: On [DATE] at 11:57 AM, Hospice Manager (HM) A documented, Call received from nursing staff. Patient had complained of pain and discomfort. Patient had Tylenol ordered and had been given Tylenol with no relief. MD contacted and waiting for orders. Hospice nursing will follow up. On [DATE] at 12:10 PM, HM A documented, New orders received from MD .Orders were given to the primary nurse . On [DATE] at 4:30 PM, HM A documented, Hospice nurse was called by primary nurse and told that she could not get the tramadol order to go into the computer. Hospice on call, nurse will put the order in for primary nurse and follow up on patient care. On [DATE] at 5:01 PM, HM A documented, New order for tramadol placed. Nursing notified of order. On [DATE] at 6:24 PM, Travel Nurse (TN) A, the primary nurse responsible for Resident 1's care, documented, Three phone attempts made to clarify if Tramadol needs to be delivered to patient. No answer at nursing station. On [DATE] at 1:13 AM, HM A documented, A call was received from the nursing staff that the patient was in pain and needed tramadol. The staff did not have the tramadol. Hospice nursing staff went to [the main hospital] and there was no tramadol in the Pyxis [an automatic drug dispensing machine for routine and emergency medications]. Hospice nurse went to [the facility] to remove tramadol from another patient's [Resident 2] pills to give to the patient [Resident 1]. On [DATE] at 1:23 AM, TN A documented, Called hospice nurse [HM A] .to request pain medication for resident. She stated she will bring medications. A review of Resident 1's Electronic Medication Administration Record (EMAR) indicated that on [DATE] at 2:26 AM, 14 hours after his physician had ordered tramadol for his pain, Resident 1 received tramadol 50 mg and his pain level was 10 (the worst imaginable level of pain). A review of Resident 2's Order Summary Report reflected that she had an order for tramadol 50 mg, which she took at bedtime. On [DATE] at 12:46 PM, Resident 2 acknowledged that she regularly received Tramadol 50 mg, and had been unaware that one of her tramadol had been borrowed for another resident. In an interview on [DATE] at 2:52 PM, TN A confirmed that she was the primary nurse in charge of the care of Resident 1 on [DATE]. TN A indicated that she had difficulty getting the physician's order into the facility's computer system and had not received adequate training. TN A confirmed this delayed getting Resident 1's tramadol delivered to the facility. TN A indicated that she called the nursing supervisor at the facility's hospital where the pharmacy was located (17 miles away), for help but was transferred 2-3 times and never spoke to the nursing supervisor. At that point TN A reached out to HM A at 1 AM, and confirmed this was at 11 hours after she had received the physician's order, and HM A told her to borrow tramadol from Resident 2 and give it to Resident 1, and she did. In an interview on [DATE] at 4:00 PM, HM A stated that the situation had been difficult. HM A indicated that she had successfully entered the physician's order for Resident 1's tramadol into the computer system around 2:00 PM on [DATE]. HM A indicated that she had followed up several times but the tramadol had not been delivered. HM A indicated that later on that night at 1 AM, she received another call from TN A stating that Resident 1 still needed pain medication and had not received tramadol yet. HM A further stated that the root cause for the medication delay was, the order didn't get it into the computer right. HM A stated that in order to resolve the situation, she drove to the hospital pharmacy to obtain the tramadol for Resident 1, only to find that the emergency drug supply machine (Pyxis) was out of tramadol. HM A confirmed that she made the choice to borrow a tramadol from Resident 2 and gave it to Resident 1. HM A confirmed Resident 1 had not received his first dose of tramadol for over 14 hours after his physican ordered it. In an interview on [DATE] at 11:38 AM, Family Member (FM) 1 stated that the day and night before Resident 1 died, he was very agitated and that she was concerned about his pain control, stating that on [DATE], They called to get something for him and it wasn't until late that night that they gave him something. In a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 12:03 PM, Resident 1's EMAR and Nursing Progress notes dated 1/7 to [DATE], were reviewed with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) A. ADON A confirmed that the physician's order for Resident 1's tramadol had not been successfully entered into the computer system for more than 4 hours after the order had been given to TN A, and that Resident 1 was not given a dose of tramadol until 2:26 AM, 14 hours later. ADON A confirmed that the facility did not have their own emergency drug supply kits for narcotic medications at their site, and that they get them from their main hospital pharmacy. ADON A stated, This is not typical for pain control. If a medication is not there, she should call her nursing supervisor, and It is not part of our policy to borrow medications. Medications should not be borrowed, that is not acceptable. ADON A further stated, Moving forward we will use this as a learning experience. Our procedure is to let the nursing supervisor handle the situation. My understanding is that the nurse called hospice instead. In an interview on [DATE] at 12:14 PM, the Pharmacist (Pharm) A, indicated that he was not aware that the Pyxis was out of tramadol, and indicated that it was available on 1/7-[DATE].
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "What safeguards are in place to prevent abuse and neglect?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: Federal abuse finding, 1 life-threatening violation(s), $62,258 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 39 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $62,258 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in California. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (13/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: This facility has a substantiated abuse finding. Extreme caution advised. Explore alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Mayers Memorial Hospital's CMS Rating?

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

How is Mayers Memorial Hospital Staffed?

CMS rates MAYERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Mayers Memorial Hospital?

State health inspectors documented 39 deficiencies at MAYERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 38 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Mayers Memorial Hospital?

MAYERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL is owned by a government entity. Government-operated facilities are typically run by state, county, or municipal agencies. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 99 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 74% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FALL RIVER MILLS, California.

How Does Mayers Memorial Hospital Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, MAYERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1 and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Mayers Memorial Hospital?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "What safeguards and monitoring systems are in place to protect residents from abuse or neglect?" "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?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations and the substantiated abuse finding on record.

Is Mayers Memorial Hospital Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MAYERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL has documented safety concerns. The facility has 1 substantiated abuse finding (meaning confirmed case of resident harm by staff or other residents). Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in California. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Mayers Memorial Hospital Stick Around?

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

Was Mayers Memorial Hospital Ever Fined?

MAYERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL has been fined $62,258 across 1 penalty action. This is above the California average of $33,701. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Mayers Memorial Hospital on Any Federal Watch List?

MAYERS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 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.