SIERRA VISTA HEALTHCARE

1715 SOUTH CEDAR, FRESNO, CA 93702 (559) 237-8377
For profit - Limited Liability company 99 Beds ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
3/100
#1116 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: September 2024

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

Overview

Sierra Vista Healthcare has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its quality of care. It ranks #1116 out of 1155 facilities in California, placing it in the bottom half of all nursing homes in the state and last in Fresno County. While the facility shows an improving trend with issues dropping from 18 in 2024 to 1 in 2025, it still has a concerning total of 50 issues, including serious incidents like inadequate supervision leading to a resident suffering second-degree burns. Staffing is relatively strong with a rating of 4/5 stars and a turnover rate of 32%, which is below the state average, but the facility has incurred $57,093 in fines, higher than 83% of California facilities, suggesting ongoing compliance problems. Additionally, the facility has average RN coverage, which means there is not as much registered nurse oversight as found in better-rated facilities.

Trust Score
F
3/100
In California
#1116/1155
Bottom 4%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
18 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
32% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$57,093 in fines. Higher than 95% of California facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
50 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 18 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (32%)

    16 points below California average of 48%

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

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 32%

13pts below California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $57,093

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 50 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 3 actual harm
May 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer an antibiotic (a medicine that inhibits the growth of or destroys disease causing microorganisms such as bacteria) as prescribed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to administer an antibiotic (a medicine that inhibits the growth of or destroys disease causing microorganisms such as bacteria) as prescribed by a physician for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure resulted in Resident 1 not receiving antibiotics for an infected left ankle, potentially resulting in worsening infection. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (AR) , dated 4/21/25, the AR indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included aftercare for a fractured left ankle. During a review of Resident 1's Progress Note (PN) , dated 3/4/25, by Surgeon 1, the PN indicated, Surgeon 1 had performed surgery on Resident 1's fractured left ankle on 1/4/25. The PN indicated Resident 1 was seen for a follow up visit by Surgeon 1 on 3/3/25. The PN indicated, concern for surgical site infection. Bactrim [an antibiotic] ordered today. The PN indicated Bactrim DS 800-160 milligrams (a unit of measurement) per tablet take one tablet by mouth two times per day for 10 days to begin on 3/3/25 and end on 3/13/25. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/16/25 at 1:43 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 1's clinical record was reviewed. The DON stated Surgeon 1's physician order for Bactrim to be given to Resident 1 starting on 3/3/25 Did not happen. The DON stated that a process is in place to start an antibiotic within four hours once the order is received. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/21/25 at 10:21 a.m. with DON, the DON stated after Resident 1's appointment on 3/3/25 with Surgeon 1, Surgeon 1's PN was faxed to the facility and may have been placed in the medical records box and it should have been given to clinical staff, but it was not. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/2/25 at 10: 40 a.m. with Medical Records (MR) staff, MR stated, the facility received Surgeon 1's PN on 3/4/25. MR stated that when faxes are received via fax, they are uploaded, given to the nurses, and put in the resident's chart. MR stated, Recently there was a hiccup with the nurse not getting it and now we have a follow up meeting the next day to discuss all previous appointments and follow up with paperwork. During an interview on 5/2/25 at 10:52 a.m. with DON, the DON stated, The risk of starting [Resident 1's] antibiotic late can lead to possible infection, which she did get. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication and Treatment Orders , dated 7/16, the P&P indicated, Drug and biological orders must be recorded on the Physician's Order Sheet in the resident's chart.
Nov 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 ensure one of three residents (Resident 1) was free from injury whe...

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 (Resident 1) was free from injury when he attempted to self-transfer out of his bed with the bed ' s wheels unlocked, resulting in a bedside fall and fracture to his left hip. This failure had the potential to contribute to the fall with fracture when the bed ' s unlocked wheels caused the bed to move when he attempted to transfer out of bed. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (AR), dated 10/11/24, the AR indicated Resident was a [AGE] year old male admitted to the facility in 2021 with diagnosis that included neurocognitive disorder with Lewy bodies ( a type of progressive dementia that leads to a decline in thinking, reasoning and independent function); bipolar disorder (mental illness that causes unusual shifts in a person's mood, energy, activity levels, and concentration, can make it difficult to carry out day-to-day tasks); and dementia (a chronic condition that causes a decline in mental abilities, such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning, that interferes with daily life). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (or MDS, a standardized, comprehensive assessment tool), dated 8/2/24, the MDS indicated at Question C0500 Brief Interview for Mental Status a score of 15 out of 15, which indicated Resident 1 was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated at Question GG0115 B, a score of 2, which indicated he had impairments on both sides of his lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, foot). The MDS indicated at Question GG0120 that he was wheelchair bound. The MDS indicated at Questions GG0170: D, Sit to stand: The ability to come to a standing position from sitting in a chair, wheelchair, or on the side of the bed a score of 2, which indicated Resident 1 needed Substantial/maximal assistance [from staff] - Helper does MORE THAN HALF the effort. Helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort; E, Chair/bed-to-chair transfer: the ability to transfer to and from a bed to a chair (or wheelchair), a score of 2, which also indicated Resident 1 needed Substantial/maximal assistance [from staff] - Helper does MORE THAN HALF the effort. Helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort; and I, Walk 10 feet: Once standing, the ability to walk at least 10 feet in a room, corridor, or similar space, a score of 9, which indicated a score of 9, which indicated this assessment question was Not Applicable - Not attempted and the resident did not perform this activity. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Physical Therapy Evaluation and Treatment (PTET), dated 9/17/24, the PTET indicated Resident 1 needed Max Assist for transfers, and that his Gross Motor Coordination = impaired. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes (PN), dated 10/6/24, at 8:20 a.m., the PN indicated, .informed that resident [1] was laying on the floor. Upon entering room resident was laying on the floor in a prone position [face down] to the bed attempting to get up. Resident was asked what he was trying to do as per resident he was trying to transfer himself to the wheelchair. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes (PN), dated 10/7/24, at 10:10 a.m., the PN indicated Resident 1 . needs supervision in transferring. [Resident 1] further stated that he thinks the bed had moved when he was transferring. ordered to obtain Xray, today Xray done, resulted [in a fracture of the thigh bone near the hip] . ordered to send resident out to a [General Acute Care Hospital, or GACH] for further evaluation. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes (PN), dated 10/10/24, at 7:02 p.m., the PN indicated Resident 1 was readmitted to the facility from the GACH with a diagnosis of Left Femur fracture, s/p left hip hemiarthroplasty on 10/8/24 [a fracture of the left hip, with surgical repair]. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes (PN), dated 10/21/24, at 9:01 p.m., the PN indicated, .stopped by to see [Resident 1] this afternoon to discuss concerns. regarding a recent fall he had. [Resident 1] stated the night he fell, a CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant] came in and asked him for permission to move his bed back in its original place to allow the CNA to be able to help [Resident 1 ' s roommate] with resident care. [Resident 1] stated that when the CNA left they must of forgot to lock the bed because he then got up to get out of bed and fell to the floor. During an interview on 10/22/24, at 9:30 a.m., with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated that before he fell on [DATE], at about 1 or 2 a.m., my roommate was on his call light, and the staff that came in asked me if it was ok to move my bed to tend to him. I said OK. After they left, they forgot to lock my bed wheels. There ' s red and green colored foot pedals, see? I fell out of bed that morning, I began to get out of bed, I pushed off the bed for a bit of leverage, and boom, I went face down on the left side. Resident 1 stated a male nurse came into the room and found him on the floor. Resident 1 stated, I explained to him the bed was unlocked. During an interview on 10/22/24, at 11:50 a.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated when a resident is in bed, the wheel locks should be locked at all times. During an interview on 10/22/24, at 11:44 a.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated, resident beds should be locked when they are in bed. During an interview on 10/22/24, at 5 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated she was on duty on 10/6/24 when Resident 1 fell to the floor. LVN 1 stated, When I went into the room, the bed was moved to the side and [Registered Nurse, or RN 1] was in there with me. The bed was moved to the side maybe like a foot and a half from its normal position. I don ' t know if somebody pushed it or if [RN 1] pushed it. During an interview on 10/24/24, at 2:45 p.m., with RN 1, RN 1 stated he recalled being the first staff person to find Resident 1 on the floor next to his bed on the morning of 10/6/24. RN 1 stated, I was walking down the hallway when I saw him on the floor. I was first staff who saw him on floor. He was face down, face was turned to the left, he was alert, he said he was trying to transfer to [his wheelchair] but he didn ' t make it. Yeah, the bed was not straight, a little bit to the side, like it was pushed. The bed was like that when I found it. About one foot from normal resting position. I don ' t recall checking if the brakes were locked. No, bed would not be able to move if brakes were locked, they are kind of heavy. [Resident 1] said the brakes were unlocked. The bed rolled easily when we moved it, we got him up into the wheelchair. This bed is the type with foot pedals to lock and unlock. When resident is in bed, it should be locked. During an interview on 11/1/24, at 4:45 p.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS), RNS stated resident bed wheel locks should be locked when residents are in bed, of course. They should be locked all the time. During a review of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) website page titled, A Guide to Bed Safety Bed Rails in Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Home Health Care: The Facts, dated 12/11/17, the FDA website page indicated, Meeting Patients ' Needs for Safety - Keep the bed in the lowest position with wheels locked.
Sept 2024 16 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of six sampled residents (Residents 351), had their code ...

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 six sampled residents (Residents 351), had their code status (resident's instructions to a medical team about the type of treatment they want if their heart or breathing stops) documented upon admission on the Physician Order for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST). Resident 365's POLST form was not completed and signed by the physician for more than eleven days after admission and not in accordance with the facility policy and procedure. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 351's wishes not being honored and unnecessary medical interventions administered. Findings: During a review of Resident 351's electronic medical records (EMR) on [DATE] at 10:10 a.m., the EMR indicated, no POLST was in the (EMR). A copy of the printed POLST form was requested on [DATE]. During a review of Resident 351's Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) dated prepared [DATE], the POLST indicated, .Box A Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) .[check mark] Do not Attempt Resuscitation/DNR .Box B Medical Interventions . [check mark] Selective-Treatment .Box C Artificially Administered Nutrition .[check mark] no artificial means of nutrition, including feeding tubes .Box D Information and Signatures .[box] Signature of Physician/Nurse Practitioner /Physician Assistant . [physician signature] .Date [DATE] .[box] Signature of Patient or legal Recognized Decisionmaker . [Resident 361 signature] .Date: [DATE] . The POLST form indicated Resident 351 signed the POLST form on [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:15 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated, the POLST form should have been completed upon admission. LVN 1 stated, the physician and or Nurse Practitioner had 72 hours to sign the POLST form after Resident 351 was admitted . LVN 1 stated, It is important to have a signed POLST form to let the staff know when residents wanted CPR (emergency treatment that's done when someone's breathing or heartbeat has stopped) or did not want one. LVN 1 stated, residents without a POLST had CPR performed and when they did not want it. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:19 p.m. with Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) 1, MDSC 1 stated the admission nurse was responsible for completing the POLST form upon admission. MDSC 1 stated the admission nurse should have asked Resident 351 what her wishes were and should have completed the POLST upon admission. MDSC 1 stated, Medical Record should have followed up to ensure if the POLST form was or was not completed after admission. MDSC 1 stated, Medical Record should have completed POLST form within 72 hours of admission. MDSC 1 stated, Resident 351's was considered a full code (term that means a patient's health care team will do everything possible to save their life in a medical emergency) because the POLST form was not completed and signed by the physician within 72 hours. MDSC 1 stated, the POLST form was not considered completed without a physician signature. MDSC 1 stated, she was not sure how often the physician came to the facility. MDSC 1 stated, a Nurse Practitioner was also able to sign the POLST form, and the Nurse Practitioner came to the facility daily. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:41 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the POLST form should have been initial by the admission nurse and communicated to the physician regarding Resident 351's wishes. The DON stated, the physician should have signed the POLST form the next day after admission. The DON stated, the physician had three to five days to sign the POLST form after Resident 351 was admitted to the facility. The DON stated, the physician had the POLST form in his inbox and did not sign it until [DATE]. The DON stated, the physician should have signed the POLST the same day it was placed in his inbox. The DON stated, Medical Records should have followed up with the POLST form when it was not signed. The DON stated, The POLST form was not completed without the physician signature and was not acceptable. The DON stated, Resident 351 was automatically considered full code because the POLST form was not completed. The DON stated, and it was important to get the POLST form completed to honor Resident 351's wishes. The DON stated, the POLST form notified staff about Residents wishes when the Resident health condition was unstable. The DON stated, Resident 351 did not have an advance directive (a written statement of a person's wishes regarding medical treatment, often including a living will, made to ensure those wishes are carried out should the person be unable to communicate them to a doctor) and the POLST form had her wishes. During an interview on [DATE] at 10:54 a.m. with Medical Records (MR) 1, MR 1 stated the admission nurse was responsible for completing the POSLT form and should had done so upon admission. MR 1 stated, Once the POLST from is completed I will do follow up. MR 1 stated the POLST needed to be signed by the physician for it to be considered valid. MR 1 stated, The residents are automatically full code, that is why it was important to get the POLST signed in time. MR 1 stated, If something would have happened, we need to follow what the resident's wishes were. During a review of Resident 351's admission Record (AR-document containing resident demographic information and medical diagnosis dated [DATE], the AR indicated Resident 351's was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The AR indicated Resident 351 had diagnoses of Covid 19 (disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus) polyneuropathy (the nerves that are located outside of the brain and spinal cord are damaged) Depression, Hypertension (high blood pressure when the pressure in your blood vessels is too high [140/90 mmHg or higher], and constipation. The AR indicated: Resident 351 was her own responsible party (the person who is responsible for making the medical decision). During a review of Resident 351's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify cognitive [mental processes] and physical functional level assessment), dated [DATE], the MDS, indicated Resident 351 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test given by medical professionals to determine cognitive understanding on a scale of 1-15 ) score of 9 (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired, 13-15 suggests cognitively intact) indicating Resident 351 was moderately cognitively impaired. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Administrative Manual dated revision [DATE], the P&P indicated, Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST) .Policy .the facility will advise residents about their rights to make health care decisions and the facility will honor those wishes .The POLST will be honored if received on admission and signed by both the resident and a physician in accordance with the guidelines .The POLST form is not valid until it is signed by the resident (or the designated decision-maker) AND physician .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the privacy of personal information for one of three sampled residents (Resident 34) when Licensed Vocational Nurse (L...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the privacy of personal information for one of three sampled residents (Resident 34) when Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 left her workstation computer open and unattended with Resident 34's information exposed to public view. This failure resulted in violation of Resident 34's right to confidentiality and the potential for unauthorized access to Resident 34's personal information. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/25/24 at 3:40 p.m. with LVN 2, outside of Resident 34's room, LVN 2 entered Resident 34's room and left her computer screen open with Resident 34's information open. LVN 2 stated she should not have left her computer screen open. LVN 2 stated any residents, staff and visitors walking by could have seen Resident 34's private information violating her privacy. During a review of Resident 34's admission Record [AR-document which contain patient personal information], dated 9/26/24, the AR indicated Resident 34 was admitted in the facility on 11/22/23 with diagnoses which included unspecified dementia (loss of cognitive functioning like thinking, remembering and reasoning), and Hemiplegia( severe of complete loss of strength or paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (mild loss of strength or weakness on one side of the body). During an interview on 9/26/24 at 9:50 a.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated computer screen should always be closed as soon as the licensed nurses turned their back on the computer to safeguard the privacy of residents. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 10:23 a.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated the practice was to never leave the computer screen open to protect residents' information. The DSD stated it was a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA- a federal law that was passed in 1996 to protect sensitive health information. HIPAA establishes national standards for the privacy and security of health information, and gives individuals certain rights over their health records) violation. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 2:40 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated her expectation was for licensed nurses to close their computer screen when they turned their back on the computer and not within their sight. The DON stated there are always other residents, staff and visitors walking by that did not need to know residents' information. The DON stated residents information needed to be protected. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) dated 8/22, the P&P indicated, . Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident's rights to: . privacy and confidentiality .
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain a clean and homelike environment for two of 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 maintain a clean and homelike environment for two of six sampled residents (Resident 16 and Resident 39) when Resident 16 had the following at bedside: 1. A plastic bag of fresh onions, tomatoes and avocados on the floor. 2. On a shelf were multiple cans of soup, bananas, cookies, ramen noodle soup, bottles of spices with broken lids, individual packets of sugar, pepper, mayonnaise and loaves of bread. 3. The sink area had kitchen utensils and under the sink was a small ice chest, loaf of bread and small bottles of spices. These failures provided an unclean and un-homelike environment for Resident 16 and Resident 39 (Resident 16's roommate) and placed them at risk for cross contamination from improper storage of personal food. Findings: During a review of Resident 16's Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool used to identify cognitive [pertaining to reasoning, memory and judgement] and physical function level), assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 16's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-screening tool used in nursing home to assess cognition) assessment score was 15 out of 15 (0-15 scale[0-6 severe cognitive deficit, 7-12 moderate cognitive deficit, 13-15 no cognitive deficit]) indicating Resident 16 had no cognitive deficit. During a review of Resident 39's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 39's BIMS assessment score was 15 out of 15 indicating Resident 39 had no cognitive deficit. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 8:15 a.m. in room [ROOM NUMBER] during the initial tour. Resident 39 was lying in bed A watching TV and covered with blanket. Resident 39 stated he did not mind Resident 16's (roommate in bed B) clutter. Resident 39 stated when he was first admitted in the facility, he was told he could use the sink too but Resident 16 had too much clutter, it was impossible to use the sink. Resident 39 stated he was used to the clutter on Resident 16's side including the clutter, on top of the sink. During an observation on 9/23/24 at 8:20 a.m. in room [ROOM NUMBER] during initial tour, Resident 16 was not in the room. Observed food clutter on the floor between Resident 16's bed and the window. Open shelves by the window was observed overflowing with dry goods and fresh produce. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 3:30 p.m. in the hallway leading out to the patio, Resident 16 was observed sitting up in his wheelchair and propelled self out in the patio. Resident 16 stated he did not have any concerns and did not answer any more questions. During an interview on 9/23/24 at 9:19 a.m. with Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated the facility staff talked to Resident 16 and family and explained the risks of hoarding food, but they continued to bring food in the facility. The IP stated it was difficult talking to Resident 16 and had explained the consequences of his hoarding of food. The IP stated food hoarding attracts pest which could result in infestation of the whole facility. The IP stated foods past their expiration dates could cause food borne illness. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 3:10 p.m. in Resident 16 and Resident 39's room, housekeeping (HK) 3 was observed moping Resident 16's side of the room and cleaning and wiping the sink area. HK 3 stated her only job was to clean the room, mop the floor and clean the sink, it was not her job to pick up the food off the floor and check the expiration dates of food. HK 3 stated Resident 16 did not like facility staff touched his food. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 10:30 a.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated Resident 16 liked to bring foods and keep it at his bedside. The DSD stated she tried talking to Resident 16 about the hoarding of food and the family but they continue to bring food. The DSD stated the food hoarding could result in a pest problem and affect the whole facility. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 10:55 a.m. with Registered Dietitian (RD), the RD stated she goes in the facility once or twice a week and explained repeatedly to Resident 16 about the potential for food borne illness as a result of hoarding food but he never listened. The RD stated the facility staff checked the expiration dates of Resident 16's food and throw away food past its expiration dates. RD stated Resident 16 refused to throw expired foods out at times and had insisted the food was still good. RD stated nursing staff offered to store his food in the resident's refrigerator but he refused. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 11:57 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated Resident 16 was alert and oriented and independent with most of his activities of daily living (ADL- everyday task to care for self like bathing or showering, dressing, toilet use). The DON stated the facility offered to find him a place where he can be more independent, but he refused, stating he had friends in the facility. The DON stated Resident 16 goes to his sister's house to cook and brings the finished product in the facility. The DON stated nursing staff are making sure they are checking the expiration dates of Resident 16's food and throw away expired foods. The DON stated the facility is making sure Resident 16's room and bedside is kept clean to prevent pest infestation. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 8:55 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 5, CNA 5 stated she was familiar with Resident 16. CNA 5 stated Resident 16 likes to bring lots of food including fresh produce and fruits into the facility. CNA 5 stated nursing staff had to make sure the food was to checked to make sure it was not rotten or expired. CNA 5 stated she report to the charge nurse when Resident 16 refused to throw away expired or rotten food. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 9:21 a.m. with Social Service Assistant (SSA), The SSA stated, .It has been a while since I went to his room, I think I have done everything I possibly could . The SSA stated Resident 16 was offered alternate placement so he could be more independent but he refused saying he has friends in the facility and did not want to move. The SSA stated the IP nurse is following up on Resident 16. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 3:45 p.m. with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated He talked to Resident 16 constantly and discussed his hoarding of food and he would agree to stopped hoarding which he did for a few days then went back to his usual ways. The ADM stated Resident 16 was alert and oriented with a BIMS of 16. The ADM stated the staff was making sure they put dates on the food when he brings it into the facility and put it in the resident refrigerator or in the ice chest he kept under the sink. Staff made sure there was ice in the ice chest. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Quality of Life-Homelike Environment, dated 5/17, the P&P indicated, . The facility staff and management shall maximize, to the extent possible,the characteristic of the facility . Clean, sanitary and orderly environment . During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Outside Food, dated 3/22, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to educate the families of our residents about their family members diet order . Prepared food brought in for the resident should be consumed within two (2) hours . Unused food will be dated and stored in a Resident Refrigerator . Opened food must be sealed and consumed by the indicated manufacturer's expiration date . Any suspicious or obviously contaminated food will be discarded immediately During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Personal Property, dated 9/12, the P&P indicated, . The resident is encouraged to maintain his/her room in a home-like environment . A representative of the admitting office will advise the resident, prior to or upon admission, as to the types and amount . the resident may keep in his room .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

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 Level l Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASR...

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 Level l Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR-The State is required to ensure that every person entering a Medicaid certified Nursing Facility [NF] receives a Level I screening and if necessary a Level II evaluation to ensure that their NF residence is appropriate and to identify what specialized services they may need) was completed accurately for one of two sampled residents (Resident 68) when Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. This failure had the potential for Resident 68 not to receive the necessary and appropriate psychiatric level of treatment and evaluation in the facility. Findings: During a review of Resident 68's admission Record (AR), dated 9/26/24, the AR indicated, Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified psychosis (collection of symptoms that cause a person to lose touch with reality and have difficulty distinguishing reality) and depression (sadness). During a review of Resident 68's Order Summary Report, [OSR] dated 9/26/24, the OSR indicated, .Citalopram Hydrobromide [brand name- medication used to treat depression] Oral Tablet 20 MG [milligram-unit of measurement] . Order date 8/27/24 . risperiDONE Oral [brand name- medication used to treat the symptoms of schizophrenia [a mental illness that causes disturbed or unusual thinking, loss of interest on life, and strong or inappropriate emotions] oral Tablet . Order Date 8/27/24 . During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/26/24 at 11:45 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 68's PASRR dated 8/27/24 was reviewed. The DON stated the PASRR was completed at the general acute care hospital (GACH) and a copy was sent to the facility when Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The DON stated the PASRR indicated Resident 68 did not require Level ll screening (person-centered evaluation completed for anyone as having, or suspected of having seriou mental illnessm intellectual disability, developmental disabilityor related condition). The DON stated Resident 68 was admitted with diagnosis of unspecified psychosis and depression and was also on psychotropic medications when admitted to the facility. The DON stated she did not review the assessment part of the PASSR which indicated Resident 68 did not have a diagnosis of mental illness and was not prescribed psychotropic medications. The DON stated Resident 68's PASRR assessment dated [DATE] was not accurate. The DON stated she should have reviewed the PASRR assessment when Resident 68 was admitted to the facility and resubmitted an updated PASSR assessment to indicate Resident 68's diagnosis of mental disorder. The DON stated PASSR was important in order for the facility to identify and meet residents mental issues or developmental delay and to refer resident out to other facilities to appropriately provide for their mental care needs. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Preadmission SCREENING & RESIDENT REVIEW (PASRR), dated 11/30/23, the P&P indicated, . Confirm that the PASRR process was completed by the hospital . and reviewing the PASRR documentation submitted by the hospital . Review PASRR documentation .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0687 (Tag F0687)

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 proper treatment and care to maintain good foot...

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 proper treatment and care to maintain good foot health was performed for one of six sampled residents (Resident 3) when Resident 3's toenails were long, thick, and crooked. This failure had the potential to cause Resident 3 to receive injuries from her toenails digging into her skin. Findings: During a review of Resident 3's admission Record (AR, documents containing resident demographic information and medical diagnosis), dated 9/25/24, the AR indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus (condition where the body has trouble controlling blood sugar levels), restless leg syndrome (condition which causes uncontrollable urge to move legs), and Parkinson's disease (a brain disorder which causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking and stiffness). During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/25/24 at 11:10 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 in Resident 3's room, Resident 3 toenails on both of her feet were long, thick, and crooked. RN 1 stated Resident 3's toenails were really long and not in an acceptable condition. RN 1 stated certified nursing assistants (CNA) should have reported the residents nail conditions to her but none of the CNAs ever had. During an interview on 9/25/23 at 11:50 a.m. with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated she was familiar with the condition of Resident 3's nails. CNA 1 stated Resident 3 had not received any nail care because she kept refusing. CNA 1 stated CNAs can report the condition of a patient's toenails to a nurse to make them aware. CNA 1 stated if Resident 3's toenails were not clipped they could have cut her skin which would be difficult to treat since she was a diabetic. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/30/24 at 3:03 p.m. with the Social Services Director (SSD), Resident 3's podiatry notes, dated 5/15/24, 7/17/24, and 9/18/24, were reviewed. The podiatry notes indicated Resident 3 had refused all her podiatry visits. The SSD stated if staff had alerted her about Resident 3's toenail condition and frequent refusals she could have put in a referral for Resident 3 to be seen by a podiatrist in a private office or call the responsible party to try to get Resident 3 to comply with nail care. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/27/24 at 9:13 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 6, Resident 3's podiatry visits, dated 5/15/24, 7/17/24, and 9/18/24, were reviewed. The Podiatry visits indicated Resident 3 had refused all visits. LVN 6 stated it was not ok for Resident 3 to continue refusing nail care, the facility should have taken steps to help trim her toenails. LVN 6 stated Resident 3 was diabetic and if her nails kept growing, she could get skin breakdown, an infection (when germs invade and multiply in the body), or ulcers (open sores that develop on the skin). LVN 6 stated staff should have called her responsible party after every podiatry refusal to try and get her to comply with toenail care. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 9:45 a.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD) the DSD stated CNAs should have been looking at Resident 3's feet and toenails during showers and reporting anything concerning to the nurse. The DSD stated CNAs were trained to report long jagged nails to the nurses for to ensure residents receive the care they needed. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 10:17 a.m. with the Infection Preventionist (IP) the IP stated her expectation was for CNAs to document residents nail condition and report to the nurses. The expectation for the nurses was to follow up on what was reported and try to act against the problem. The IP stated if Resident 3's nails kept growing they could have become ingrown and caused an infection. Resident 3 was diabetic, and diabetics were prone to foot infection issues. During a concurrent interview on 9/27/24 at 10:52 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated if Resident 3 refused podiatry visits multiple times the facility needed to do extra interventions to get the nail care done for Resident 3. The DON stated it was important for Resident 3 to receive their nail care because it helped maintain their skin integrity. The DON stated Resident 3 was diabetic and diabetics could get a cut that would have been difficult to heal due to their diabetes. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Foot Care, dated 3/18, indicated, .Residents will receive appropriate care and treatment in order to maintain mobility and foot health . 1. Residents will be provided with foot care and treatment in accordance with professional standards of practice 2. Overall foot care will include the care and treatment of medical conditions associated with foot complications (e.g. diabetes .) 3. Residents will be assisted in making transportation appointments to and from specialists (podiatrist [doctor who specializes in feet .]as needed) .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to determine and document resident meal preferences for one six sampled residents (Resident 11) when Resident 11 did not have his...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to determine and document resident meal preferences for one six sampled residents (Resident 11) when Resident 11 did not have his dislikes listed on his meal ticket (a document which indicates a resident's diet, allergies, preferences, and dislikes.) This failure resulted in resident 11 not eating his lunch on 9/23/24 and caused him to not receive the nutritional benefits of his meal. Findings: During a review of Resident 11's Minimum Data Set (MDS-resident assessment tool which indicates physical and cognitive abilities), the MDS indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-an assessment of cognitive function) score of 15 (0-7 severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate cognitive impairment, 13-15 no cognitive impairment), indicating Resident 11 had no cognitive impairment. During an interview on 9/23/24 at 9:00 a.m. with Resident 11, Resident 11 stated he disliked Italian food and stated it was served frequently in the facility. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 12:49 p.m. with Resident 11, Resident 11's lunch tray contained spaghetti, chopped zucchini, garlic bread, carton of milk, glass of water and chocolate ice cream. Resident 11 stated he did not like Italian food or zucchini, and he would not eat the provided meal. Resident 11 stated he did not want meal alternatives because the provided lunch ruined his appetite, and he did not want to ask staff for a meal alternative. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/23/24 at 12:49 p.m. with Resident 11, Resident 11's Meal Ticket, dated 9/23/24, was reviewed. The Meal Ticket did not have any preferences or likes listed on it. Resident 11 stated he did not like Italian food and no one had documented his dislike of Italian food on his Meal Ticket. During an interview on 9/24/24 at 11:00 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated it was the nurse's responsibility to check meal trays for accuracy. If the resident received a meal they did not like, CNAs could go to the kitchen directly and get the resident an alternate meal or snack. If CNAs and nurses noticed Resident 11's meal tray was mostly untouched, it was their responsibility to ask the resident if they liked the provided meal. CNA 1 stated it was important to give residents their preferred meals because residents would have an easier time eating food they liked. During an interview on 9/24/24 at 11:15a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated it was the nurse's responsibility to check each meal tray and ticket for accuracy. Such checks included verifying correct resident name, allergies listed, diet type, consistency, restrictions, and preferences. RN 1 stated CNA's can help check the meal as well, but the responsibility for tray accuracy relied on the nurses. RN 1 stated residents had the right to receive meals they actually preferred. During an interview on 9/25/25 at 11:00 a.m. with the Assistant Dietary Services Manager (ADSM), the ADSM stated it was the responsibility of the dietary department to document residents' food preferences. This task should have been done shortly after residents' admission to the facility. The ADSM stated it was important for residents to receive their preferred meals because it ensured residents were getting their full nutrition. During an interview on 9/25/25 at 11:15 a.m. with the Dietary Services Manager (DSM), the DSM stated one of her responsibilities was to ensure meal tickets were completed and accurate for each resident. If a resident needed changes to be done to their meal preferences, it was the expectation for nursing staff and kitchen staff to have open communication to ensure meal preferences were current and accurate. The DSM stated it was important for residents to receive meals in accordance with their preferences because it helped ensure residents actually received the meals they liked. During an interview on 9/25/25 at 2:00 p.m. with the Registered Dietitian (RD), the RD stated the facility policy was for staff to get residents an alternate meal if they requested one or if it appeared most of the meal was untouched. The process involved the CNA or RN going to the kitchen and bringing updated preferences to kitchen staff's attention. The RD stated it was her expectation nursing staff would have escalated such issues to kitchen staff if the resident had changes in meal preferences which may not have been previously discussed. During a concurrent interview on 9/27/24 at 11:22 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Administrator (ADM), the DON stated nurses were responsible for checking the accuracy of meal trays during meal delivery. The ADM stated if nurses or CNAs noticed a resident did not eat the food, they should have asked the resident why in order to figure out what the problem was. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food and Nutrition Services, dated 2017, indicated .Each resident is provided with a nourishing, palatable, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs, taking into consideration the preferences of each resident . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Food Preferences, dated 2017, indicated . if the resident refuses or is unhappy with his or her diet, the staff will create a care plan that the resident is satisfied with .when possible, staff will interview the resident directly to determine current food preferences .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

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 adaptive equipment was provided for one of thre...

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 adaptive equipment was provided for one of three sampled residents (Resident 68) when Resident 68 was not provided built-up utensils on her meal tray. This failure had the potential to limit Resident 68's ability to feed herself independently and safely. Findings: During an observation on 9/23/24 at 12:45 p.m. in the dining room, Resident 68's meal tray had a regular spoon and fork. During a review of Resident 68's admission Record, dated 9/26/24, the admission Record indicated Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included psychosis (set of symptoms that can cause someone to lose touch of reality and have difficulty distinguishing what is real and what is not), and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 68's Order Summary Report (OSR), dated 9/26/24, the OSR indicated, . Resident to have a divided plate and built-up utensils for use during meals, and a 2-handled mug with lid for liquids . During a review of Resident 68's Meal Ticket (MT), MT indicated, Adaptive Equip [equipment]: Built-Up Utensils. During an interview on 9/24/24 at 12:50 p.m. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 4, CNA 4 stated Resident 68's meal ticket indicated she should have built-up utensils on her meal tray and not regular utensils. CNA 4 stated built-up utensils have a big plastic foam handle in order for Resident 68 to hold the utensils and feed herself better. During an interview on 9/24/24 at 12:55 p.m. with Assistant Dietary Service Manager (ADSM), the ADSM stated dietary aides are responsible for making sure the correct utensils are placed on the meal trays for residents. ADSM stated Resident 68 should have gotten built-up utensils. During an interview on 9/24/24 at 12:58 p.m. with Dietary Aide (DA)1, DA 1 stated dietary aides are responsible for making sure the right utensils are placed on residents' meal trays. DA 1 stated the dietary aides should have made sure to inspect and done a final check before the tray cart was sent out, but they did not. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 8:59 a.m. with Dietary Service Manager (DSM), the DSM stated kitchen staff should have made sure Resident 68 was given the built-up utensils on her meal trays. The DSM stated dietary aides are responsible for making sure special utensils are placed on Resident 68's meal tray. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 10:45 a.m. with Registered Dietitian (RD), the RD stated dietary aides are responsible for placing special utensils on meal trays. RD stated nursing staff is responsible to checked Resident 68's meal tray for accuracy and the nursing assistant served the tray to Resident 68. RD stated she was not sure how three pairs of eyes missed the built-up utensils not being on Resident 68's meal tray. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, SELF-FEEDING DEVICES, dated 2023, the P&P indicated, . Devices commonly used . such as divider plates and feeding cups, will be kept in stock. A physician's order is recommended . The Food and Nutrition Services Department will store self-feeding devices. Residents needing devices will receive them with each meal or snack, on their meal trays. Tray cards and diet profile will record which device is needed .
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

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 residents were treated with respect and dignit...

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 residents were treated with respect and dignity in an environment that promotes and enhances quality of life for five of 21 sampled residents (Residents 68, 81, 245, 246, and 350,) when Residents 68, 81, 245, 246 and 350 waited up to 20 minutes for their lunch tray while watching other residents eat their meal while in the dining room. This failure violated Residents' 68, 81, 245, 246 and 350 the right to be offered a dignified dining experience. Findings: During an observation on 9/23/24 at 12:21 p.m. in the dining room, nursing staff passed out lunch trays to residents in the dining room except two residents, Resident 68 and Resident 81. Resident 68 and Resident 81 did not receive a lunch tray and watched other residents eat sitting at the same table. Resident 68 and Resident 81 were observed looking at other residents eating around them. Resident 68 and Resident 81 were served their lunch 15-20 minutes after other residents were served their lunch. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/24/24 at 12:30 p.m., in the dining room, nursing staff was observed passing out lunch trays to residents in the dining room except for four residents, Residents 68, 245, 246 and 350. Residents 68, 245, 246 and 350 sat on the same table and did not receive their lunch trays and watched other residents eat in the dining room. Residents 68, 245, 246 and 350 were observed looking around and looking at other residents eat around them. Residents 68, 245, 246 and 350 were served their lunch 25-30 minutes after other residents were served their lunch. Family Member (FM) 1 was seated next to Resident 350 stated, it was not the first time Resident 350 ate in the dining room, and she did not understand why staff send Resident 350's lunch tray to his room. FM 1 stated it was uncomfortable watching other residents eat while Residents 68, 245, 246 and 350 waited for their lunch tray. During a review of Resident 68's admission Record [AR-document which contain patient personal information], dated 9/26/24, the AR indicated Resident 68 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included unspecified psychosis ( ), anemia (low red blood cell) and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 68's Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool used to identify resident cognitive [pertaining to reasoning, memory and judgement] and physical function level), assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 68's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-screening tool used in nursing home to assess cognition) assessment score was six out of 15 (0-15 scale [0-6 severe cognitive deficit, 7-12 moderate cognitive deficit, 13-15 no cognitive deficit]) indicating Resident 68 had severe cognitive deficit. During a review of Resident 81's admission Record dated 9/26/24, the AR indicated Resident 81 was admitted in the facility on 6/13/24 with diagnoses which included psychosis (mental health disorder) and fracture (break in bone). During a review of Resident 81's MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 81's BIMS score was nine out of 15 indicating Resident 81 had moderate cognitive deficit. During a review of Resident 245's AR dated 9/26/24, the AR indicated Resident 245 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included embolism and thrombosis, muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 245's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 245's BIMS was 14 out of 15 indicating Resident 245 had no cognitive deficit. During a review of Resident 246's AR, dated 9/26/24, the AR indicated Resident 246 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included urinary tract infection (bladder infection) and anemia. During a review of Resident 246's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 246's BIMS was four out of 15, indicating Resident 246 had severe cognitive deficit. During a review of Resident 350's AR dated 9/26/24, the AR indicated Resident 350 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included urinary tract infection and heart failure. During a review of Resident 350's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 350's BIMS was 14 out of 15, indicating resident 350 had no cognitive deficit. During an interview on 9/23/24, at 12:35 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 in the dining room, CNA 3 stated the practice was to serve one table at a time then move on to the next table. CNA 3 stated it was not right for Resident 68 and 81 to wait for their food while they watched other residents eat. During an interview on 9/24/24 at 12:46 p.m. with CNA 4 in the dining room, CNA 4 stated Residents' 68, 81, 245, 246 and 350 waited a long time for their meals because they did not usually eat in the dining room. CNA 4 stated, .Therapist brought residents in the dining room after they finished working with them CNA 4 stated, dietary staff sent Residents' 68, 81, 245, 246 and 350's lunch trays in their rooms. CNA 4 stated they should have let the kitchen staff know to send Residents' 68, 81, 245, 246 and 350's in the dining room so they did not have to watch other residents eat while they wait for their lunch trays. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 9:19 a.m. with Dietary Service Manager (DSM), the DSM stated the practice was to serve one table at a time then move on to the next table. The DSM stated it was not right for residents to wait a long time for their lunch tray to be served while they watched other residents eat around them eat; it was a dignity issue. The DSM stated the nursing staff in the dining room should have let dietary staff know when a resident who do not usually eat in the dining room decided to eat in the dining room. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 9:35 a.m. with Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) 1, MDSC 1 stated she usually helped in the dining room during meals. MDSC 1 stated she checked the food trays making sure residents received their diets as ordered. MDSC 1 stated Residents 68, 81, 245, 246 and 350's lunch trays were not served until later because their lunch trays were sent out to the floor. MDSC 1 stated they had to watch other residents eat while they waited for their lunch trays. MDSC 1 stated nursing staff working in the dining room should have communicated with the dietary staff of Residents' 68, 81, 245, 246 and 350 eating in the dining room. MDSC 1 stated the practice was to served everyone at the same table at a time. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 10:15 a.m. with Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated the practice was for the nurse to check the trays first then the CNAs distributes the trays. The DSD stated, . Staff needed to serve one table at a time before moving on to the next table . The DSD stated it was a dignity issue for residents watching other residents eat while they waited for their food. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 2:10 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, .CNAs working in the dining room should have communicated with the dietary staff . The DON stated the expectation was for residents to be served their food one table at a time then moved on to the next table. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Quality of Life-Dignity dated 8/09, the P&P indicated, . Residents should be treated with dignity and respect at all times . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Rights, dated, 8/22, the P&P indicated, .be treated with respect, kindness and dignity . be free from corporal punishment or involuntary seclusions, and physical or chemical restraints not required to treat the resident's symptoms .
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (AR-a document that provides resident contact details, a brief medical histo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (AR-a document that provides resident contact details, a brief medical history, level of functioning, preferences and wishes), dated 9/25/24, the AR indicated Resident 1 has a history of epilepsy (a brain disease where nerve cells don't signal properly, which causes seizures). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS-resident assessment tool which indicates physical and cognitive abilities), the MDS indicated a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-an assessment of cognitive function) score of 12 (0-7 severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate cognitive impairment, 13-15 no cognitive impairment) indicating Resident 1 had moderate cognitive impairment. During an observation on 9/23/24 at 9:15 a.m. in Resident 1's room, the padding on residents left bedrail was not fully intact, and the metal bar was exposed. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/25/24 at 10:30 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 7 in Resident 1's room, the padding on Resident 1's left bedrail was not fully intact, and the metal bar was exposed. CNA 7 stated Resident 1's bed rails were to be padded for easier turning and for Resident 1's protection. CNA 7 stated she was unsure of Resident 1's medical history that would indicate the use of padded rails and the nurses were responsible for communicating to the CNAs During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/25/24 at 10:45 a.m. with CNA 8 in Resident 1's room, the padding on Resident 1's left bedrail was not fully intact, and the metal bar was exposed. CNA 8 stated Resident 1's bedrails should have been fully padded for Resident 1's protection. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/25/24 at 11:00 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 1's Care Plan, dated 5/24/24 was reviewed. The Care Plan indicated at risk for recurrent seizure episode . padded side rails on bed as indicated . RN 1 stated she did not know why Resident 1's bedrail padding was not intact and properly maintained. RN1 stated both of Resident 1's bedrails should have been padded as indicated on her care plan. RN 1 stated it was the responsibility of the nursing staff to ensure the care plans were being followed. RN 1 stated Resident 1 had a diagnosis of seizures, and she could hurt herself if she hits her limbs on the unpadded rail. During an interview on 9/25/24 at 11:30 a.m. with House Keeping Supervisor (HKS), the HKS stated it was the expectation of nursing staff to log items that need repair in the maintenance log located at nurse's station. During a review of the facility's Maintenance Log dated 9/24, the maintenance log indicated no entries for bed rail padding repair was present for Resident 1's bed. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 9:32 a.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated if a CNA was unsure whether Resident 1's torn siderail padding needed to be replaced, they could have asked the nurses. The DSD stated it was the nurse's responsibility to check the care plan to see if the side rail needed to be padded and then place a work order in the maintenance log. The DSD stated the nurses failed to communicate and implement the care plan's intervention for padded side rails for Resident 1. The DSD stated if Resident 1's siderails were not padded, Resident 1 may have injured herself if she hit the rail. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 11:15 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated she expected her staff to report damaged padding to the side rails and write the work order in the maintenance log to be fixed. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated 12/17, the P&P indicated, .comprehensive, person centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the residents physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident . the comprehensive, person centered care plan will: .g. Incorporate identified problem areas h. Incorporate risk factors associated with identified problems . 13. Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents condition change . 3. During an observation on 9/23/24 at 11:50 a.m. in Resident 53's room, an enhanced barrier (infection control strategy to reduce the spread of bacteria) sign was next to the door. Resident 53 stated, he had diarrhea last week. During a review of Resident's 53 admission Record dated 9/27/24, the admission record indicated, Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, Parkinson's Disease( a condition where a part of your brain deteriorates, causing more severe symptoms over time), Gastro-Esophageal Reflux Disease (GERD- condition in which stomach acid repeatedly flows back up into the tube connecting the mouth and stomach), Pain, Schizoaffective (chronic mental illness that causes a person to experience dramatic changes in their thoughts, moods, and behaviors). During a review of Resident 53's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify cognitive [mental processes] and physical functional level assessment), dated 8/2/24, the MDS, indicated Resident 53 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test given by medical professionals to determine cognitive understanding on a scale of 1-15 ) score of 15 (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired, 13-15 suggests cognitively intact) indicating Resident 53 was cognitively impaired. During a review of the facility's document titled, SBAR [ Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation (or Request), is a structured communication framework that can help teams share information about the condition of a patient or team member or about another issue your team needs to address] Communication Form and Progress Note for RNs/LPN/LVNs (SBAR) for Resident 53, dated 9/14/24, the SBAR indicated .Situation .the change in condition, symptoms, or signs observed and evaluated is/are: Diarrhea .This started on 09/14/2024 .since this started it has gotten .(box checked] stayed the same .This condition, symptoms, or sign has occurred before: [box checked] unknown .Review and Notify .primary physician: Yes .Date:9/14/24 .Time:2:30 PM .Testing .[box checked] blood test .[box checked]other .C.diff [a bacterium that can cause diarrhea other intestinal conditions] and stool culture .[box checked] other n/a . During a review of Resident 53's, [Facility Name] Progress Notes *NEW* dated 9/14/24, the progress note indicated, .Situation: The Change in Condition/s report on this CIC evaluate are/were: Diarrhea . During an interview on 9/27/24 at 10: 17 a.m. with the Director of Nurses (DON), the DON stated Resident 53 had diarrhea on 9/14/24 and an SBAR was done. The DON stated, the physician ordered C-Diff and stool culture (a lab test that examines a stool sample for the presence of bacteria or other germs that can cause infection). The DON stated Resident 53's lab results were negative for c-diff. The DON stated, Resident 53 did not have a recent care plan developed for his diarrhea. The DON stated, Resident 53's diarrhea was considered a changed in condition and a care plan for diarrhea should have been done. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 2:58 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 2, RN 2 stated, Resident 53 had a changed in condition when he had diarrhea. RN 2 stated, there was no care plan for the diarrhea on 9/14/24. RN 2 stated, a care plan should have been developed due to a change in condition related to this new problem. RN 2 stated it was important to create a care plan to ensure the residents were getting the proper care. RN 2 stated, the care plan notified other disciples about the change in condition. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 3:06 p.m. with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) 1, the MDSC 1 indicated Resident 53 had a changed in condition when he had diarrhea. MDSC 1 stated, the staff should have done a care plan to reflect the changed in condition. MDSC 1 stated Resident 53 short term care plan. MDSC 1 stated, nurses and the DON were responsible for the short-term care plans. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated 12/16, the P&P indicated, . The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will: a. Include measurable objectives and timeframes . Identifying problem areas and their causes, and developing interventions that are targeted and meaningful . Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions changes . Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a resident centered care plan for three of 11 sampled residents (Resident 1, Resident 31, and Resident 53) when: 1. Resident 31 did not have a care plan for the use of clotrimazole (brand name-used to treat fungal infection) medication. This failure placed Resident 31 at risk for complications from not having care needs planned by licensed nurses to determine if nursing intervention needed to be added, changed, or completed. 2. The padding on Resident 1's left bedrail was not fully intact, and the metal bar was exposed This failure had the potential to result in Resident 1 sustaining an injury during a seizure (uncontrolled bursts of electrical activities that change sensations behaviors, awareness and muscle movements) episode. 3. Resident 53 did not have a care plan in place for the change in condition for diarrhea on 9/14/24. This failure had the to result in Resident 53's medical needs not to be met. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 7:33 a.m. Resident 31's room, Resident 31 was lying in bed, feet were dangling off the bed while his body was covered with blanket. Observed toenails were thick and long, Resident 31 stated staff cut his nails, and the foot doctor had seen him recently. During a review of Resident 31's admission Record, dated 9/26/24, the admission record indicated Resident 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included epilepsy (brain disease where nerve cells don't signal properly, which causes seizures[uncontrolled burst of electrical activities that changes sensations, behaviors and muscle weakness]), anemia (body does not produce enough healthy red blood cells) and dementia (loss of cognitive functioning, thinking, remembering and reasoning). During a review of Resident 31's Order Summary Report, dated 9/26/24, the Order Summary Report, indicated, . Clotrimazole External Cream one percent [1%] . Apply to toenails topically in the morning for onychomycosis [fungal infection that affects the nails, causing them to become discolored, thickened, and brittle] for four months . During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/25/24 at 2:16 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, Resident 31's order summary was reviewed and LVN 3 stated Resident 31 was seen by podiatrist and was ordered ointment to be applied to his toenails for four months. LVN 3 stated she did not find a care plan for the new order and there should have been a care plan. LVN 3 stated a care plan should have been initiated by the licensed nurse who received the order. LVN 3 stated the care plan was very important to monitor the condition of residents whether there was progress or decline. LVN 3 stated care plan were the responsibility of all licensed nurses. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/25/24 at 2:40 p.m. with Social Service Director (SSD), the SSD stated she arranged for podiatrist to come in the facility and they come in the facility to see residents every two months. The SSD stated the podiatrist saw Resident 31 on 7/17/24 and 9/17/24. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 2:25 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated Resident 31's care plan should have been initiated by the licensed nurse receiving the order. The DON stated care plans are important because it directs the staff on how to care and monitor progress of residents. Care plans are initiated immediately after an order was received. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated 12/16, the P&P indicated, . The comprehensive, person-centered care plan will: a. Include measurable objectives and timeframes . Identifying problem areas and their causes, and developing interventions that are targeted and meaningful . Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions changes .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide services which met professional standards of quality of care for one of five sampled residents (Resident 68) when Resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide services which met professional standards of quality of care for one of five sampled residents (Resident 68) when Resident 68's fluid restriction order was not followed according to the physician order. This failure resulted in Resident 68 consuming more than the allowed fluid intake which could lead to fluid overload and could result in serious health condition. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 7:45 a.m. during the initial tour, Resident 68 was sitting up in bed, with an over the bed table placed in front of her with a brown cup was on the bed table. Resident 68 was holding the brown cup and stated she wanted more coffee. During concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 12:55 p.m. in the dining room, Resident 68 was observed seated at a dining table with two other residents. Observed in front of Resident 68 was an eight-ounce cup (240 cc[cubic centimeter-unit of measurement]) of coffee, clear eight ounces (240 cc) cup containing reddish colored liquid, four-ounce cup (120 cc) containing clear liquid, four ounces (120 cc) two-handled mug with lid containing house shake and four ounces (120 cc) ice cream. The total amount of fluid was 840 cc or 28 ounces. During a review of Resident 68's meal ticket, meal ticket indicated, Notes: May have up to 10 oz [ounces] of fluid per meal . During a review of Resident 68's admission Record (AR- document containing resident personal information), dated 9/26/24, the AR indicated, Resident 68 was admitted in the facility on 8/27/24 with diagnoses which included psychosis and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 68's Order Summary Report, dated 9/26/24, the Order Summary Report indicated, .Regular diet Pureed texture, Thin liquids consistency, 1500 ml [milliliter-unit of measurement] fluid restriction in 24 hours . During an interview on 9/23/24 at 12:45 p.m. with certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 4 in the dining room, CNA 4 checked Resident 68's fluids and stated Resident 68 received more fluid than ordered of 10 ounces. CNA 4 stated we should have followed her fluid restriction and not give her more than 10 ounces per meal. During an interview on 9/23/24 at 12:55 p.m. with Assistant Dietary Service Manager (ADSM) in the dining room, the ADSM stated Resident 68 received more than the ordered amount of fluids. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 9:05 a.m. with Dietary Service Manager (DSM), the DSM stated Resident 68 is on fluid restrictions. The DSM stated the kitchen staff was given the allowed amount of fluids for each meal and that had to be followed. The DSM stated not following the fluid restriction may lead to serious health conditions. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 10:37 a.m. with Registered Dietitian (RD), the RD stated it was important to follow fluid restriction orders because it could lead to more serious health condition like fluid overload which could result in respiratory problems. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 2:20 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the expectation was for staff including kitchen staff to comply with the fluid restriction order. The DON stated Resident 68 was confused and had a tendency to keep requesting more coffee. The DON stated staff needed to keep explaining to Resident 68 why she could not have more coffee. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Tray Identification, dated 4/07, the P&P indicated, . The Food Service Manager or designee will check trays for correct diets before the food carts are transported to their designated areas . If there is an error, the Nurse Supervisor will notify the Dietary Department immediately . According to professional reference https://www.mkuh.nhs.uk/patient-information-leaflet/a-guide-to-fluid-restriction .Fluid retention can range in severity and can cause health problems, such as tissue and blood vessel damage, long-term swelling, and stress on the heart if left untreated. The symptoms of fluid retention will depend on the area it affects. Common areas include the lower legs, the hands, abdomen, and chest. Symptoms might include raised blood pressure, swollen ankles, legs, face or abdomen, and breathlessness. Your treatment team may suggest you follow a fluid restriction diet to help relieve your symptoms .
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

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 the facility medication error rate did not exce...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility medication error rate did not exceed five percent (11.54%) when: 1. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 administered glucophage (medication used to treat diabetes) medication and methenamine (medication used to treat urinary bladder infection suppression]) without food and did not follow instructions for medication administration with food. This failure had the potential for Resident 44 to develop gastrointestinal upset (GI-gastric upset like diarrhea) which could lead to serious health condition. 2. LVN 1 did not follow medication direction when he administered Polyethylene Glycol (medication used to treat constipation) to Resident 244. This failure had the potential for Resident 244 to develop constipation which could lead to serious health condition. Findings: 1. During a concurrent medication administration pass observation and interview on 9/25/24 at 8:40 a.m. at Station 1, LVN 3 was preparing Resident 44's medications. LVN 3 administered Resident 44's medications without food. LVN 3 stated Resident 44 ate breakfast at approximately 7:30 a.m. LVN 3 stated the medication direction were to administer metformin and methenamine with food. LVN 3 stated she did not give food to Resident 44 when she administered medications. LVN 3 stated medication given on an empty stomach could cause GI distress. During a review of Resident 44's admission Record, dated 9/26/24, the admission record indicated Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes (high blood sugar level in the blood), malignant neoplasm (cancerous tumor or abnormal growth of tissue that can spread to other parts of the body) and nausea with vomiting. During a review of Resident 44's Order Summary Report, (OSR) dated 9/26/24, the OSR indicated, . metformin HCl[brand name][hydrochloride] Oral 500MG [milligram-unit of measurement] Give one [1] tablet by mouth two times a day for Diabetes administer with food . Methenamine Mandalate Oral Tablet . administer with food . During an interview on 9/26/24 at 9:46 a.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated medication order with directions to give with food should be followed. The ADON stated licensed nurses should follow medication order directions. The ADON stated licensed nurses should have administered medication while the resident was eating to prevent GI distress. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 10:25 a.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated LVN 3 should have followed the medication order direction when she administered Resident 44's medications. The DSD stated LVN 3 should have given Resident 44 a snack when she administered Resident 44's medication. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/25/24 at 8:58 a.m. in Station 1, LVN 1 was passing medication. LVN 1 prepared Resident 244's medications and administered six of seven medications scheduled for Resident 244. LVN 1 prepared Resident 244's Polyethylene Glycol and mixed in a four ounces cup with water. LVN 1 stated he mixed the polyethylene medication with four ounces of water and administered to Resident 244. During a review of Resident 244's admission Record, dated 9/26/24, the admission record indicate Resident 244 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included orthopedic (bone) aftercare, polyneuropathy (malfunction of many nerves throughout the body) and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 244's, Order Summary Report, dated 9/26/24, the Order Summary Report indicated, . Polyethylene Glycol 3350 Powder . mix with eight [8] ounces of water or juice . During a concurrent interview and record review 9/25/24 at 10:40 a.m. with LVN 1, he reviewed Resident 244's medication order and stated the medication direction indicated to mix the polyethylene powder with eight ounces of water. LVN 1 stated he used four ounces of water to mix the medication. LVN 1 stated he did not follow the medication direction which cause GI discomfort because the medication was too concentrated (thick) for Resident 244 to drink. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 10:28 a.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated LVN 1 should have followed polyethylene glycol medication instruction to mix with eight ounces of water. The DSD stated not following the instruction to mix the medication with eight ounces of water resulted in more concentrated medication which could have led to gastrointestinal upset and or inefficient absorption. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 10:08 a.m. with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated it was important to follow ordered medication instructions when administering medications. LVN 1 stated not giving medication with foodas instructed could affect the GI system and irritate the stomach lining which could lead to more serious health condition. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 2:50 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated her expectation was for licensed nurses to follow medication directions to prevent adverse reaction which could lead to more serious health condition. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Adverse Consequences and Medication Errors, dated 4/14, the P&P indicated, . medication error is defined as the preparation or administering of drugs or biological which is not in accordance with physician's orders, manufacturer specifications, or accepted professional standards and principles of the professional's providing services . Examples of medication errors include: .Failure to follow manufacturer instructions and/or accepted professional standards .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure Dietary [NAME] (DC) 1 was competent to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services safely and effective...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews and record review, the facility failed to ensure Dietary [NAME] (DC) 1 was competent to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition services safely and effectively when DC 1 did not check the internal temperature of three pork loins prior to prepping to serve and was not able to be verbalize the cooking or process of reheating cooked food per the facility's policy. This failure had the potential to result in unsafe food being served, consumed, and could have cause food borne illness. Findings: During an observation on 9/24/24 at 10:18 a.m. in the kitchen, DC 1 was observed removing a baking tray containing three pork loins out of the oven without checking the internal temperature. DC 1 took the baking tray containing the three pork loins to the prep area for preparing to slice the pork loins for service. During an interview on 9/24/25 at 10:30 a.m. in the prep area, with DC 1, DC 1 stated he worked for the facility for three weeks. DC 1 stated he did not check the internal temperature of the pork loin. DC 1 stated he was not sure what the internal temperature of the pork loin was. DC 1 stated he should have checked the temperature of the pork loin when he first took it out of the oven. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 11:23 a.m. with the Dietary Service Manager (DSM), the DSM stated, DC 1 should have checked the temperature of the meat after taking it out of the oven to ensure the internal temperature was safe. The DSM stated the pork loin was precooked but DC 1 should have checked the temperature of the pork loin to ensure it was warmed properly. The DSM stated, residents could get sick if the food was not cooked according to the required temperature. The DSM stated, uncooked food could cause food borne illness. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 11:56 a.m. with the Dietitian, the Dietitian stated the DC 1 should have check the temperature of the pork loin after removing it from the oven. The Dietitian stated the pork loin should have been the temperature of what the recipe called for. The Dietitian stated the Dietary Service Manager was responsible to train DC 1. The Dietitian stated uncooked food had the potential to cause food borne illness. During a review of facility's policy and procedure titled, [Facility Name] #104-0004 .Preparation Instructions .convention oven: cover pain with foil and heat at 350-degree Fahrenheit for 15-17 minutes per pounds . During a review of the facility's job description titled, Cook dated 2003, the job description indicated, The primary purpose of your job position is to prepared food in accordance with current applicable federal, stated and local standards, guidelines and regulations with our established policy and procedures . Specific Requirements .must be knowledge of food procedures . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Preparation and Service dated revised 10/2017, the P&P indicated, Food Preparation, Cooking and Holding Temperatures and Times .previously cooked food must be heated to an internal temperature of 165- degree Fahrenheit for at least 15 seconds . During a profession reference review retrieved on 10/1/2024 from https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/food-safety-basics/kitchen-thermometers#:~:text=Why%20Use%20a%20Food%20Thermometer,may%20be%20in%20the%20food, .It is essential to use a food thermometer when cooking meat, poultry, and egg products to prevent undercooking, verify that food has reached a safe minimum internal temperature, and consequently, prevent food borne illness .Using a food thermometer is the only reliable way to ensure safety and to determine desired doneness of meat, poultry, and egg products. To be safe, these foods must be cooked to a safe minimum internal temperature to destroy any harmful microorganisms that may be in the food .A food thermometer should also be used to ensure that cooked food is held at safe temperatures until served. Cold foods should be held at 40 °F or below. Hot food should be kept hot at 140 °F or above .
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe, sanitary food preparation and storage practices were followed for 87 of 91 residents when: 1. A serving cart wa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe, sanitary food preparation and storage practices were followed for 87 of 91 residents when: 1. A serving cart was observed with a white powdered substance spilled and scattered throughout the top surface. 2. A storage room in the kitchen was observed with dirt and debris on the floor and the base boards were peeling and missing from one side of the wall. These failures placed residents at risk for foodborne illnesses (illness caused by consuming contaminated food) and had the potential to attract pest and rodents. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 7:35 a.m. with the Dietary Manager Supervisor (DMS) in the kitchen, a white powdered substance was spilled and scattered on the top of the serving cart. On the serving cart was two serving tray, a box of gloves, a box of aprons, a roll of clear garbage bags and a plastic holder container for utensil. The DMS stated, The serving cart should not be like that. The DMS stated the dirty serving cart can cause contamination and should be cleaned daily to prevent infection. The DMS stated the dirty serving cart was not acceptable and it was the responsibility of the dietary aid to clean the dirty serving cart. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 7:37 a.m. with the DMS in the storage room in the kitchen, a base board was missing from one wall of the room. A rack containing cleaning supplies, had dirt, debris and a green plastic cap on the floor under the rack. The DMS, the DMS stated the maintenance was responsible for fixing the floors, baseboards and painting the rooms. The DMS stated, the area was not clean, and was an eye sore. The DMS stated, the floor should be cleaned, and the baseboard should be replaced. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 11:57 a.m. with the Registered Dietitian (RD), the RD stated the serving cart should be cleaned daily. The RD stated it was important to clean the cart to prevent cross- contamination (the physical movement or transfer of harmful bacteria from one person, object, or place to another). The RD stated, the storage room should not have anything on the floor. The RD stated, the kitchen storage room wall should have a baseboard. The RD stated it was important to keep the area clean to prevent pest attraction. The RD stated the room was not properly cleaned and it should have been. During an interview on 09/27/24 at 2:33 p.m. with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated he has been the administrator for 1.5 yrs. The ADM stated, the serving care should be cleaned daily and as needed when it was dirty. The ADM stated the cart should have cleaned before the staff placed any items on the cart. The ADM stated it was important to keep the serving cart clean to prevent cross- contamination and infections. The ADM stated he saw the missing baseboard in the room, and it was not a priority on the janitor's list and was the last thing to do. The ADM stated, the room should have been cleaned and the missing baseboard should have been replaced because keeping the room clean is important. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Kitchen Sanitation: Definition of Terms dated 2023, the P&P indicated, .Standard of cleanliness need to be defined in order to clearly understand the type and scope of procedure to be used in the Food & Nutrition Service Department Cleaning .removal of soil, particles and debris and microorganisms adherent to surface . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surfaces, and Utensils (A): Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils shall be clean to sight and touch . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . 4-602.13 Non FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be cleaned at a frequency necessary to preclude accumulation of soil residues . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . 501.113 Storing Maintenance Tools . Maintenance tools such as brooms, mops, vacuum cleaners, and similar items shall be: (A)Stored so they do not contaminate FOOD, EQUIPMENT,UTENSILS, LINENS, and SINGLE-SERVICE and SINGLE-USE ARTICLES; and (B) Stored in an orderly manner that facilitates cleaning the area used for storing the maintenance tools .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to post the results of the most recent survey in a place readily accessible to 91 of 91 residents, families, and their legal repr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to post the results of the most recent survey in a place readily accessible to 91 of 91 residents, families, and their legal representatives. This failure had the potential to violate the rights of residents and their representatives to be informed of previous survey deficiencies. Findings: During an observation on 9/24/24 at 10:30 a.m., a binder labeled CDPH Survey Results was located in a holder in the hallway east of the main entrance. During a review of the facility's, CDPH Survey Results binder, undated, the binder did not contain results for the facilities last recertification survey on 9/22. During an interview on 9/24/24 at 10:35 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the facility had their last survey 9/22. The DON stated the results of that survey were not included in the CDPH Survey Results binder. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/24/24 at 10:42 a.m. with the Administrator (ADM), the facility's CDPH Survey Results binder, undated, was reviewed. The CDPH Survey Results binder did not contain the facility's previous survey results from 9/22. The ADM stated the facility's last survey was in 2022 and the results of the survey were not in the binder. The ADM stated he thought only results from the previous year needed to be stored in the binder and since the survey was in 2022 it did not need to be included. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Rights, dated 8/22, the P&P indicated, .the resident has the right to be informed of his or her rights and of all rules and regulations . 1. Federal and state laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of this facility. These rights include the resident's right to: . examine survey results .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/26/24 at 10:20 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 5, in station t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/26/24 at 10:20 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 5, in station two at medication cart (med cart) 2, a bottle of Lactulose was observed with the expiration date of 9/13/24. LVN 5 stated the medication carts should be checked every shift for expired medications. LVN 5 stated expired medications could no longer have the same effect or may have undesired side effects. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 11:07 a.m. with the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON), in Medication Room two, the ADON stated, the lactulose should not have been in the med cart. Expired medication could not be as effective and could cause side effects that could be harmful to residents. During a review of the facilities policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Storage in The Facility dated 1/2018, the P&P indicated, . E. The nurse will check the expiration date of each medication before administering it. F. No expired medication will be administered to a resident. G. All expired medication will be removed from the active supply and destroyed in the facility, regardless of amount remaining . I. Nursing staff should consult with dispensing pharmacist for any questions related to medication expiration dates . During a review of the facilities P&P titled, Specific Medication Administration Procedures (undated), indicated, To administer medications in a safe and effective manner . E. Check expiration date on package/container . During a review of the facilities P&P titled, HR Manual: Job Description . Licensed Vocational Nurse dated 10/19/2015, the P&P indicated, .Responsibilities/Accountabilities . 2. Care Planning: . 2.4. Evaluates effectiveness of interventions to achieve patient goals and minimize re-hospitalizations . 3. Provision of Direct Patient Care: 3.1. Administers medications and performs treatments per physician orders . Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored and labeled in accordance with current accepted professional standards of practice when: 1. Two of four medication carts were found unlocked and unattended by Licensed nurses. This failure had the potential for residents, staff, and visitors to access the medication carts. 2. Polyethylene glycol 3350 was left on top of the medication cart 1 unattended in Station 1. This failure had the potential risk of other residents, staff and visitors walking by and gaining access to the medication and could lead to adverse effect when taken without a prescription. 3. An expired bottle of Lactulose ( a non-absorbable sugar used in the treatment of constipation), was observed in the medication cart. This failure had the potential for Resident to receive expired medication which could have undesired effects. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/25/24 at 8:50a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, the medication cart was observed unlocked and unattended in the hallway of station 1 outside of room [ROOM NUMBER], LVN 1 was inside a resident room and did not have direct sight of medication cart. LVN 1 stated the medication cart should always be locked when unattended. LVN 1 stated an unlocked medication cart was accessible to residents, staff and visitors walking by and they may grab medications from the medication cart and drink medication which could lead to adverse reactions. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/25/24 at 3:35 p.m. with LVN 2 in Station 2 hallway outside of Resident 34's room. LVN 2 walked in resident 34's room and left her medication cart unlocked and unattended with residents, staff and visitors walking by. LVN 2 stated she should have made sure her medication cart was locked before she entered Resident 34's room. LVN 2 stated the unlocked medication cart was unattended and any residents, staff and visitors walking by could access the medications inside the medication cart and drink medication which could lead to adverse reaction. During a review of Resident 34's admission Record, (AR-document containing resident personal information) dated 9/26/24, the AR indicated Resident 34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included diabetes (high blood sugar level in the blood), hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness to one side of the body) and muscle spasm. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 10:20 a.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated the practice was to never leave a medication cart unlocked and unattended. The DSD stated an unlocked medication carts was easily accessible by residents, staff and visitors walking by. The DSD stated licensed nurses should never leave their medication carts unlocked and unattended. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 2:40 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated her expectation was to make sure medication carts were locked when not within the licensed nurses sight. The DON stated licensed nurses should always make sure to lock their medication carts when they walked inside resident room. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/25/24 at 8:59 a.m. with LVN 1 in station 1 hallway outside of Resident 244. LVN 1 walked inside Resident 244's room and left a bottle of medication on top of his medication cart. LVN 1 did not have sight of the medication on top of the medication cart. LVN 1 stated it was his fault he left the medication unattended on top of the medication cart. LVN 1 stated the practice was to make sure no medications were left on top of the medication cart because any residents, staff or visitors walking by could grab and drink medication which could lead to drug reaction or overdose of medication. During a review of Resident 244's admission Record, dated 9/26/24, the AR indicated, Resident 244 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hypertension (high blood pressure), muscle spasm and muscle weakness. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 2:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was not acceptable to leave any medication on top of the medication cart unattended. DON stated, .Any medications left on top of the medication cart unattended is accessible to other residents, staff and visitors walking by . The DON stated any residents, staff and visitors could grab medication hide it and or distribute to other residents which could lead to serious health condition. During a review of facility's policy and procedure titled (P&P), Medication Administration-General Guidelines, dated 10/17, the P&P indicated, medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with good nursing principles and practices . During administration of medications, the medication cart is kept closed locked and secure. The medication cart needs to be secured and locked when unattended .
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review of Resident 58's admission Record (AR-a document that s) provides resident contact details, a brief medical h...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review of Resident 58's admission Record (AR-a document that s) provides resident contact details, a brief medical history, level of functioning, preferences and wishes) dated 9/25/24, the AR indicated Resident 58 had a history of asthma (a chronic lung disease that makes breathing difficult by causing inflammation and narrowing of the airways) and dependence of supplemental oxygen (person requires continuous use of oxygen therapy to maintain adequate oxygen levels). During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 9:17 a.m. in Resident 58's room, Resident 58's oxygen concentrator filter was covered in dirt, dust and lint. Resident 58 stated she received continuous oxygen via nasal cannula (a thin, flexible tube that goes around the ears and into the nose). During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/26/24 at 3:11 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2, CNA 2 stated she was not permitted to handle Resident 58's oxygen concentrator or cannula. It was the responsibility of the nurse to maintain resident oxygen devices and equipment at the facility. CNA 2 stated if there were any potential issues she noted, she would report them to the nurse. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/26/24 at 3:30 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, Resident 58's Physician Orders, dated 9/26/24, were reviewed. The Physician Orders indicated Resident 58 was ordered oxygen at 2 liters per minute (flow rate) from a nasal cannula, albuterol sulfate (medication used to prevent and treat difficulty breathing caused by lung disease) via nebulizer (machine which changes liquid medicine into droplets which are inhaled through a mouthpiece or mask) as needed, and budesonide (medication which treats a variety of conditions by reducing swelling in the body) via nebulizer every six hours. LVN 2 sated Resident 58 was receiving oxygen for her asthma. LVN2 stated Resident 58 had always received oxygen through her nasal cannula. LVN 2 stated she was not aware of where the oxygen concentrator filters were located on the oxygen concentrator or how to clean them. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 11:30 a.m. with Director of Staff Development (DSD), DSD stated it was the expectation of the facility for CNAs to escalate potential issues or concerns regarding the oxygen concentrator to a nurse. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 12:00 p.m. with the IP, the IP stated the expectation was for all oxygen concentrator filters to be changed every Friday. The IP stated this expectation was communicated to staff when they got hired. The IP stated the filters on the oxygen concentrator suck in air from the outside. The IP stated it was important to change out the oxygen concentrator filters because it ensured Resident 58 could breathe in clean air. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 11:04 a.m. with the DON, the DON stated the expectation was for the nurses to wash and clean the oxygen concentrator filters, they should have cleaned them every seven days or as needed. The DON stated if the filters were not clean, dust and lint could have been breathed in by Resident 58. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated 2018, the P&P indicated An infection prevention and control program (IPCP) is established and maintained to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections . important facets of infection prevention include: .Educating staff and ensuring that they adhere to proper techniques and procedures .instituting measures to avoid complications or dissemination (spread) . During a review of facility's P&P titled, Respiratory Therapy - Prevention of Infection, dated 11/15/23, the P&P indicated, . Infection Control Considerations Related to Oxygen Administration . Wash filters from oxygen concentrators every seven days with soap and water. Rinse and squeeze dry . 4. During a review of Resident 345's admission Record (document containing resident demographic information and medical diagnosis) dated 9/26/24, the admission record indicated, Resident 345 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 345's diagnosis included Covid 19 (infectious disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus) chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD- a condition caused by damage to the airways or other parts of the lung that blocks airflow and makes it hard to breathe), Acute Respiratory Failure (occurs when the lungs and blood have impaired gas exchange, resulting in low oxygen levels in the body's tissues) and Depression. During a review of Resident 345's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify cognitive [mental processes] and physical functional level assessment), dated 9/26/24, the MDS, indicated Resident 345 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test given by medical professionals to determine cognitive understanding on a scale of 1-15 ) score of 12 (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired, 13-15 suggests cognitively intact) indicating Resident 345 was moderately cognitively intact. During an observation on 9/23/24 at 11:15 a.m. in Resident 345's room, Resident 345 had a nasal cannula (a device that delivers extra oxygen through a tube and into your nose) connected to an oxygen concentrator (medical device that separates nitrogen from the air around you so you can breathe up to 95% pure oxygen). The nasal cannula tube did not have the date written on it. During an interview on 9/23/24 at 11:15 a.m.in Resident 345's room, Resident 345 stated she was admitted to the facility for one week for covid-19. Resident 345 stated she was not sure when the nasal cannula tube was changed. During an interview on 9/23/24 at 11:25 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 2, RN 2 stated, the nasal cannula tube should have had the date on it. RN 2 stated the nasal cannula tube should had been replaced every week. RN 2 stated the nurses and central supply person was responsible to change the nasal cannula tube weekly. RN 2 stated, the nasal cannula tube needed to be changed weekly to prevent clogging. RN 2 stated, the nasal cannula needed to have a date to make sure it was changed weekly. RN 2 stated, Resident 345 was at risk for respiratory failure with a clogged nasal cannula tube. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 12:23 p.m. with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated, the nasal cannula tube should have had a date on it. The IP stated, the nasal cannula tube should had been changed every seven days and as needed when the nasal cannula tube was clogged or dirty. The IP stated, it was important to date the nasal cannula tube, so staff knew when to changed it. The IP stated, When we date the [nasal cannula] tubing it is to make sure the residents had a clean tubing. The IP stated, the tubing had to be changed to prevent a respiratory infection. The IP stated, the nasal cannula tube had to be dated to changed timely. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 12:30 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) the DON stated, My expectation is to make sure they [nasal cannula tube] are label and if they [nurses] see it on the floor, whatever the situation would be to make sure it is replaced and labeled. The DON stated the nasal cannula tube needed to be changed every seven days. The DON stated, the nasal cannula tube needed to have a written date on it every time it was removed from the package and used on Residents. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated 2018, the P&P indicated An infection prevention and control program (IPCP) is established and maintained to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections . important facets of infection prevention include: .Educating staff and ensuring that they adhere to proper techniques and procedures .instituting measures to avoid complications or dissemination (spread) . During a review of professional reference retrieved from https://www.ucsfhealth.org/education/your-oxygen-equipment, titled, Patient Education Your Oxygen Equipment, dated 2022-2024 indicated, . the nasal cannula should be changed every week . if you are using a humidifier, empty it at least once a day . Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure an infection prevention and control program was maintained for 91 of 91 sampled residents when: 1. A room containing five full sharps containers (a bin used to store needles which have been used on residents) was unlocked and accessible to 91 of 91 residents. The sharps containers were stacked on top of each other. One of those containers was full and did not have a lid covering it. This failure had the potential to cause residents to enter the room and hurt themselves if they touched the exposed sharps. 2. Resident 58's oxygen concentrator (a medical device which provides oxygen to a resident) filter was covered in dirt, dust, and lint like materials. This failure had the potential to introduce contaminants (materials which can make something dirty) into the oxygen supply and cause Resident 59 to breathe in dirty air. 3. Resident 61 and Resident 3's oxygen concentrator filters were covered with grayish white material. This failure could result in Resident 61 and Resident 3 to develop serious respiratory health problems. 4. Resident 345's oxygen tubing was not labeled with the date it was changed. This failure had the potential to put Resident 345 at risk for possible respiratory infection. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/26/24 at 11:52 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 near nurses' station 1, a room containing five full sharps containers was accessible to residents. The sharps containers were stacked on top of each other. One of those containers was full and did not have a lid covering it. LVN 1 stated the room was used by the lab collection company contracted by the facility. The lab company's employees were using the room to store their equipment and sharps. LVN 1 stated the sharps containers should not have been stacked on top of each other and the open sharps container should have had a lid to prevent injuries. During a concurrent interview on 9/26/24 at 12:23 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Infection Preventionist (IP), the DON stated the room which contained the sharps containers was utilized by the outside contracted company who store their supplies. The DON stated the facility needed to incorporate the room in their infection control program since it was in their facility. The DON stated staff should have also reported to her if they noticed the sharps containers were in an unacceptable condition, like sharps containers being full and having no lid. The IP stated her expectation was for staff to have brought up the condition of the room to her because there was potential for residents to walk into the room and puncture themselves with supplies in the sharp's containers. The IP stated it was important for staff to monitor the room and keep it in an acceptable condition because it could have led to cross contamination (the physical movement or transfer of harmful bacteria from one person, object, or place to another) across the facility. During an interview on 9/26/24 at 2:31 p.m. with the Phlebotomist (PHL), the PHL stated the room containing all the sharps containers was used by the lab company to store all of their equipment. The PHL stated none of the sharp's containers should have been stacked on top of each other, the lab company's staff should have been disposing of the sharps containers as they got full. The PHL stated she was surprised by how the sharps containers were being stored in the room. The PHL stated it looked like the room had accumulated over a week's worth of sharps containers. The PHL stated there should not have been any containers without covers because they had the potential to fall and spill all of their contents on the floor. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 10:17 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated even though a separate company was storing sharps containers in the facility, it was still the responsibility of the facility staff to ensure their storage practices followed infection control standards. During a concurrent interview on 9/27/24 at 10:52 a.m. with the DON and the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated it was not acceptable to have the sharps containers stacked on top of each other or with missing lids. The ADM stated even if the storage was left by an outside company, it was still the responsibility of the facility and the staff to ensure everything was stored appropriately. The DON stated it was the responsibility of staff to notify their supervisor if they identified any issue with the room. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated 2018, the P&P indicated An infection prevention and control program (IPCP) is established and maintained to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infections . important facets of infection prevention include: .Educating staff and ensuring that they adhere to proper techniques and procedures .instituting measures to avoid complications or dissemination (spread) . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Sharps Disposal, dated 1/12, indicated, . contaminated sharps will be discarded into containers that are a. closeable . 3. During use, containers for contaminated sharps will be handled as follows .b. Nursing staff will ensure that the containers are maintained in an upright position throughout use; and c. Designated individuals will be responsible for sealing and replacing containers when they are 75% to 80% full to protect employees from punctures and/or needlesticks .7. Whoever observes incorrect disposal or handling of contaminated sharps should report the information to the Infection Preventionist . 3. During observation on 9/23/24 at 7:45 a.m. in Resident 61's room during initial tour, Resident 61 was lying in bed, eyes closed and appeared comfortable. Resident 68 was noted with a oxygen cannula connected to the oxygen concentrator. Resident 68 did not answer questions when asked. Resident 68's oxygen concentrator filter was observed covered with grayish white materials. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 8:30 a.m. during initial tour in Resident 3's room, Resident 3 was observed lying in bed watching Television. Resident 3 was observed using oxygen via nasal cannula connected to a oxygen concentrator. Resident 3's oxygen concentrator filter was found covered with grayish white lint like material. Resident 3 stated she did not have any concerns. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 8:35 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, LVN 3 stated the Resident's 3 and 61's oxygen concentrator filters were not clean, the filters were covered with white lint like material. LVN 3 stated the oxygen filters needed to be cleaned. LVN 3 stated dirty oxygen filters placed residents using oxygen at risk for respiratory illness and they are already compromised. LVN 3 stated she was not sure who was responsible in cleaning and replacing the oxygen filters. During an interview on 9/23/24 at 8:50 a.m. with Assistant Director of Nursing, the ADN stated housekeeping are responsible in changing and cleaning oxygen concentrator filters. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 9:04 a.m. with Housekeeping Supervisor (HKS), HKS verified Residents' 61 and 3's oxygen concentrator filters are covered with lint like materials and stated, . the oxygen concentrator filters are dirty and should have been cleaned . The HKS stated housekeeping role was to clean oxygen concentrators after resident discharged . The HKS stated it was not housekeeping's job to clean or replace oxygen concentrator filters while a resident is in the facility. The HKS stated she did not know who was responsible in cleaning oxygen concentrator filters for current residents. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/23/24 at 9:25 a.m. with Infection Preventionist (IP), Residents' 61 and 3's oxygen concentrator filters are observed and IP stated, . It does not look like they were cleaned at all . The IP stated licensed nurses are responsible in making sure to clean oxygen concentrator filters. The IP stated licensed nurses replaced nasal cannulas every week and should have been cleaning and/or replacing oxygen concentrator filters at the same time. The IP stated not cleaning oxygen concentrator filters could exacerbate respiratory condition which could result in more serious respiratory health problems. During an interview on 9/27/24 at 2:30 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated oxygen concentrator filters are cleaned and replaced every seven days and as needed. The DON stated there was a miscommunication about who was responsible in cleaning and replacing the oxygen concentrator filters. The DON stated licensed nurses will be cleaning and replacing oxygen concentrator filters every seven days when nasal cannulas are replaced. The DON stated dirty filters could further worsen respiratory problems of residents' using oxygen. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Respiratory Therapy - Prevention of Infection, dated 11/15/23, the P&P indicated, . Infection Control Considerations Related to Oxygen Administration . Wash filters from oxygen concentrators every seven days with soap and water. Rinse and squeeze dry .
Aug 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents received adequate supervision to prev...

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 residents received adequate supervision to prevent accident hazards (an unexpected injury or illness that occurred due to the resident ' s environment) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1 who had dementia (condition of progressive loss of memory, language and other thinking abilities which requires increased supervision of the individual) and had a known behavior of moving around in the facility in the wheelchair independently, exited unsupervised to the rose garden outside. Resident 1 was found in an area of the rose garden exposed to the sun for an unknown amount of time on a day temperatures reached up to 108 degree Fahrenheit (unit of temperature measurement). This failure resulted in Resident 1 sustaining second- degree burns (a burn that affects the outer and middle layers of skin which results in blistering, swelling, redness and pain) on top of his scalp, right ear, posterior (back side) neck, left shoulder and both knees and an acute kidney injury (a sudden episode of kidney damage), which required treatment at an acute care hospital. Findings: During record review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (AR- a document that provides resident contact details, a brief medical history), the AR indicated, Resident 1 had diagnoses which included .BURN OF SECOND DEGREE SCALP .CHRONIC KIDNEY DISEASE, STAGE 3 (CKD- a condition where the kidneys have moderate damage and are less able to filter waste and fluid from the blood) .TYPE 2 DIABETES MELLITUS (a problem in the way the body regulates and uses blood sugar) .ALZHEIMER ' S DISEASE (brain disorder which slowly destroys memory and thinking skills) .UNSPECIFIED DEMENTIA .BURN OF SECOND DEGREE OF NECK .BURN OF SECOND DEGREE OF RIGHT KNEE .BURN OF SECOND DEGREE OF LEFT SHOULDER .BURN OF SECOND DEGREE OF RIGHT EAR . During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/22/24, the MDS indicated, Resident 1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- an evaluation of attention, orientation and memory recall) indicated a score of 6 (0-7 severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate cognitive impairment, 13-15 no cognitive impairment), indicating Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment (an intense inability to think, remember, use judgement and make decisions which requires frequent supervision of the individual). During an interview on 8/2/24 at 10:22 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated, staff would always have to supervise Resident 1 because he would wheel himself around the facility in his wheelchair and was always trying to go home. CNA 1 stated, Resident 1 was a fall risk and had alarms on his bed and wheelchair to alert the staff when he got up without assistance. CNA 1 stated, the staff should not have allowed Resident 1 to be outside alone without staff supervision due to the risk of being sunburned. During an interview on 8/2/24 at 10:31 a.m. with Social Services Director (SSD), SSD stated, Resident 1 was discharged from the facility on 7/22/24 with orders for nursing care to treat his wounds. SSD stated, Resident 1 had a right ear second degree burn, right knee second degree burn, left shoulder second degree burn, posterior neck second degree burn and a second degree burn to the top of Resident 1 ' s scalp. During an interview on 8/2/24 at 10:48 a.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, Resident 1 had sundowners (a person with dementia who becomes increasingly irritable as the day progresses) behaviors and yelled out for his wife. DON stated, Resident 1 was in a wheelchair and liked to go outside. DON stated, Resident 1 was admitted to the hospital from [DATE] until 7/2/24 to be treated for the burns that were sustained while residing at the facility which required further evaluation and treatment. During an interview on 8/2/24 at 10:57 a.m. with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON stated, Resident 1 opened the door and wheeled himself out into the sun-exposed area of the rose garden patio on 6/23/24 and was outside without staff supervision for an unknown amount of time. ADON stated, an AM (morning shift that works from 7 am to 3 pm) CNA saw Resident 1 outside, alerted a PM (night shift that works 3 pm to 11 pm) CNA of Resident 1 ' s location outside and the PM CNA brought Resident 1 inside. ADON stated, it was not known how long Resident 1 was outside for. ADON stated, blisters were found on Resident 1 ' s scalp and neck and treatments to the affected areas were completed. ADON stated, Resident 1 was found to have inflammation and swelling to the face, neck and scalp on 6/24/24. ADON stated, Resident 1 was sent to the hospital for evaluation due to the swelling and was gone from the facility for about a week. During an interview on 8/2/24 at 11:03 a.m. with DON, DON stated Resident 1 was originally admitted on [DATE] to the facility and the first blisters were observed during the NOC (overnight shift that works 11 pm to 7 am) shift by staff on 6/23/24. DON stated, Resident 1 had a popped blister to the posterior neck which was open and contained slough (material covering wound bed that is made of dead tissue, pus and other debris) when he came back from the hospital. DON stated, Resident 1 also had an open and popped blister to the scalp, a popped left shoulder blister, a popped right ear blister, a popped right knee blister and an intact left knee blister when Resident 1 returned back from the hospital. During an interview on 8/2/24 at 11:29 a.m. with DON, DON stated, staff interviews were completed regarding this incident and staff reported Resident 1 was at the sun-exposed, far end of the rose garden prior to being brought inside. During an observation on 8/2/24 at 11:46 a.m. outside in the rose garden, the rose garden was positioned in the center of facility. The rose garden contained concrete paths around the perimeter, a covered patio area and grass. The covered patio area was located on the side closest to the only door used to access this outdoor area. The farthest area of the rose garden had a concrete path and was unshaded. During an interview on 8/2/24 at 11:58 a.m. with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated, she worked the AM shift on 6/23/24 and saw Resident 1 sitting in the rose garden at the end of the shift. CNA 2 stated, CNA 2 went and told PM shift staff that Resident 1 was outside and needed to be brought back inside. CNA 2 stated, Resident 1 was a fall risk. CNA 2 stated, Resident 1 should have been supervised and not left unattended outside because it was the staff ' s responsibility to ensure safety and security for the residents. During a phone interview on 8/8/24 at 9:41 a.m. with CNA 4, CNA 4 stated, she was working the PM shift on 6/23/24 and at the start of the shift, another CNA was leaving, looked out to the rose garden and saw a resident sitting outside alone. CNA 4 stated, Resident 1 was in the rose garden on the sidewalk on the far side, which was unshaded. CNA 4 stated, Resident 1 was strong enough to open the door, get outside and wander in the rose garden. CNA 4 stated, the temperature outside was at least 110 degrees Fahrenheit. CNA 4 stated, she went outside, approached Resident 1 and said Resident 1 should come inside due to the excessive heat. CNA 4 stated, it was unknown how long Resident 1 had been outside and the skin on Resident 1 ' s arm was warm to touch. CNA 4 stated, CNA 4 brought Resident 1 inside to cool down. CNA stated, Resident 1 was provided with cold water and a popsicle in order to make Resident 1 ' s temperature lower. CNA 4 stated, Resident 1 was placed near his assigned nurse for the shift so the nurse could assess Resident 1. CNA 4 stated, facility staff did not pay attention where Resident 1 wandered to and should have supervised Resident 1 because it was so hot outside. CNA 4 stated, it was best to monitor the residents and residents should not be left unattended at any point. During a phone interview on 8/9/24 at 3:22 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN stated, Resident 1 had a diagnosis of dementia. LVN 1 stated, LVN 1 worked the 6/23/24 NOC shift which started at 11 pm. LVN 1 stated, a CNA alerted LVN 1 of a blister on the top of Resident 1 ' s head during that shift on 6/24/24. LVN 1 stated, the RN (registered nurse) supervisor was notified to assess Resident 1, notified the NP (Nurse Practitioner) and the wound was treated. LVN 1 stated, the treatment nurse and wound doctor came in the morning of 6/24/24 and were notified to treat and evaluate Resident 1. LVN 1 stated, Resident 1 also had multiple small and intact blisters to the back of his neck. LVN 1 stated, LVN 1 was notified by the NOC CNA that Resident 1 was outside earlier in the day and was wheeled into the facility by a CNA. LVN 1 stated, it was very hot the day this incident occurred. LVN 1 stated, Resident 1 should not have been left unattended and needed monitoring. LVN 1 stated, Resident 1 should have been closely monitored to prevent Resident 1 from getting dehydrated by being outside, getting lost or sustaining a fall. During a phone interview on 8/9/24 at 3:48 p.m. with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated, Resident 1 was alert and oriented to his name only and answered questions with one word only. LVN 2 stated, she worked the PM shift on 6/23/24. LVN 2 stated, Resident 1 had been outside and the PM CNA brought Resident 1 inside. LVN 2 stated, she observed Resident 1 after PM CNA gave him water, a popsicle and checked his vitals. LVN 2 stated, the CNAs requested LVN 2 to assess Resident 1 in the evening because swelling was noted to his face. LVN 2 stated, Resident 1 had swelling to the side of his face. LVN 2 stated, the NP was notified and orders obtained to send Resident 1 to the hospital. LVN 2 stated, Resident 1 was sent to the hospital on the evening of 6/24/24 was diagnosed with second-degree burns. LVN 2 stated, Resident 1 should have been supervised outside due to the possibility of wandering, not knowing what they were doing and potentially falling. During a phone interview on 8/9/24 at 4:14 p.m. with CNA 5, CNA 5 stated, Resident 1 was confused, not fully alert, dependent on staff and a fall risk. CNA 5 stated, CNA 5 worked the AM shift on 6/23/24. CNA 5 stated, Resident 1 was outside at the end of CNA 5 ' s shift. CNA 5 stated, another CNA saw Resident 1 outside and notified the other staff about his location. CNA 5 stated, Resident 1 should have been closely supervised because Resident 1 was not alert, didn ' t know what was going on and was also a fall risk. During a concurrent phone interview and record review on 8/13/24 at 4:00 p.m. with DON, Hospital 1 ' s SNF Packet (SP- Patient documentation provided by Hospital 1 to SNF facility), dated 7/1/24 was reviewed. The SP indicated, .Chief Complaint .Blister Pt [patient] brought in by ambulance for blisters to top of head and posterior neck secondary to being outside yesterday for unknown amount of time. Today blisters popped, facility would like skin sites evaluated .found to have second degree burn in the scalp and neck. Cr [Creatinine- a chemical waste product in the blood, urine and muscle where a high result can indicate a kidney problem] increased to 2.0 from 1.3. BUN [Blood Urea Nitrogen- a substance in the blood created when protein breaks down and a high level can indicate kidney problems] 52 from 37 .Acute kidney injury superimposed [a secondary diagnosis occurring during or immediately following the original diagnosis] on CKD .Likely due to dehydration from staying under the sun yesterday Associated with second degree burn in the scalp and neck .2nd degree (blister) burn of scalp and neck from contact with sunlight; probably related to underlying dementia; Total body surface area: <10% . DON stated, Resident 1 was sent to the hospital and it was reported to the hospital staff that Resident 1 was outside for an unknown amount of time. DON stated, the hospital diagnosed Resident 1 with second-degree burns and an acute kidney injury. DON stated, Resident 1 had a known diagnosis of dementia with behaviors of wandering in his wheelchair outside and because of this should have been supervised while outside in the rose garden. DON stated, due to the lack of supervision for Resident 1 while he was alone outside unprotected on a hot day, he sustained and was hospitalized for second-degree burns to the scalp, ear, neck, shoulder and knees as well as an acute kidney injury. DON stated, staff should have done frequent rounding and checking on Resident 1 while he was outside for safety purposes, to assess for pain and to make sure staff can monitor for anything Resident 1 could not have verbalized for himself. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes (PN), dated 6/24/24, the PN indicated, .06/24/2024 04:57 .NOC cna reported to writer that pm cna reported to her that am cna found the resident outside (in between am and pm shift) AM cna quickly wheel in resident inside the facility. NOC cna reported to writer resident has big open blister on top of the head, multiple intact blister on the back of the neck w/ [with] redness discoloration and warm to touch. Writer assess, notified noc RN supervisor .Treatment applied as per NP order Cleanse w/ ns [normal saline], pat dry, apple triple ABX [antibiotic], covered xerofoam [a fine mesh gauze dressing that has medication within it to promote wound healing] dressing. To be evaluated by treatment nurse and wound doctor this morning . During a review of Resident 1 ' s PN, dated 6/24/24, the PN indicated, .06/24/2024 11:09 .Seen resident this morning as endorsed from previous shift, resident had blister to his head. Noted dressing on his off and open blister red in color, no bleeding, with 2 small intact fluid filled on surrounding area. Also noted scattered intact blister on posterior neck .treatment orders clarified .Monitor intact blisters for untoward signs of skin breakdown . During a review of Resident 1 ' s PN, dated 6/24/24, the PN indicated, .06/24/2024 11:16 .Report from nursing staff received that resident propels self towards lobby most of the time when he is up. Has Dx [diagnosis] of Dementia, verbally responsive .Spoke with resident, verbalizes wants to go home, resident in his room at this time. NP .made aware via phone, ordered to apply wander guard [an alarm system used to monitor residents who are at risk of leaving a safe area] due his exit seeking behavior . During a review of Resident 1 ' s PN, dated 6/24/24, the PN indicated, .06/24/2024 22:29 [10:29 p.m.] . Nurse was notified of swelling to resident ' s face, head and neck swelling with scattered large blisters .NP .notified with orders to send out for further evaluation. Patient sent out to [name of Hospital- Hospital 1] . During a review of Resident 1 ' s Hospital 1 ' s Emergency Department Timeline (EDT), dated 6/24/24, the EDT indicated, .ED [Emergency Department] Pt Care Timeline .Arrival .06/24/2024 21:28 [9:28 p.m.] .Chief Complaints .Blister (Pt brought in by ambulance for blisters to top of head and posterior neck secondary to being outside yesterday for unknown amount of time. Today blisters popped, facility would like skin sites evaluated) .IV fluid Indication .clinical dehydration .SW [Social Worker] Consult .SW called [ADON] .to ask if patient was locked out of the facility. Per [ADON], patient went out to the garden to sit .she is not sure how long patient sat outside. When patient came inside, they realized there were blisters on his head .Case Management Initial Screening .Contacted pt ' s spouse .Spouse reports she .was told pt was found outside and ended up getting blisters due to the heat .Contacted .admissions at [skilled nursing facility name] .Per .staff did not bring pt outside as it was over 100 degrees yesterday . During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission readmission Screen and Baseline Care Plan (RS), dated 7/2/24, the RS indicated, .07/02/2024 21:42 [9:42 p.m.] .admitted From .Acute Hospital .Admitting Diagnosis .Acute Kidney injury .Level of cognitive impairment .Severe impairment (affecting all areas of judgment) .With exit-seeking behavior .Amoxicillin [medication used to treat infections] Oral Tablet 500 MG [milligram- unit of weight measurement] .1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours for Partial thickness [second-degree] burn of scalp . Resident is a returning patient of this facility, prior to transfer to acute care, resident noted to have multiple areas of popped blisters, as per skin assessment upon arrived, popped blister to posterior neck- L [length] 6.5 cm (centimeter- unit of length measurement), W [width] 7 cm, D [depth] UTD [depth unknown] – wound bed 90% necrotic [death of normally living tissue] tissue, mild drainage noted, no mal [foul] odor .popped blister to left shoulder, wound bed pink in color, popped blister to top of head . The RS indicated, Resident 1 had a popped blister to the top of his head which measured 17 cm by 10 cm by 0.1 cm; a popped blister to the right ear which measured 2.5 cm by 2 cm by 0.1 cm; a popped blister to the right knee which measured 2.5 cm by 4 cm by 0.1 cm; a popped blister to the left shoulder which measured 3.5 cm by 5 cm by 0.1 cm; a popped blister to the posterior neck which measured 6.5 cm by 7 cm by an undetermined depth; an intact blister to the left knee. During a review of Resident 1 ' s PN, dated 7/2/24, the PN indicated, .resident readmitted with diagnosis of Acute Kidney Injury .Resident is a returning patient of this facility, prior to transfer to acute care, resident noted to have multiple areas of popped blisters . During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Note Details (PND), dated 7/8/24, the PND indicated, .complaints of increased Pain .initial exam- pt wound consulted and tx [treatment] in place. pt with stable wound with numerous complex medical conditions .patient high risk for medical complications, skin breakdown, infection, sepsis [life-threatening emergency when the body ' s response to an infection damages vital organs] and even death . Wound #1 Scalp is a Burn .measurements are 11cm x 10cm width x 0.2 cm depth . small amount of serous [clear, watery fluid] drainage .Wound bed has 71-80, bright red, granulation [development of new tissue and blood vessels], 11-20% slough . Wound #2 Posterior Neck .measurements are 4cm length x 7 cm width with no measurable depth Small amount of serous drainage .Wound bed has 41-50%, bright red, granulation, 41-50% slough .Wound #3 Left Shoulder is a Burn . measurements are 4cm length x 2cm width with no measurable depth .Small amount of serous drainage .Wound bed has 81-100% slough . During a review of Resident 1 ' s PND, dated 7/15/24, the PND indicated, .Wound #1 Scalp is a Burn .Subsequent wound encounter measurements are 11cm x 10 cm width x 0.2 cm depth .Small amount of serous drainage .Wound bed has 71-80%, bright red, granulation, 11-20% eschar [hardened, dry black or brown dead tissue] .Wound #2 Posterior Neck .Subsequent wound encounter measurements are 4cm length x 7cm width with no measurable depth .no drainage noted .Wound bed has 91-100% eschar .Wound #3 Left Shoulder is a Burn .Subsequent wound encounter measurements are 3cm length x 1cm width with no measurable depth .no drainage noted .wound bed has 91-100% eschar .Wound #4 Right Knee is a Burn .Initial wound encounter measurements are 1cm length x 1cm width with no measurable depth .no drainage noted .91-100% eschar . During a review of Resident 1 ' s PN, dated 7/22/24, the PN indicated, .Resident seen by Dr [doctor] .this morning. Burn (2nd degree burn) wound to Scalp, posterior neck, and shoulder .100% necrotic area .awaiting referral to wound clinic. To continue with present treatment orders . During a review of Order Summary Report (OSR), dated 8/2/24, the OSR indicated .Active Orders As Of: 07/21/2024 .Cleanse [clean] 2nd degree burn wound on top of scalp with NS [normal saline], pat dry and apply [Silver Sulfadiazine brand name- medication used to prevent and treat burn wound infection] cream and leave open to air in the morning for 14 Days . Cleanse 2nd degree burn wound on L [left] shoulder with NS, pat dry and apply Silvadene cream and leave open to air in the morning for 14 Days . Cleanse 2nd degree burn wound on Posterior neck with NS, pat dry and apply Silvadene cream and leave open to air in the morning for 14 Days . Cleanse R [right] ear 2nd degree burn with NS, pat dry and apply Silvadene cream and leave open to air in the morning for 14 Days . Cleanse R knee 2nddegree burn with NS, pat dry and apply Silvadene cream and leave open to air in the morning for 14 Days .Refer to Burn clinic for further evaluation and management of 2nd degree burn to scalp, neck shoulder .Resident may discharge to home on 7/21/24 with same medications .RN for wounds .Silver SulfaDIAZINE External [outer] Cream 1% .Apply to scalp, neck topically every day and evening shift for Burn . During a review of Resident 1 ' s Care Plan (CP), undated, the CP indicated, .Altered skin integrity r/t [related to] LEFT SHOULDER OPEN AREA .Date Initiated: 07/02/2024 .LEFT SHOULDER OPEN AREA will be free from signs and symptoms of redness, swelling and foul smelling drainage .Observe for s/s [signs and symptoms] of pain, redness, swelling and foul smelling drainage on site and notify MD [doctor of medicine] and responsible party as indicated .Check resident ' s skin condition for presence of skin breakdown during care, bathing and shower .Treatment as order .Monitor response to treatment During a review of Resident 1 ' s CP, undated, the CP indicated, .Altered skin integrity r/t OPEN AREA TO RIGHT EAR .Date Initiated: 07/02/2024 .OPEN AREA TO RIGHT EAR will be free from signs and symptoms of redness, swelling and foul smelling drainage .Observe for s/s of pain, redness, swelling and foul smelling drainage on site and notify MD and responsible party as indicated .Check resident ' s skin condition for presence of skin breakdown during care, bathing and shower .Treatment as order .Monitor response to treatment During a review of the AccuWeather website https://www.accuweather.com/en/us/fresno/93702/june-weather/327144, dated 6/24, the website indicated the temperature on 6/23/24 was a high of 108 degrees Fahrenheit. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Safety and Supervision of Residents, 7/17, the P&P indicated, .Our facility strives to make the environment as free from accident hazards as possible. Resident safety and supervision and assistance to prevent accidents are facility-wide priorities .The interdisciplinary care team shall analyze information obtained from assessments and observations to identify any specific accident hazards or risks for individual residents .The care team shall target interventions to reduce individual risks related to hazards in the environment, including adequate supervision .Resident supervision is a core component of the systems approach to safety. The type and frequency of resident supervision is determined by the individual resident ' s assessed needs and identified hazards in the environment .
Feb 2023 2 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from physical abuse for one...

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 residents were free from physical abuse for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when Registered Nurse (RN) 1, in response to Resident 1's complaint of abdominal pain and possible constipation, instructed Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 to physically restrain Resident 1 while RN 1 willfully continued to push her finger into Resident 1's rectum (lower part of the intestine that terminates at the anus [where waste matter leaves the body]) even after Resident 1 cried no and stop. Resident 1 did not agree and consent to RN 1 manually inserting her finger into the rectum to extract feces (waste matter discharged from the bowel). These failures resulted in Resident 1 feeling fearful of and threatened by RN 1 and LVN 1, experiencing avoidable physical harm, avoidable mental and emotional anguish and self-isolation as a result of the anguish and required administration of anti-anxiety medications to treat the anxiety produced by this experience. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's Face Sheet (FS - a document containing important resident information), the FS indicated, Resident 1 was an [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, . hemiplegia [paralysis affecting one side of the body] and hemiparesis [weakness or inability to move on one side of the body] following a cerebral infarction [stroke, resulting from disrupted blood flow to the brain] affecting right dominant side . The FS indicated, Resident 1 was her own Responsible Party (decision-maker) and was cognitively able to make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a short performance-based cognitive screener for nursing home residents, scored 0 to 15), the BIMS score was 15, which indicated Resident 1 was cognitively intact. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/12/23, at 9:59 a.m., with Resident 1, Resident 1 was sitting in a wheelchair in her room. Resident 1 stated, on the morning of 12/30/22, she told Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 she felt constipated. Resident 1 stated, on 12/30/22, around 3:00 p.m., she asked a physical therapist to tell LVN 1 she still felt constipated and had abdominal pain. Resident 1 stated, LVN 1 and RN 1 came into her room and LVN 1 had her hands on her hips. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 and LVN 1 spoke to each other in another language. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 in an angry tone told Resident 1 they could call an ambulance to take her to the hospital for constipation and pain or they could take care of the constipation and pain at the facility. Resident 1 stated, she told RN 1 and LVN 1 she did not think she needed to go to the hospital. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 and LVN 1 put gloves on and rolled Resident 1 to her side. Resident 1 stated, LVN 1 was facing her and holding her shoulder and arms, while RN 1 was on Resident 1's back side. Resident 1 stated, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 came into the room. Resident 1 stated, LVN 1 and RN 1 told CNA 1 they needed her hands to hold Resident 1's legs. Resident 1 stated, she asked RN 1 and LVN 1 what they were doing. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 said we are going to get that out of there and put her finger in Resident 1's rectum. Resident 1 stated, she screamed for RN 1 to stop. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 said, . you have hemorrhoids [swollen veins in the anus and lower rectum] . and according to Resident 1, RN 1 shoved her finger up Resident 1's anus. Resident 1 stated, she cried for her to stop, and RN 1 shoved her finger in Resident 1's anus again and turned her finger around inside. Resident 1 stated, CNA 1 left the room after the third time RN 1 put her finger in Resident 1's anus. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/12/23, at 10:20 a.m., with Resident 1, Resident 1 became tearful and stated, . I cried and cried . I kept telling them no, no, no . Resident 1 stated, she was upset, and later a nurse gave her alprazolam (a medication to treat anxiety and panic disorders). Resident 1 stated, she stayed in bed for five days because she was so upset about the incident. Resident 1 stated, the event was very painful and very emotional. Resident 1 stated, she thought of the event every time she had a bowel movement (BM). Resident 1 stated, a nurse came into her room that looked like LVN 1 and she yelled at her to get out. Resident 1 stated, Medical Doctor (MD) 1 took a picture of her anus when he examined her on 1/4/23 and showed her the picture. Resident 1 stated, the picture indicated her anus was red. During a review of Resident 1's Nursing Progress Notes (NPN), dated 12/30/22, at 4:30 p.m., the NPN indicated, . [alprazolam] Oral Tablet . Give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for . emotional Outburst . During a review of Resident 1's NPN, dated 12/30/22, at 5:30 p.m., the NPN indicated, . PRN [as needed] Administration of [alprazolam] was Ineffective . During a review of Resident 1's NPN, dated 12/31/22 to 1/2/23, the NPN indicated, . 12/31/2022 19:43 [7:43 p.m.] . Restlessness 12/31/20222 23:15 [11:15 p.m.] . PRN Administration [of alprazolam] was: Effective . 1/1/2023 22:07 [10:07 p.m.] . meds [alprazolam] administered d/t [due to] anxiety . 1/2/2023 00:30 [12:30 a.m.] . PRN Administration [of alprazolam] was: Effective . During an interview on 1/12/23, at 11:14 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), physician progress notes for Resident 1 on 1/4/23, including photos taken of Resident 1's anal area were requested. The DON stated, there were no pictures of Resident 1's anal area in Resident 1's medical record taken by the physician. During an interview on 1/12/23, at 11:25 a.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated, on 12/30/22, at the end of her shift, Resident 1 was complaining of abdomen cramping . so I called my supervisor, [RN 1] . LVN 1 stated, Resident 1 asked RN 1 to check her for hemorrhoids and consented to let RN 1 check for hemorrhoids. LVN 1 stated, RN 1 found no hemorrhoids, but a hard stool at the tip of the rectum. LVN 1 stated, RN 1 asked Resident 1 if she wanted the stool removed and Resident 1 said yes. LVN 1 stated, RN 1 flicked the stool out with her finger. LVN 1 stated, Resident 1 was not crying or screaming. LVN stated, after Resident 1 said no, RN 1 stopped. LVN 1 stated, RN 1 gave a suppository (method of delivering medication inserted in the rectum) to soften Resident 1's stool. LVN 1 stated nursing staff was not allowed to remove a stool impaction (a result when stool backs up in the intestine) by digital/finger extraction. During an interview on 1/12/23, at 11:36 a.m., with RN 1, RN 1 stated, Resident 1 complained of abdomen cramping and constipation and consented to let RN 1 look for hemorrhoids. RN 1 stated, she saw a black hard stool at the rectum and asked Resident 1 . if she wanted me to scrape the stool out . RN 1 stated, Resident 1 consented and . I asked Resident 1 to help push . RN 1 stated, she used her finger to push it out. RN 1 stated, she could see more stool and asked the resident if she wanted a suppository to soften the stool. RN 1 stated, nursing staff are not allowed to remove a stool impaction. RN 1 stated, Resident 1 was not crying or screaming. RN 1 stated, she and LVN 1 spoke in a foreign language when positioning Resident 1. During a review of Resident 1's Physician Progress Notes (PPN) by MD 1, dated 1/4/23, the PPN indicated, . Chief Complaint: Follow up visit . [Resident 1] requested help and according to her she had a painful manual disimpaction [use of fingers to remove stool from the rectum] of the stool . Patient and daughter would like to examine the area for injuries / wound . no new injury noted and no active bleeding . During an interview on 1/12/23, at 11:55 a.m., with MD 1, MD 1 stated, the facility did not initially contact him regarding Resident 1's allegation of RN 1 performing a painful digital disimpaction. MD 1 stated, he had a call from the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) regarding Resident 1's constipation. MD 1 stated, MD 1 was asked by Resident 1 and Resident 1's daughter to examine Resident 1 during his visit on 1/4/23. MD 1 stated, Resident 1's anal area appeared with non-specific (general) redness. MD 1 stated, he took a picture of Resident 1's anal area on 1/4/23. MD 1 provided a copy of the picture, titled, Media Information (MI), dated 1/4/23, at 10:52 a.m. The MI indicated, Resident 1's name and medical record number. During a review of Resident 1's NPN, dated 1/3/23, at 3:05 p.m., the NPN by the ADON, indicated, . Resident visited in her room, this writer asked her about her bowel movement, she said its [sic] still difficult for her, currently on docusate sodium [a stool softener] 250 mg [milligram, a unit of measure] once daily. [MD 1] made aware via phone and ordered [polyethylene glycol, a laxative and stool softener] 17 grams [unit of measure] 1 packet once daily . During a review of Resident 1's NPN, dated 1/4/23, at 11:51 a.m., the NPN indicated, . Resident is complaining of itchiness to perianal [around anus] area while [MD 1] was examining her. With slight redness noted. order to apply zinc oxide cream [medication to treat skin irritation] for ski [sic, skin] protection and maintenance . During an interview on 1/12/23, at 12:04, with the ADON, the ADON stated, on 12/30/22, in the afternoon, CNA 1 told her she was uncomfortable about Resident 1 who was in pain. The ADON stated, she went into Resident1's room and saw LVN 1 and RN 1 and asked them what happened. The ADON stated, the nurses said they were giving a suppository. The ADON stated, she told CNA 1 the nurses were helping her. The ADON stated she heard Resident 1 straining in constipation, not screaming. During an interview on 1/12/23, at 12:17 p.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated, RN 1 and LVN 1 were in Resident 1's room and asked CNA 1 to help hold Resident 1 down while RN 1 gave a suppository. CNA 1 stated, RN 1 and LVN 1 did not need a third person to give a suppository. CNA 1 stated, she could see RN 1 was digging in Resident 1's rectum with her index finger far up Resident 1's anus. CNA 1 stated, Resident 1 was screaming . no ., . stop . and . ow . over and over, but LVN 1 kept getting new gloves for RN 1 and RN 1 kept digging far up Resident 1's rectum for what seemed like more than five minutes. CNA 1 stated, RN 1 said, . I can feel it up there . CNA 1 stated, after RN 1 probed Resident 1's rectum twice, CNA 1 left the room. CNA 1 stated, as she was leaving, RN 1 said, .it's okay, like having a baby . During an interview on 1/12/23, at 12:20 p.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) came down the hallway outside Resident 1's room and asked who was screaming. CNA 1 stated, she told the ADON Resident 1 was screaming, and RN 1 was sticking her finger in Resident 1's rectum while LVN 1 was holding her down. CNA 1 stated, the ADON looked in Resident 1's room immediately came back out and told CNA 1 the nurses knew what they were doing. CNA 1 stated the ADON did not intervene with the nurses. During an interview on 1/12/23, at 12:25 p.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated, the Director of Nursing (DON) told CNA 1, not to put anything in writing about the event because the state could take legal action. CNA 1 stated, the DON tried to convince her it was okay and told me if we sent her to the hospital, the state would be called on the facility because they did not deal with the impaction at the facility. During an interview on 1/12/23, at 12:25 p.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated, after RN 1 and LVN 1 left Resident 1's room, CNA 1 went to clean up Resident 1 and she could tell there had not been a hard stool as there was soft stool smeared on the linens. CNA 1 stated, she did not think resident was constipated because she remembered changing Resident 1 two days before on 12/28/22 after a BM. CNA 1 stated, she had looked in the electronic medical record and saw Resident 1 also had a stool on 12/29/22, one day before the incident. During a review of Resident 1's Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), dated 12/28/22 to 1/10/23, the ADLs indicated, Resident 1 had a large hard stool on 12/28/22, at 6:35 p.m. The ADLs indicated Resident 1 had a medium-sized normal stool on 12/29/22, at 9:07 p.m. During an interview on 1/12/23, at 12:39 p.m., with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated, on 12/30/22, sometime after 3:30 p.m., she was eleven rooms away and she heard a resident down the hall screaming . no . and . stop . LVN 2 stated, the ADON came out into the hallway and asked who was screaming. LVN 2 stated, CNA 1 told her RN 1 was sticking fingers inside Resident 1's rectum. LVN 2 stated, she told CNA 1 removing impactions was out of the nurse's scope of practice (activities a licensed person is allowed to practice as a health professional). LVN 2 stated, she told CNA 1 the ADON, RN 1 and LVN 1 are all friends, and they will not tell on each other. During an interview on 1/12/23, at 1:47 p.m., with the Activities Assistant (AA), the AA stated, Resident 1 did not want to get up for activities the week of 1/4/23 to 1/11/23. The AA stated, Resident 1 did not want any activities in her room during the same time frame. During a review of Resident 1's Activity Attendance Record (AAR), dated December 2022, the AAR indicated, Resident 1 participated in activities in her room on 12/2, 12/6, 12/9, 12/13, 12/16, 12/20, 12/23, 12/27 and 12/30. During an interview on 1/12/23, at 3:20 p.m., with the ADM, the ADM stated, there was no documentation of activities for Resident 1 for January 2023. The ADM stated, the Activities Director was contacted on the phone and stated Resident 1 refused all activities in January of 2023. During a review of Resident 1's Progress Notes (PN), dated 1/4/23, at 4:38 p.m., the PN by the Social Services Director (SSD), indicated, . SSD stopped by res [resident's] room this afternoon regarding a recent incident on 12/30/22 . Res stated the incident was a traumatic and painful experience, res stated she does not wish to speak about the incident in detail . Res request to no longer have either nurse assigned to her. Admin, DON, ADON made aware . Writer encouraged res to go to the dining room for meals and participate in activities, res declined . Writer offered to have her seen by [name], Psychologist, res agreed and stated it would be helpful, psych eval [psychiatric evaluation] was sent to [psychologist] via fax. No concerns regarding isolative or withdrawn behavior . SS [Social Service] to follow up as needed . During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/12/23, at 3:26 p.m., with the DON, the DON reviewed the facility's Clinical Protocol (CP), titled Bowel Disorders, dated 9/2017. The DON stated, the CP did not instruct nurses to remove bowel impactions. The DON stated, RN 1 and LVN 1 did nothing wrong because they only pushed out a BM at the end of the anus. The CP indicated, . Assessment and Recognition . the nurse shall assess and document/report the following . Presence of fecal impaction . Abdominal assessment . Digital rectal examination . Treatment/Management . The physician will help identify the possible need for hospitalization to manage a gastrointestinal disorder . During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/12/23, at 3:28 p.m., with the DON, the DON reviewed RN 1's Counseling/Disciplinary Notice, dated 1/4/23, and LVN 1's Counseling/Disciplinary Notice, dated 1/4/23. The DON stated, RN 1 and LVN 1 were counseled on the bowel protocol. When asked why RN 1 and LVN 1 were counseled if they did nothing wrong, the DON stated, RN 1 and LVN 1 were counseled to make sure in the future they do not go further than the anus. During an interview on 1/25/23, at 9:47 a.m., with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated, on 12/30/22, she never told RN1 or LVN 1 she thought she had hemorrhoids, nor did she ask RN 1 or LVN 1 to check her for hemorrhoids. Resident 1 stated she had not had hemorrhoids since she had hemorrhoid removal after her children were born. Resident 1 stated on 12/30/22, around 3:00 p.m. when LVN 1 was about to go home, LVN 1 came into her room with her hands on her hips and said, Well, now what do you want? Resident stated she told LVN 1 she was constipated and needed get some medication. Resident 1 stated LVN said, I guess we can call an ambulance. LVN 1 stated she would take care of it and left the room. Resident 1 stated, LVN 1 returned with RN 1. Resident 1 stated, she did not consent to the digital extraction of stool. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 showed her RN 1's pinky finger and LVN 1 stated they were going to stick RN 1's little finger in up her anus. Resident 1 stated, she said No, I'm sore and the nurses rolled her over and pulled down her pants. Resident 1 stated she felt her put her finger in her anus and then . jammed it up Resident 1 stated, she told RN 1 it hurt and screamed for her to stop. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 said, you're full of hemorrhoids. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 . jammed her finger in again and I screamed . Resident 1 stated, later several CNAs told her they could hear her down the hall. Resident 1 stated, she did not feel threatened or afraid until after this incident happened. Resident 1 stated, she asked for RN 1 and LVN 1 not to care for her because she felt threatened by them and fearful of them. During an interview on 1/25/23, at 11:02 a.m., with RN 1, RN 1 stated, LVN 1 called her to assist because Resident 1 complained of abdomen pain and LVN suspected Resident 1 had hemorrhoids. RN 1 stated, she asked Resident 1 if she wanted her to check her rectum for hemorrhoids and Resident 1 said yes. RN 1 stated she used her fore finger to remove the crowning stool (stool emerging at the anus) and ask Resident 1 to push like having a baby because RN 1 had small hands. RN 1 stated, when Resident 1 said to stop, RN 1 stopped. And asked if she wanted to go to the hospital and resident 1 said no. RN 1 stated she did not consider calling the physician regarding abdomen pain and Resident was offered an ambulance before the procedure. During an interview on 1/25/23, at 12:00 p.m., with the ADON, the ADON stated, on Friday, 12/30/23, in the afternoon she came out . to the nursing station to check on something. I overheard a CNA saying she is not comfortable with a resident . Surveyor informed the ADON witnesses stated she came out to the nursing station and asked who was screaming. The ADON stated, . Hold on . let me recollect . I was hearing all kinds of noises . I heard someone crying. A CNA said she was uncomfortable with a resident moaning. I can't remember what else she said . The ADON stated, she went to Resident 1's room and saw RN 1 standing at the side of the bed and LVN 1 standing at the foot of the bed, facing the bathroom. The ADON stated, RN 1 told her they had been giving a suppository. The ADON stated, she went back to console CNA 1 and told her the nurses were helping Resident 1. During an interview on 1/25/23, at 12:28 p.m., with the DON, the DON stated there is no policy and procedure for rectal exams or digital extraction because the nurses do not do them. The DON stated, the nurses only check for hemorrhoids if a resident complains about it and only an external visualization is allowed. The DON stated, for a resident complaint of constipation, first action would be to assess, listen for bowel sounds (abdominal sounds made by the intestines as they push food through), assess for bowel obstruction, use orders for fleets enema or suppository for softening and call the doctor. The DON stated taking the resident to the hospital would be the last resort. During a review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 12/1/22 to 12/31/22, the MAR indicated, magnesium hydroxide (a chemical used to treat constipation)was administered to Resident 1 on 12/30/22, at 10:18 a.m. During an interview on 1/26/23, at 8:41 a.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated, on the morning of 12/30/22, Resident 1 stated she could not have a BM and she gave Resident 1 magnesium hydroxide. LVN 1 stated in the afternoon someone called her again about Resident 1. LVN 1 stated, Resident 1 complained of abdominal pain and mentioned she might have hemorrhoids. LVN 1 stated, RN 1 asked Resident 1 if she wanted to go to the hospital for the pain and Resident 1 said no. LVN 1 stated, . we offered going to the hospital first because I was focused on abdomen pain first . LVN 1 stated, they did not call the doctor because RN 1 performed a nursing intervention by removing stool. LVN 1 stated, she does not know if the abdominal pain stopped. LVN 1 stated, after the nurses asked going to the hospital, Resident 1 did not talk about the pain again. LVN 1 stated, the nurses did not give Resident 1 any pain medication on 12/30/22. Regarding Resident 1 screaming for at least five minutes. LVN 1 stated, . I don't think so. I know she probably screamed during the stool removal . During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled Abuse Prevention Program, dated 12/1/22, the P&P indicated, . to promote an environment free from any form of resident abuse . mistreatment . Abuse- willful infliction of injury . intimidation, or punishment with resulting physical harm, pain, or mental anguish . Type of Abuse . 'Mental Abuse' - is the use of verbal or nonverbal conduct which causes or has the potential to cause the resident to experience humiliation, intimidation, fear, shame, agitation, or degradation . During a review of a professional reference titled, Digital Rectal Exam (DRE), dated 9/26/22, retrieved from https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/24212-digital-rectal-exam, the DRE indicated, . Several healthcare providers [physicians] may perform a DRE [digital rectal exam] . During a review of a professional reference titled, Digital Disimpaction and How It's Done (DDHIT), dated 1/11/22, retrieved from https://www.verywellhealth.com/digital-evacuation-1945037, the DDHIT indicated, . Digital disimpaction is not a recommended treatment for constipation unless the condition cannot be relieved by other methods . risk of injury, including anal fissures [tear of the moist tissue around the anus] or rectal perforation [hole formed by piercing] , as well as hemorrhoids and infection . During the review of a professional reference titled, American Nurses Association Code of Ethics for Nurses (ANACEN), dated 2015, retrieved from https://nursing.[NAME].edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/ANA-Code-of-Ethics-for-Nurses.pdf, the ANACEN indicated, . The nurse practices with compassion and respect for the inherent dignity, worth, and unique attributes of every person . The nurse promotes, advocates for, and protects the rights, health, and safety of the patient .
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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement the facility ' s policy and procedure reg...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to implement the facility ' s policy and procedure regarding abuse reporting for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when the facility did not report alleged abuse to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) within the time frame stated in the facility ' s policy. This failure placed Resident 1 at a potential risk for additonal abuse and resulted in a delay in the investigation of the alleged abuse. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Face Sheet (FS- a document containing resident resident information), the FS indicated, Resident 1 was an [AGE] year-old female, admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including, . hemiplegia [paralysis affecting one side of the body] and hemiparesis [weakness or inability to move on one side of the body] following a cerebral infarction [stroke, resulting from disrupted blood flow to the brain] affecting right dominant side . The FS indicated, Resident 1 was her own Responsible Party (decision-maker) and was cognitively able to make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- a short performance-based cognitive screener for nursing home residents, scored 0 to 15), the BIMS score was 15, which indicated Resident 1 was cognitively intact. During an interview on 1/12/23, at 8:22 a.m., with the Ombudsman (OMB, a representative who assisted long-term care residents with issues related day-to-day care), the OMB stated, Resident 1 and Family Member (FM) 1 contacted her on 1/3/23 to report the alleged abuse. The OMB stated, the Administrator (ADM) was aware of the incident. The OMD stated, she did not receive a report of the incident until 1/5/23. The OMB stated, according to FM 1 and Resident 1, Resident 1 ' s roommate heard Resident 1 said no and stop. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/12/23, at 9:59 a.m., in Resident 1's room, Resident 1 was sitting in a wheelchair. Resident 1 stated, on the morning of 12/30/22, she told LVN 1 she felt constipated. Resident 1 stated, on 12/30/22, around 3:00 p.m., she asked a physical therapist to tell LVN 1 she still felt constipated and had abdominal pain. Resident 1 stated, LVN 1 and RN 1 came into her room and LVN 1 had her hands on her hips. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 and LVN 1 spoke to each other in another language. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 in an angry tone told Resident 1 they could call an ambulance to take her to the hospital for constipation and pain or they could take care of the constipation and pain at the facility. Resident 1 stated, she told RN 1 and LVN 1 she did not think she needed to go to the hospital. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 and LVN 1 put gloves on and rolled Resident 1 to her side. Resident 1 stated, LVN 1 was facing her and holding her shoulder and arms, while RN 1 was on Resident 1 ' s back side. Resident 1 stated, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 came into the room. Resident 1 stated, LVN 1 and RN 1 told CNA 1 they needed her hands to hold Resident 1 ' s legs. Resident 1 stated, she asked what they were doing. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 said we are going to get that out of there and put her finger in Resident 1 ' s rectum (lower part of the intestine that terminates at the anus [where waste matter left the body]). Resident 1 stated, she screamed for RN 1 to stop. Resident 1 stated, RN 1 said, . you have hemorrhoids [swollen veins in the anus and lower rectum] . and according to Resident 1, RN 1 shoved her finger up Resident 1 ' s anus. Resident 1 stated, she cried for her to stop, and RN 1 shoved her finger in Resident 1 ' s anus again and turned her finger around inside. Resident 1 stated, CNA 1 left the room after the third time RN 1 put her finger in Resident 1 ' s anus. Resident 1 became tearful and stated, . I cried and cried . I kept telling them no, no, no . During an interview on 1/12/23, at 4:30 p.m., with FM 1, FM 1 stated, she notified the Administrator (ADM) on 1/3/23, regarding an inappropriate digital (finger) removal of stool from Resident 1 ' s rectum by a nurse on 12/30/23, causing Resident 1 emotional distress. FM 1 stated, Resident 1 had asked the nurse to stop, and she did not. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes (PN), dated 1/3/23, at 4:26 p.m., by the ADM, the PN indicated, . spoke with [FM 1] . she brought up a concern about [Resident 1] . stated that the nurse removed BM [bowel movement] and felt that she should not have done that, not in the nurses [sic] scope of practice. [FM 1] stated [Resident 1] complained to her. Explained that we will look into it and follow up with her . During a review of Resident 1 ' s PN, dated 1/3/23, at 4:30 p.m., by the Social Services Assistant (SSA), the PN indicated, . SSA received call from [FM 1] this afternoon regarding incident res [Resident] expressed to her that occurred on 12/30/22. [FM 1] stated [Resident 1] had nursing concerns regarding res constipation and customer service. [FM 1] state [sic] she has been in contact with the ombudsman [name] regarding the matter, Admin [sic, Administrator], DON [Director of Nursing], ADON [Assistant Director of Nursing] made aware, ADON [Assistant Director of Nursing] addressed res concerns at this time. Social services to follow up as needed . During a review of Facsimile, dated 1/4/23, at 4:39 p.m., the Facsimile indicated, report of Resident ' s alleged abuse was faxed to CDPH on 1/4/23, at 4:39 p.m. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P&P), titled Abuse Prevention Program, dated 12/1/22, the P&P indicated, . Reporting/Response . The Facility shall report any and all allegation [sic] of abuse to the District CDPH [California Department of Public Health], Local Ombudsman and/or Local Law enforcement, either by phone, email or facsimile, within 2-hour timeframe .
Sept 2022 21 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to ensure the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) fulfilled her job responsibilities of daily kitchen oversight when: 1. The CDM failed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to ensure the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) fulfilled her job responsibilities of daily kitchen oversight when: 1. The CDM failed to monitor daily kitchen operations to ensure a) food safety guidelines and standards of practice were followed; b) effective supervision of kitchen employees was conducted; c) proper preparation of pureed items; d) meal palatability and food was prepared to conserve nutrients; e) resident food preferences and intolerances were followed, and f) kitchen equipment was in safe working order (Cross reference to F812, F802, F803, F804, F806, and F908). 2. The CDM delegated daily departmental oversight responsibilities to [NAME] 1, who was not trained or qualified to perform the duties of a CDM. [NAME] 1 performed the CDM's job duties 40 hours weekly which included but not limited to; ordering food, visitation of residents for food preferences, attending care plan meetings, and providing instruction and guidance to food service employees. 3. [NAME] 2, who was responsible for preparing two meals a day, five days a week, was not competent in adequate hand washing, preventing cross contamination of food, cleaning, sanitizing and storage of food preparation equipment, manual washing of cookware used for resident food preparation, proper testing of the kitchen sanitizing solution, preparing puree food items according to the recipe, ensuring the resident food was prepared in a manner which maintained the nutritional value of resident meals and resident meals were palatable (Cross reference to F802, F803, F804, and F812). 4. The Registered Dietitian (RD) did not provide effective oversight of the kitchen operations. 5. The facility Administrator was not aware that an unqualified, untrained employee was performing CDM's managerial duties on a fulltime basis and the CDM was not fulfilling her job responsibilities. These failures to ensure the CDM fulfilled her job responsibilities resulted in exposing 76 of 76 residents (17 sampled residents and 59 non-sampled residents), who received food prepared in the kitchen, to practices with the potential to result in food borne illness, bacterial cross contamination, poor meal quality, decreased meal satisfaction and compromised resident nutritional status including but not limited to weight loss. Due to the lack of daily oversight and monitoring of the food service operations by qualified personnel that could cause serious potential harm of food borne illnesses, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ- a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident) situation was called on 8/25/22 at 5:24 p.m., under Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §483.60 Staffing (F801) with the Administrator, (ADM) the Director of Nursing (DON), Assistant DON (ADON), Infection Preventionist (IP), Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), and the Staffing and Recourse Nurse in attendance. The IJ template was provided to the ADM. The facility submitted an acceptable IJ Plan of Removal (Version 3) on 8/26/22, at 5:42 p.m. The IJ Plan of Removal included but was not limited to the following: 1) As of 8/26/2022 the current CDM will resume her role as outlined in the job description to include, but not limited to: planning, controlling, coordinating, directing, and evaluating all aspects of food service, along with data collection for clinical charting, MDS (Minimum Data Set - a comprehensive assessment used for screening, clinical and functional status elements for nursing home residents) participation, and care planning, as well as begin routine monitoring of the kitchen operations to ensure food safety guidelines are met. - Directing the food service operation following the facility and Dietary Policy and Procedure Manuals, - Developing and writing schedules for dietary staff, supervising the preparation of food and food service for the resident meals according to established menus and standardized recipes, ensuring food is prepared by methods that conserve nutritional value and is palatable and attractive to residents, purchasing food and supplies according to the facility menu and remains within the budgetary guidelines established by the facility and maintains all cost records as required by administration, - Participating in planning and conducting departmental meetings and in-service education, - Ensuring sanitation and safety standards are maintained according to State, Federal, and local regulations, maintains all dietary records, i.e.: temperature records, tray cards, profiles, nutritional assessments, MDS, care plans, etc., - Coordinates and gathers the information required by the Registered Dietitian i.e.: resident weights, skin report, facility admissions, dietary consults, enteral feedings, etc., - Participates in charting responsibilities as requested by facility and Registered Dietitian, - Ensures residents receive the proper food items to meet their dietary need and that food is served at the appropriate temperature for safety and palatability, - Participates in IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) meetings and conferences as requested by the facility, - Communicates with Registered Dietitian regularly and as requested by the Administrator or Director of Nursing, - Performs other duties assigned by the Administrator. The CDM will conduct daily Food Service Sanitation (FSS) Kitchen checks using the California Association of Healthcare Facilities (CAHF) Daily Supervisor Rounds Checklist and will include staff interviews which will be reviewed with the Administrator daily (Monday-Friday) to begin on 8/26/2022 for 30 days. If any line item(s) are not met, item(s) will be reviewed, and corrective action implemented for continued monitoring. At the completion of 30 days, if threshold of 90% is not met, additional daily FSS Kitchen checks will continue for 30 days and then be re-evaluated. A Performance Evaluation of the CDM utilizing the facility form will be conducted by the Regional Administrator, on 8/30/2022 and at the completion of the 30 days referenced above to include duties as written in the job description (Threshold: Meets Standards). The Registered Dietitian will conduct a bi-monthly sanitation inspection and review with the Administrator. The Administrator will conduct a bi-monthly Administrator Kitchen Inspection Checklist and review findings with the Registered Dietitian. The Registered Dietitian using the Competency Checklist for Food Service Workers, will complete competencies of all kitchen staff beginning today, 8/26/22, through 8/31/22. Any areas identified requiring improvement will result in 1:1 in-service with staff member with return demonstration to ensure competency is met. By September 30, 2022, all food service workers will be reevaluated by the Registered Dietitian using the Competency Checklist for Food Service Workers. The findings from the daily FSS Kitchen checks and the bi-weekly Dietary Manager Kitchen Inspection Checklist will be discussed at the monthly QA meeting for three months or until substantial compliance is met (Threshold: 90%). 2) As of 8/26/2022 [NAME] 2 was replaced with a qualified dietary cook (Cook 1). [NAME] 1 will prepare breakfast and lunch 5 days per week. [NAME] 1 was an experienced cook when hired on 3/18/2010. [NAME] 1's last competency evaluation was 8/26/2022. 3) The fulltime a.m. [NAME] (Cook 2) was removed from her duties effective immediately and did not cook breakfast on 8/26/22022. [NAME] 2 verbally resigned from her position on 8/26/2022 at 11:00 am. 4) Upon investigation, it was determined that [NAME] 1's recent duties had evolved over several years, but her job description was not updated to reflect changes or additions to her role. The Administrator reviewed the Dietary Department Job Descriptions/Duties, and it has been determined that the assigned role of [NAME] 1 was never reclassified to reflect her recent duties. As of 8/26/2022, the [NAME] 1 has resumed her designated role as cook. All duties defined in her job description upon hire have been reviewed and acknowledged. Systemic problems that occurred resulting in the employment of a cook who did not perform to sanitary standards/expectations are as follows: COVID-19 Pandemic, staffing shortages, failure of Dietary Manager to conduct timely competencies, and failure of the Dietary Manager to provide direct oversight/supervision. The components of the IJ Plan of Removal were validated through observations, interviews, and record review. The IJ was removed on 8/26/22 at 5:53 p.m. with the ADM in attendance. Findings: During a review of the professional reference obtained from https://www.foodsafety.gov/food-poisoning, downloaded 9/1/22, indicated, food poisoning or foodborne illnesses can affect anyone who eats food contaminated by bacteria, viruses, parasites, toxins, or other substances. During a review of the professional reference obtained from https://www.foodsafety.gov/people-at-risk/older-adults downloaded 9/1/22, indicated certain groups of people are more susceptible to foodborne illness. This means they are more likely to get sick from contaminated food and, if they do get sick, the effects are much more serious. Older adults residing in nursing homes are ten times more likely to die from bacterial gastroenteritis than the general population. This increased risk of foodborne illness is because organs and body systems go through changes during aging. These changes include: the gastrointestinal tract holds on to food for a longer period, allowing bacteria to grow; the liver and kidneys may not properly rid bodies of foreign bacteria and toxins; the stomach may not produce enough acid. The acidity helps to reduce the number of bacteria in our intestinal tract. Without proper amounts of acid, there is an increased risk of bacterial growth; underlying chronic conditions, such as diabetes and cancer, may also increase a person's risk of foodborne illnesses. 1. During the tour of the kitchen between 8/23/22 at 8:22 a.m. and 8/25/22 at 4:24 p.m. the following was observed: a. Proper hand washing was not performed by [NAME] 2 after a trash can was touched, b. Cross contamination was not prevented when a measuring scoop was stored inside a food bin, c. Expired food items (three bags of cabbage and five bags of corn tortillas) were available for use and not discarded, d. Leftover potatoes were observed in the walk-in refrigerator and not cooled down safely, e. More than five steam table pans, two small and one large frying pans had thick dark brown residue on the insides of the pans, four cutting boards were heavily marred, the can opener blade was brown and worn, f. The meat slicer, mixer, can opener and a weighing scale were visibly dirty and not clean, g. Three food items in plastic bins were not labeled and did not have open dates, h. Milk was stored in crates on the floor of the walk-in refrigerator, i. [NAME] 2 stored more than five steam table pans wet and not inverted, j. The walk-in refrigerator door, knife rack and a plastic container with clean divided plates were visibly dirty and not clean, k. Two kitchen brooms were stored on the floor, l. A beverage that belonged to an employee was stored in the walk-in freezer, m. Puree recipes were not followed, n. Kitchen equipment was not in safe working order when the walk-in freezer had excessive ice build-up, the walk-in refrigerator door was not flush with the door jamb exposing a gap, and the temperatures on the oven dial were worn off and not legible, o. Resident 80's food preferences and intolerances were not followed, and p. Resident food was not prepared to provide palatability and conserve nutritive value. a. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 8:25 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was washing steamtable pans and placing them in the rinse sink. [NAME] 2 touched the trash can then grabbed a rag out of the sanitation bucket and started sanitizing the counter tops. [NAME] 2 then returned to the rinse sink and started removing the steam trays from the rinse sink. During an interview on 8/24/22, at 8:38 a.m., with [NAME] 2, [NAME] 2 stated, touching the trash can and then sanitizing counters was not the facility's process. [NAME] 2 stated, You need to wash your hands after touching the trash can. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 4:29 p.m., with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), CDM stated, that if kitchen staff touched a trash can, they would need to wash their hands after. CDM stated, staff must wash hands anytime the hands become contaminated (having been made impure by exposure to something) to prevent cross contamination (the process by which bacteria or other microorganisms are unintentionally transferred from one thing to another with harmful effect). CDM stated her last in-service on handwashing was in 2021. CDM stated, she did not have an in-service on handwashing for 2022. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: DISHWASHING PROCEDURES (DISHMACHINE), dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . the employee must wash hands thoroughly before handling clean dishes, trays and carts . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA [United States Food and Drug Administration] Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 2-301 . When to Wash, food employees shall clean their hands . after engaging in other activities that contaminate the hands . b. During an interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., with CDM, CDM stated, it was the facility's practice to not store scoops inside bins. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 10:19 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was preparing to puree (a smooth creamy substance made of liquidized food) food items for the lunch meal on top of a cart. [NAME] 2 had a plastic bin that contained thickener (a substance added to a liquid to make it firmer) on the top of the cart. [NAME] 2 used a metal measuring scoop stored inside the plastic bin to scoop up the thickener. [NAME] 2 added thickener to the food multiple times. [NAME] 2 placed the measuring scoop on the top of the cart more than two times before placing it back into the plastic bin. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 3:10 p.m., with [NAME] 3, in the kitchen, there was a plastic bin containing thickener and a measuring scoop stored inside of it. [NAME] 3 stated, measuring cups should not be stored inside of the plastic bin. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: CLEANING SMALL APPLIANCES/EQUIPMENT, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . Food Storage Bins . The scoop should be stored outside the bins in a designated area . c. During an observation on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., in the kitchen, the walk-in refrigerator and the dry storage room were observed. The walk-in refrigerator had three bags of cabbage with expiration dates of 8/15/22. The dry storage room was 82 degrees Fahrenheit (F) and had five bags of corn tortillas with manufactures date of 5/23/22. The tortillas had no received date or expiration date on them. During an interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., with CDM, CDM stated, she did not know when the tortillas were received. During an interview on 8/23/22, at 10:27 a.m., with CDM, CDM stated, the cabbage should have been discarded. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:35 a.m., with [NAME] 1, in the dry storage room, the five bags of tortillas were stored with a verified received date sticker of 8/17/22. [NAME] 1 stated, the process at the facility was food needed to be dated if it was removed from the original box it came in. [NAME] 1 stated, five bags of tortillas had received date of 8/17/22. [NAME] 1 stated, if tortillas were not dated, she would look at the facility's shelf-life (the length of time for which an item remains fit for consumption) list. [NAME] 1 stated, tortillas were not listed on the facility's shelf-life list. During an interview on 8/24/22, at 10:44 a.m., with CDM, CDM stated, the shelf life for corn tortillas was 45 days from the manufactures date per [brand name] website. CDM stated that the tortillas were expired. d. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:22 a.m., with CDM, in the walk-in refrigerator, there was a zip lock bag with sliced potatoes with a date that was not legible. CDM stated, the zip lock bag contained leftover cooked potatoes from 8/22/22. CDM stated, a resident requested cooked potatoes twice a day. During an interview on 8/24/22, at 3:10 p.m., with [NAME] 3, [NAME] 3 stated, the facility did not save leftovers. [NAME] 3 stated, the facility's process was not to re-heat food for safety reasons. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 9:36 a.m., with [NAME] 1, [NAME] 1 stated, the facility's practice was to prepare food same day the resident was eating it and not keep leftovers. [NAME] 1 stated, if facility was to keep leftovers a record of that food should be documented on the facility's cooling log. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 1:04 p.m., with CDM, CDM stated, the cook made a batch of potatoes for three days. The leftover portion of potatoes would be refrigerated and used for the next meal. The CDM stated she has not kept a record of pre-made potatoes on the cooling log. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:15 p.m., with Registered Dietician (RD) 1, RD 1 stated, she had not seen any leftovers kept at the facility. RD 1 stated, she was not aware facility was keeping leftovers. RD 1 stated, if facility was keeping leftovers the leftovers would need to be cool downed properly. During a review of the facility's COOLING/CHILLING TEMPERATURE CONTROL LOG, dated 6/17/22 through 8/24/22, the COOLING/CHILLING TEMPERATURE CONTROL LOG indicated, no record of sliced potatoes. During a review of the facility's (P&P) titled, FOOD PREPARATION SUBJECT: FOOD PREPARATION, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . Leftovers must be refrigerated immediately utilizing cool down log, covered labeled and dated . e. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:22 a.m., with CDM, there were more than five steam table pans with thick dark brown residue (amount of something that remains after the main part has gone or been used) on the inside and outside of the pans. Two small and one large frying pans had thick dark brown residue on the insides of the pans. Four cutting boards were heavily marred. The can opener blade was brown and worn. CDM stated, the pans with the dark brown residue were not acceptable to cook with and should be replaced. CDM stated, the cutting boards needed to be replaced. CDM stated, the can opener blade was worn. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 10:35 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, there was one rubber spatula with a chip in the rubber area. CDM stated, the spatulas needed to be discarded. During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . 4-202.11 Food-Contact Surfaces. (A) Multiuse FOOD- shall be: CONTACT SURFACES (1) SMOOTH; (2) Free of breaks, open seams, cracks, chips, inclusions, pits, and similar imperfections . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 4-501.12 Cutting Surfaces, surfaces such as cutting blocks that are subject to scratching and scoring [cut or scratch] shall be resurfaced if they can no longer be effectively cleaned and sanitized, or discarded if they are not capable of being resurfaced . f. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, the meat slicer was covered with a plastic bag. CDM stated, if equipment was clean then it would be covered with a plastic bag. The bag covering the meat slicer was removed. The meat slicers' blade and grip had a brown sticky substance. CDM stated, the brown substance should not be on the meat slicer. CDM stated, the meat slicer was not cleaned appropriately. CDM stated, the meat slicer should be disassembled and sanitized. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, the can opener blade was worn and brown. The can opener and can opener base had a brown sticky residue that transferred to the hand when touched. CDM stated, the can opener and can opener base was not clean. During a review of August 2022 DAILY CLEANING SCHEDULE SAMPLE FORM dated 8/1/22 through 8/14/22, the August 2022 DAILY CLEANING SCHEDULE SAMPLE FORM indicated, . ITEM . Slicer . RESPONSIBLE PARTY . Cooks . INITIALS AND DATE . Form was dated and signed off (documentation by staff that something was completed) for days 8/1/22 through 8/14/22. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, CONTROL SUBJECT: SANITIZING EQUIPMENT, FOOD AND UTILITY CARTS, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . All kitchen equipment and surfaces, which come in contact with food, will be cleaned and sanitized after each use . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA 2017 Food Code, dated 2017, the USDA Food Code indicated, Section 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surfaces, and Utensils (A): Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils shall be clean to sight and touch. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:55 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, the mixer was on the counter with a plastic bag covering it. CDM stated, clean equipment was covered with a plastic bag. The plastic bag was removed. The mixer had a white flakey residue on it. CDM stated the mixer was not clean. During a review of August 2022 DAILY CLEANING SCHEDULE SAMPLE FORM dated 8/1/22 through 8/14/22, the August 2022 DAILY CLEANING SCHEDULE SAMPLE FORM indicated, . ITEM . Mixer . RESPONSIBLE PARTY . Cooks . INITIALS AND DATE . Form was dated and signed off for days 8/1/22 through 8/14/22. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: CLEANING SMALL APPLIANCES/EQUIPMENT, dated 2018, indicated, . Mixers will be cleaned and sanitized after each use . During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 10:15 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, a rubber spatula with food residue was seen with a melted handle. The CDM stated the rubber spatula was dirty and handle not cleanable and would be discarded. During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA 2017 Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, Section 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surfaces, and Utensils (A): Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils shall be clean to sight and touch. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 8:34 a.m., with Dietary Aid (DA) 2, in the kitchen, a plate was seen on the plate warmer with an orange residue. DA 2 stated, the plate warmer was an area for clean plates. DA 2 stated, the plate with the orange residue was not clean and removed it from the plate warmer. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 4:29 p.m., with CDM, CDM stated, dishware with food debris would not be clean and should be washed again. CDM stated, dirty dishware should not be placed with clean dishware. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT DISHWASHING PROCEDURES (DISHMACHINE), dated 2018, indicated, . All the dishes should be inspected after coming out of dish-machine and if the dishes are not clean then they should be washed again in the dish-machine . During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 10:15 a.m., with [NAME] 2, in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was slicing meat on the meat slicer. [NAME] 2 then weighed the slice of meat on a scale. [NAME] 2 stated that she was slicing turkey for the lunch meal. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:33 a.m., with [NAME] 2, in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 opened a drawer attached to the counter. [NAME] 2 stated, the drawer contained the scale she used the day before to weigh meat. The weigh scale in the drawer had a sticky residue. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:35 a.m., with [NAME] 1, in the kitchen, a weigh scale had sticky residue on it. [NAME] 1 stated, when the scale is stored in the drawer it should be stored clean. [NAME] 1 stated, the scale was not clean and was sticky. [NAME] 1 removed the weigh scale from the drawer and started cleaning it. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, FOOD PREPARATION SUBJECT: FOOD PREPARATION, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . utensils and equipment will be cleaned and sanitized after each use . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surfaces, and Utensils (A): Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils shall be clean to sight and touch . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . 4-602.13 Non-FOOD CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be cleaned at a frequency necessary to preclude accumulation of soil residues . g. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:22 a.m., with CDM, in the dry storeroom, a plastic bin of brown rice was not labeled or date listed. A plastic bin of dried potato was not labeled or dated. CDM stated she was unable to find a label or date for the brown rice or dried potato. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 10:37 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, a clear plastic bin was seen with a white substance inside. The bin had no label or date on it. CDM stated, the white substance inside the bin was thickener. CDM stated, the bin should have been labeled and dated. During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Commercially processed food . Marking the date or day the original container is opened in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, with a procedure to discard the FOOD on or before the last date or day by which the FOOD must be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded . h. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., with CDM, in the walk-in refrigerator, crates used to store milk were on the floor. CDM stated, it was the facility's practice to store the milk in crates on the floor. During a review of the professional reference titled, USDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USDA Food Code indicated, . Section 3-305.11, Foods should be stored six inches above the floor . i. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 8:25 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was washing steam table pans and placing them in the rinse side of the sink. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 8:57 a.m., with [NAME] 2, in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 placed a stack of washed stacked steam table pans on a clean rack. The seven steam table pans were wet, stacked together and not inverted. One of the seven pans had food debris. [NAME] 2 stated, the practice was to air dry the steam table pans and store them inverted once they were dry. [NAME] 2 stated, the steam table pans were not stored correctly. [NAME] 2 stated, she usually stored them inverted. [NAME] 2 stated, one of the steam table pans was not clean. [NAME] 2 removed the seven pans from the clean rack. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: DISHWASHING PROCEDURES (DISHMACHINE), dated 2018, indicated, . All dishes should be inspected after coming out of the dish-machine and if the dishes are not clean then they should be washed again in the dish-machine. Allow racks of dishes . to air dry . Do not rack and stack wet dishes . allow dishes to drain thoroughly and air dry after washing . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 4-601.11 Equipment, Food- Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surface, and Utensils, the food- contact surfaces of cooking equipment and pans shall be kept free of encrusted grease deposits and other soil accumulations; Nonfood- contact surface of equipment shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, food residue, and other debris . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 4-901.11, Equipment and Utensils, Air Drying Required, after cleaning and sanitizing, equipment and utensils: (A) Shall be air-dried . j. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, there was a black sticky substance on the walk-in refrigerator door. The black sticky substance obscured (keep from being seen) the color and texture of the door. The black sticky substance when touched with a hand would transfer onto the hand. CDM stated, the walk-in door was not clean. CDM state,d the walk-in door should be cleaned. The walk-in refrigerator had food debris, a package of (brand name) snacks and food wrappers on the floor under the racks. CDM stated, the floor should be free of trash and food. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 8:36 a.m., with DA 1, in the kitchen, a plastic container containing clean divided plates had food debris and white/yellowish dried substance at the bottom of the container. DA 1 stated, the container was used to store clean divided plates. DA 1 stated, the container was not clean. DA 1, stated the facility's practice was to clean the plastic container every couple of days. DA 1 removed the plastic container. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:33 a.m., with [NAME] 1, in the kitchen, the knife rack had white, beige and brown particles on the top of it. Knives were stored on the rack. [NAME] 1 stated, the knife rack was used to store clean knives. [NAME] 1 stated, the rack was not clean. [NAME] 1 stated, it should have been wiped and sanitized. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 4:29 p.m., with the CDM, the CDM stated, dishware with food debris was not be clean and should have been washed again. CDM stated, dirty items should not be placed with clean dishware. During a review the professional reference titled, USDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USDA food Code indicated, . 4-602.13 Non-FOOD CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be cleaned at a frequency necessary to preclude accumulation of soil residues . k. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:22 a.m., with CDM, in the sanitation closet, two brooms were touching the floor. CDM stated, the brooms should not be on the floor. CDM stated, the brooms should be hung up so they do not touch the floor. During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . 501.113 Storing Maintenance Tools . Maintenance tools such as brooms, mops, vacuum cleaners, and similar items shall be: (A)Stored so they do not contaminate FOOD, EQUIPMENT,UTENSILS, LINENS, and SINGLE-SERVICE and SINGLE-USE ARTICLES; and (B) Stored in an
SERIOUS (H)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

A resident was harmed · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive systematic approach to ens...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive systematic approach to ensure effective monitoring and maintenance of acceptable parameters of nutritional status for three of three sampled Residents (Residents 6, 34, and 79) when: 1. Resident 6 experienced a severe unplanned weight loss of 21 pounds (lbs.) equivalent to 11.8% of total body weight according to weights obtained from 5/13/22 to 8/8/22. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) staff obtained weights, but Nursing Staff did not communicate the weight loss to the Physician or Registered Dietitian (RD) until 8/7/22. On 8/7/22, RD 1 noted a nine-pound weight loss (5.4%) for one month but did not note the 21 pound loss over 3 months. RD 1 did not communicate the weight loss or her recommendations to the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT, a healthcare approach that integrates multiple disciplines through collaboration). On 8/16/22, the IDT team noted an 11-pound weight loss from weights obtained from 7/6/22 to 8/8/22 and recommended a referral to RD 1. Nursing staff did not implement the RD's written recommendations for 8/7/22. Nursing staff did not report the recommended RD interventions to the physician. 2. Resident 34 experienced a severe unplanned weight loss of 22 pounds (13.5%) from weights obtained from 2/1/22 to 8/2/22. RD 3 noted weight loss of 15 pounds (8.4%) over 3 months on 2/6/22 and did not recommend individualized interventions to address the weight loss. RD 4 noted continued weight loss on 4/15/22 and made recommendations. The IDT did not implement RD 4's recommendations. 3. Resident 79 experienced a severe unplanned weight loss of 13.2 pounds (10%) over three months, from 5/10/22 to 8/16/22 and weight loss of 12.2 pounds (11%) over six months, from 3/3/22 to 8/16/22 and no RD consult or recommendations were made. These failures resulted in Residents 6, 34 and 79's decline in nutritional status leading to severe weight loss and the potential for compromised clinical status, fatigue, loss of muscle mass, susceptibility for infection and possibly death. Findings: 1. During a record review of the document titled, admission Record (AR) dated 6/7/22, for Resident 6, the AR indicated, Resident 6 was a [AGE] year old male with diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (a brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements), muscle weakness, embolism (obstruction of an artery) and thrombosis (clotting of blood) of deep veins of left lower extremity (leg), anxiety, gastro-esophageal reflux disease (GERD, a condition in which acidic gastric fluid flows backward into the esophagus), depression, anxiety, and heartburn. During a record review of Resident 6's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool used to identify resident cognitive and physical function), dated 8/5/22, the MDS assessment indicated, Resident 6's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, an assessment used to identify a resident's current cognition) score was 14 out of 15, which indicated Resident 6 was cognitively intact. During a record review, of Resident 6's MDS Section G Functional Status (Section G), dated 8/5/22, indicated Resident 6 ate with . supervision-oversight, encouragement, and cueing . and need assistance . setup help only . During an interview on 8/23/22, at 9:20 a.m., with Resident 6, Resident 6 stated he had lived at the facility for one year, five weeks and 2 days. Resident 6 stated the facility's food is not good. During concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 12:03 p.m., with Registered Dietitian (RD) 1, RD 1 reviewed the document titled, Weights and Vital Summary (WVS) for Resident 6, dated 1/1/22 to 8/31/22. RD 1 verified the following weights and dates for Resident 6: 5/13/22 178 lbs. 6/8/22 171 lbs. 6/13/22 171 lbs. 6/18/22 171 lbs. 7/6/22 168 lbs. 8/1/22 159 lbs. 8/8/22 157 lbs. RD 1 verified the weight loss from 5/13/22 to 8/8/22 was 21 pounds, indicating an 11.8% weight loss over 3 months. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 12:03 p.m., with RD 1, RD 1 reviewed Resident 6's Progress Notes Dietary Note (PNDN), dated 8/7/22. RD 1 verified the PNDN indicated, . Res [Resident] was tested positive for covid [COVID-19, a respiratory virus caused by the SARS-CoV-2] on 7/29. Res is a/o [alert and oriented] x3 [to person, place, and time] and is able to make needs known. Res average po [oral] intake ~ [approximate] 75%. Res has improved po intake from last week . Per snf [Skilled Nursing Facility] progress note on 8/2, res had mildly diminished appetite last week. Suspect last week weight loss dt [due to] decreased po intake dt covid + [positive]. Current po meets > 75% of estimated needs for weight maintenance. Weight: 8/1/22 159 lbs 7/6/22 168 lbs Weight change: -9 [pounds] (-5.4% 0 weight change in a month . Nutrition dx [diagnosis]: Unintentional weight loss RT [sic] decreased appetite dt covid + AEB [abnormal Eating Behaviors] -9# (-5.4%) weight change in a month. I [Intervention]: continue poc [plan of care]- If res weight continues to be downward trending, consider a fortified diet and whole milk 4 oz [ounces, a unit of measure] TID [three times a day] with meals . RD 1 stated, she did not know why she did not address a three month weight loss of 21 pounds (11.8%) in her note. RD 1 stated she noticed the one-month weight loss. RD stated, she did not do look back at previous weight loss for a trend. RD 1 stated, she sometimes attended IDT meetings. RD 1 stated, she was only at the facility 2 days per week. RD 1 stated, the nurses notified the physician of weight loss and RD recommendations. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 1:38 p.m., with RD 2, RD 2 stated, she was the Director of Operations of [consulting nutrition company] and RD 1 reported to RD 2. RD 2 stated, if a resident had weight loss in a week, RD 2 would review the weekly weight loss, but review trends in the total weight loss over time to determine contributing factors. RD 2 stated, a RD needed to look at short-term and long-term weight loss when the resident was evaluated. RD 2 stated, there were triggers to evaluate for weekly, monthly, three month and six-month weight loss that had not been performed. During a record review of Resident 6's Care Plan (CP), dated 4/12/21, the CP indicated . Monitor and record food intake at each meal . Monitor and evaluate any weight loss. Determine percentage lost and follow the facility protocol for weight loss . Alert dietitian if consumption is poor for more than 48 hours . If weight decline persist [sic], contact Physician and Dietitian immediately . Inform resident representative/surrogate decision maker of resident's significant weight loss . During a record review of Resident 6's Documentation Survey Report v2 (Intake), dated 5/1/22 to 8/26/22, the Intake indicated, intake was blank for three mealtimes in May, intake was blank for 14 mealtimes in June, and intake was blank for four mealtimes in August. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 11:41 a.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 reviewed Resident 79's Intake, dated 7/1/22 to 8/26/22. CNA 2 stated, blank spaces on mealtimes meant the CNA did not record intake. CNA 2 stated, if there was no intake, it should have been marked 0. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Weight Monitoring and Management, dated 1/2019, the P&P indicated, . a Weight Variance Committee . will: -Be responsible for the weight monitoring system. - Ensure that intervention(s) to manage the unplanned and significant weight loss/gain of the resident is appropriate and implemented in a timely manner . RNA [Restorative Nursing Assistant] will provide a copy of the weekly and monthly weight to the Director of Nursing, Dietary supervisor/RD, MDS Coordinator, Administrator and DSD [Director of Staff Development] to monitor weight management . any resident who weighs 100 lbs. or more and with a weight change of 5 lbs. in a week will be evaluated by the Weight Variance Committee to determine causative factors for significant weight change. Intervention will be provided to residents with significant weight loss . Any resident weight that varies reporting period by 5% in 30 days, 7.5% in 90 days and 10% in 180 days will be evaluated by the Interdisciplinary Team to determine the cause of weight loss . Assessment of risk factors for weight change and intervention required . Physician and responsible party will be notified by licensed nurse regarding weight loss . notification will be documented in the medical record . A plan of care addressing the significant weight variance . will be initiated by the Licensed Nurse/Dietary Supervisor/RD upon identification . Registered Dietician or Designee will be responsible for reviewing weight report, recommending any additional nutritional interventions, documenting progress . updating the resident care plan . discussing the weight changes with the Weight Variance Committee . Licensed Nurse will communicate and follow up with attending physician dietary recommendation to manage identified significant weight loss . Residents meeting criteria for significant weight loss . will be weighed weekly . Weekly weight will be reviewed by the Weight Variance Committee to address intervention [sic] that will manage significant weight loss . Director of Nursing Services and the Weight Variance Committee will determine the need to initiate the Weight Risk Note with the Attending Physician to address contributing factors . and intervention to manage . The Interdisciplinary Team will address significant weight change identified during initial, quarterly, and annual assessment . to ensure appropriate intervention . During an interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 4:35 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, the Weight Variance Committee's (WVC) notes were documented in the medical record in the IDT Notes. DON stated, the WVC consisted of DON, ADON, RD, Administrator, and Director of Activities. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 5:24 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the Progress Note IDT Notes (IDT Note), dated 8/16/22, for Resident 6 was reviewed. DON stated, the IDT Note indicated, Regarding his monthly weight loss of 11 lbs [pounds-unit of measure] from 168 to 157 lbs, IDT reviewed the chart he recent [recently] covid recovered [from covid], recommended Dietitian referral. Resident and MD [Medical Doctor] notified . ADON stated, the DON or ADON notify the physician if there was a significant weight loss or a RD recommendation. DON stated, that he notified the physician and family. The Progress Note Dietary Note (Dietary Note), dated 8/7/22, for Resident 6 was reviewed. DON stated the Dietary Note indicated a nine-pound weight loss (5.4%) in one month from 7/6/22 to 8/1/22. ADON stated, We did not notify the physician on 8/7/22 because we were not aware of the RD note. DON stated the IDT did not review the RD's Dietary Note, but rather utilized the paper the RD provided weekly listing residents with weight loss and RD recommendations. The document, titled RD Recommendations (RDR), dated 8/7/22 was reviewed. DON stated, the RDR listed all the residents with weight variance for the week along with RD recommendations. DON stated, Resident 6 was not listed on the RDR for 8/7/22. ADON stated, the list was given to the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) who brought it to the IDT meeting. The WVS, dated 1/1/22 to 8/31/22 for Resident 6 was reviewed. DON stated, Resident 6 lost 21 pounds (-11.8%) from 5/13/22 to 8/8/22. DON stated, the WVS was not reviewed at the IDT meeting. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/6/22, at 2:11 p.m., with DON, the facility policy titled Calculating percentages at Meal Times, dated 2018, was reviewed. DON stated, the policy indicated, . The Food and Nutrition Services department provides the meal percentage charts . for the CNA's [Certified Nursing Assistants] to record the meal intake of each resident . DON stated, the CNAs were to document each meal intake. ADON stated, if staff did not document every meal then there was no documentation. ADON stated, If they don't [document], they don't. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/6/22, at 2:37 p.m., with RD 1, the Nutrition Screen and Assessment (NSA), dated 2/1/21 for Resident 6 was reviewed. RD 1 stated, the NSA type was indicated as Admission and the query for weight was left blank. RD 1 stated, the NSA indicated, . no weight available to assess BMI [Body Mass Index, a measure of body fat calculated with weight and height], will request from nursing . RD 1 stated, Resident 6's weight was available in the medical record and recorded on 1/22/21. RD stated, the weight was important to complete a NSA. RD 1 stated, if no weight had been available, she used the weight from the hospital or other resources. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Nutritional Assessment, dated 10/2017, the Nutritional Assessment indicated, . The nutritional assessment will be conducted by the multidisciplinary team and shall identify at least the following components . Usual body weight . Current height and weight . During a review of a professional reference, titled, Weight loss and Parkinson's disease retrieved from https://www.apdaparkinson.org/article/weight-loss-parkinsons-disease/, dated 2022, indicated, . Weight loss has been linked to a poorer quality of life and more rapid progression of PD [Parkinson's Disease] . Inadequate food intake can contribute to malnutrition . malnutrition can subsequently be the cause of increased susceptibility to infection, increased fatigue and increased frailty . During a review of a professional reference titled, Early weight loss in parkinsonism predicts poor outcomes, dated 11/28/17, indicated, monitoring weight and timely dietary interventions to counteract weight loss may significantly improve the outcome of Parkinson's disease patients .,weight loss .,was associated with higher risk of dependency, dementia, and death . During a review of a professional reference, retrieved from https://www.michaeljfox.org/news/ask-md-weight-loss-and-parkinsons-disease, titled, Ask the MD: Weight loss and Parkinson's Disease, dated 11/9/17, indicated, . weight loss in Parkinson's is common, but it's usually mild or, at most, moderate . 2. During a review of Resident 34's admission Record(AR), dated 1/5/22, indicated, Resident 34 was a [AGE] year old male with diagnoses of hemiplegia (severe or complete loss of strength or paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) following a cerebrovascular disease (a group of conditions that affect blood flow to the brain) affecting the right dominant side, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), hyperlipidemia (when the blood has too many lipids or fats, such as cholesterol), dementia, epilepsy (a disorder of the brain characterized by repeated seizures), depression, anxiety, atrial fibrillation (irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm that can lead to blood clots in the heart), gastro-esophageal reflux [GERD- when stomach contents and acid rise up into the esophagus], and dysphagia (swallowing difficulties). During a review of Resident 34's MDS, dated 6/17/22, Section C Cognitive Patterns (Section C), indicated Resident 34's BIMS score was 3 out of 15, which indicated Resident 34 was severely cognitively impaired. During a review of Resident 34's MDS, dated 6/17/22, Section G Functional Status (Section G), indicated, for eating, Resident 34 needed . Limited assistance-resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance . one person physical assist . During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:39 a.m., Resident 34 was observed sitting up in bed and fed himself with gray handled weighted utensils (provide additional weight in the handles to help stabilize hand and arm movements for those who experience shaking while eating). Resident 34 stated, he was eating well. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 11:52 a.m., with RD 1, the WVS, dated 1/6/22 to 8/8/22, for Resident 34 was reviewed. RD 1 verified that the WVS indicated, the following weights and dates for Resident 34: 1/06/22 167 lbs. 1/17/22 171 lbs. 1/24/22 166 lbs. 2/01/22 163 lbs. 2/10/22 164 lbs. 2/14/22 164 lbs. 3/03/22 157 lbs. 3/09/22 157 lbs. 4/08/22 150 lbs. 4/12/22 150 lbs. 4/20/22 148 lbs. 4/25/22 144 lbs. 5/02/22 144 lbs. 5/09/22 148 lbs. 5/17/22 152 lbs. 5/23/22 151 lbs. 5/30/22 151 lbs. 6/06/22 149 lbs. 6/13/22 144 lbs. 6/20/22 144 lbs. 6/27/22 147 lbs. 7/05/22 146 lbs. 7/13/22 145 lbs. 7/19/22 147 lbs. 7/27/22 144 lbs. 8/02/22 141 lbs. 8/08/22 146 lbs. During a review of Resident 34's Progress Notes Dietary Note (Dietary Note), dated 1/29/22, indicated RD 3 noted, . Res with weight loss X 1 week. Eating 25-100% of a mechanical soft, NAS [No added salt], NTL [thickened liquid] diet. Also receives [high calorie, high protein] shakes 4 oz TID [three times a day] with meals. Built up utensils provided to encourage self-feeding, assistance also required . At risk for weight loss d/t varied po intake, dementia, COPD, depression, GERD . Involuntary weight loss r/t varied po intake AEB 5 [pound] (2.9%) weight loss x 1 week . Recommend add [fortified nutritional drink] 4 oz BID . During a review of Resident 34's Order Summary (OS), dated 3/1/22, the OS indicated, (fortified nutritional drink) 4 oz (ounces- unit of measure) two times a day with meals was ordered for Resident 34 on 2/6/22. During a review of Resident 34's Dietary Note, dated 2/6/22, indicated, RD 3 noted, . Wts [weights]: 163# [#-pounds] (2/1), 178# (11/9) . Involuntary weight loss r/t varied po intake AEB 15# (8.4%) weight loss x 3 months . continue plan of care . During a review of Resident 34's IDT Note, dated 3/10/22, indicated, . Monthly weights reviewed. Noted 7 lbs weight loss in a month. Eating between 0-50% of . most meals with occasional refusal at times . No s/sx [signs or symptoms] of dehydration . Resident at nutritional risk . NP informed verbally of resident's weight loss. Will continue to monitor weight . During a review of Resident 34's Dietary Note, dated 4/15/22, indicated RD 4 noted, . Wt [weight] trend: 150 lbs (4/8), 157 lbs (3/9), 167 lbs (1/6),191.2 lbs (10/5) significant wt change: -7 lbs X 1 month, -17 lbs (10%) X 3 months, -41 lbs (21.5%) X 6 months . RD wt review complete d/t sig [significant] wt change . Res continues to tolerate diet as ordered. Averages 50% PO intake and consumes ONS [outside nutritional source, food from outside facility] as ordered . Res is begging to eat in dining room where CNAs and RNAs [Restorative Nursing Assistant] can cue resident and encourage resident to eat more. RD recommends weekly wts to monitor resident more closely . I [interventions]: Increase [fortified nutritional drink] to 120 ml [4 oz] to TID, Offer mech [mechanical] soft snacks TID between meals, Weekly wts monitoring, Resident to eat in dining room with cueing and encouragement from staff . During a review of Resident 34's Order Summary (OS), dated 5/1/22, the OS indicated, [fortified nutritional drink] 4 oz. three times a day was ordered on 4/26/22. The OS indicated, Mech (mechanical) soft snack TID between meals was ordered on 4/26/22. During a review of Resident 34's Dietary Note, dated 4/21/22, the Dietary Note indicated RD 4 noted . RNA reports . res has benefited from RNA dining and having cues to eat and consume ONS. RNA reports that res has begun to verbalize swallowing difficulty. RD recommends SLP [Speech Language Pathologist] evaluation for swallowing and choose safest most upgraded diet texture . During a review of Resident 34's Dietary Note, dated 4/29/22, the Dietary Note indicated RD 4 noted . Wt: 144 lbs . Wt trend: 144 lbs (4/25), 148 lbs (4/20), 150 lbs (3/9), 167 lbs 91/6), 191.2 lbs (10/5) . Significant wt change: -4 lbs X 1 week . PO intake: 50% avg [average] . Res has reported to RNA that he is not tolerating current diet texture. SLP eval [evaluation] is in place to downgrade diet to puree . RD recommends increasing [fortified nutritional drink] to 240 ml [8 oz.] TID . During a review of Resident 34's Order Summary (OS), dated 6/1/22, the OS indicated, [fortified nutritional drink] 8 oz. three times a day was ordered on 5/8/22. During a review of Resident 34's Dietary Note, dated 5/16/22, the Dietary Note indicated RD 3 noted, . usually requires extensive assist with meals . Res with 4# weight gain X 1 week . Involuntary weight loss . 15# (9.2%) weight loss x 3 months and 30#(16.9%) weight loss x 6 months . Continue plan of care . During a review of Resident 34'sDietary note, dated 6/17/22, the Dietary Note indicated RD 4 noted, . Significant weight change: -21 lbs (12.4%) x 6 months . Res maintains PO intake 50% avg with several meal refusals, res may not be tolerating diet as ordered. Refer to SLP for evaluation for proper diet texture . decline in condition . During a review of Resident 34's Dietary note, dated 7/1/22, the Dietary Note indicated RD 4 noted, . Significant wt change: -5 lbs x 1 week, -20 lbs (12%) x 6 months . Res maintains PO intake 50% avg, multiple high calorie ONS ordered to facilitate increased energy intake and minimize risk for wt loss SLP order to evaluate and potentially modify diet texture is in place . Continues downward trend. Consider appetite stimulating medication . Fortify diet . During a review of Resident 34's Order Summary (OS), dated 8/1/22, the OS indicated, Resident 34's diet and dietary supplements remain unchanged from 5/8/22. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 11:52 a.m., with RD 1, RD 1 reviewed Resident 34's WVS, dated 1/6/22 to 8/8/22. RD 1 stated, Resident 34 lost 21 pounds (12.6%) from 1/6/22 (167 lbs.) to 7/5/22 (146 lbs.). RD 1 reviewed Resident 34's Dietary Note, dated 8/7/22. RD 1 stated, the Dietary Note indicated, . trending downward x 1 month . -3# (-2.1%) weight change in a week; -5# (-3.4%) weight change in a month; -7# (-4.7%) weight change in 3 months . please offer snacks 2 x daily . RD 1 stated, she did not evaluate Resident 34 for overall long-term weight loss because her visit with Resident 34 was triggered by weekly weight loss. RD 1 stated, she did not notify the physician of weight loss. RD 1 stated she wrote the residents weight loss and recommendations on a sheet and gave it to the DON or ADON at the end of the day. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 11:53 a.m., with RD 1, RD 1 reviewed Resident 34's Dietary Note, dated 7/1/22. RD 1 stated, she did not follow up on the 7/1/22 recommendation for fortified diet and appetite stimulant because that was a different RD's recommendation. The Dietary Note, dated 8/11/22 was reviewed. RD 1 stated, the Dietary Note indicated RD 1 noted, .+5# (+3.5%) weight change in a week . no new nutrition dx [diagnosis] at this time . RD 1 stated, she did not look back at Resident 34's long-term weight loss, as a visit was triggered by weekly weight gain. During a review of Resident 34's Documentation Survey Report v2 (Intake), dated 10/1/21 to 8/31/22, Intake indicated, for the month of January 2022, record of meal intake was blank for 40 mealtimes. Intake indicated, February 2022 had five blank mealtimes; March 2022 had one blank mealtime; April 2022 had five blank mealtimes; May 2022 had six blank mealtimes; June 2022 had eight blank mealtimes; July 2022 had nine blank mealtimes; and August 2022 had 17 blank mealtimes. During a review of Resident 34's Care Plan (CP), initiated on 1/5/22, the CP indicated, . offer snack between meals . was entered on 4/26/22. The CP indicated, . [fortified nutritional drink] 8 oz TID . was entered on 5/8/22. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 5:24 p.m., with DON and ADON, the WVS, dated 1/6/22 to 8/8/22, for Resident 34 was reviewed. DON stated, the WVS indicated on 7/5/22, Resident 34 had weight loss of 21 pounds (12.6%) for a six-month period. The Dietary Note for Resident 34, dated 7/1/22, was reviewed. DON stated, the Dietary Note indicated, the RD 4 recommended an appetite stimulant and fortified diet. The Registered Dietitian Nutritionist Intervention (RDNI) sheet, dated 7/1/22 was reviewed. DON stated, Resident 34 was not on the RDNI and therefore the IDT was not aware of the recommendation. DON stated, The RDNI is document we use. DON stated, the IDT did not look at the Dietary Notes. ADON stated, Resident 34's name and recommendation were on the RDNI, dated 7/1/22. The RDNI indicated for Resident 34, . Consider appetite stimulating medication . Fortify diet . ADON stated, the IDT did not address the RD recommendation of 7/1/22. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/6/22, at 3:30 p.m., with DON, DON stated, there was no order for a SLP (Speech-Language Pathologist) evaluation, nor a SLP note in Resident 34's medical record. DON reviewed a document titled, Progress Note, dated 7/4/22 to 7/7/22, indicated, . 7/4/22 . Nurses Notes . Spoke ST [Speech Therapist], resident will be placed on 3 days trial of Pureed NAS [no added salt] diet . [ADON] . e-SIGNED . 7/7/22 . Resident reviewed due to 3 days trial of pureed diet related to wt loss, per nursing staff resident dislikes the food, eats even a little. ST made aware. Previous diet resumed. Dietary informed . [ADON] . e-SIGNED . During a review of a professional reference retrieved from https://www.escardio.org/The-ESC/Press-Office/Press-releases/Loss-of-muscle-and-weight-associated-with-disability-after-stroke titled, Loss of muscle and weight associated with disability after stroke, dated 1/25/19, indicated, . older patients with moderately sever stroke were particularly prone to developing cachexia [weakness and wasting of the body] after stroke, so it is very important to monitor their body weight, appetite and nutritional status . During a review of a professional reference retrieved from https://www.pulmonologyadvisor.com/home/topics/copd/unintended-weight-loss-in-outpatients-with-copd/ titled, Unintended weight loss in outpatients with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, dated 6/9/22, indicated, . findings from this study demonstrate the importance of nutritional screening . for patients with COPD who are underweight . 3. During a review of Resident 79's admission Record (AR), dated 6/27/21, the AR indicated, Resident 79 was a [AGE] year old female with diagnoses of dementia, osteoarthritis (OA- a degeneration of joint cartilage and the underlying bone), asthma (a respiratory condition marked by spasms of the bronchi of the lungs, causing difficulty breathing), anemia (a deficiency of red blood cells leading to lack of oxygen in the blood and fatigue), hyperlipidemia, hypertension (high blood pressure), and anxiety. During a review of Resident 79's MDS, dated 7/29/22, the MDS indicated, Resident 79's BIMS score was 5 out of 15, which indicated Resident 79 was severely cognitively impaired. During a review of Resident 79's MDS Section G Functional Status (Section G), dated 7/29/22, the Section G indicated, during eating, Resident 79 needed . supervision- oversight, encouragement or cueing . one person physical assist . During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:33 a.m., with Resident 79, Resident 79 was observed sitting up in bed with a CNA standing at the bedside. Resident 79 yelled, Don't touch me! Get out of here! I don't want to see you!. CNA respectfully told Resident 79, Okay and moved away. During an observation on 8/23/22, at 1:20 p.m., Resident 79 was sitting up in bed. A lunch tray was set-up by CNA in front of Resident 97. Resident 97 asked for orange juice. During an observation on 8/23/22, at 1:28 p.m., Resident 79 finished orange juice. No staff were at bedside. Lunch tray was uncovered and 100% of meal on tray was untouched. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 1:41 p.m., Resident 97 was sitting up in bed with eyes closed. 100% of meal was on tray. LVN 9 stated, Resident 97 needed assistance while eating. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 1:15 p.m., Resident 97 was eating assisted by staff. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/25/22, at 8:47 a.m., CNA 4 was putting away Resident 97's breakfast tray with 100% of meal uneaten. CNA 4 stated, Resident 97 did not want to eat. CNA 4 stated, Resident 97 started fighting CNA 4. CNA 4 stated, the nurse tried to get Resident 97 to eat, but Resident 97 fought with the nurse. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 11:26 a.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 reviewed Resident 79's Intake, dated 7/1/22 to 8/26/22. CNA 2 stated, blank spaces on mealtimes meant the CNA did not record intake. CNA 2 stated, if there was no intake, it should have been marked 0. CNA 2 stated, there were a lot of blanks for the resident to not be eating. The Intake nine mealtimes were blank for July 2022 and 14 mealtimes were blank for August 2022 at that time. Six of the 14 blank mealtimes for August 2022 were from 8/7/22 to 8/18/22. During a review of Resident 79's Care Plan, dated 8/10/22, indicated, . monitor meal intake . The Care Plan dated 8/16/22, indicated, . monitor and record food intake at each meal . alert dietitian if consumption is poor for more than 48 hours ."[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation of residents' property for one of three sampled residents (Resident 26) when the facility ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were free from misappropriation of residents' property for one of three sampled residents (Resident 26) when the facility did not take action to resolve Resident 26's lost money which was not logged in his belongings inventory list. This failure resulted in the loss of Resident 26's 40 dollars. Findings: During an interview on 8/23/22, at 9:13 a.m., with Resident 26, Resident 26 stated, a month ago she had lost 40 dollars. Resident 26 stated, she informed Social Service department regarding her loss but was not reimbursed. Resident 26 stated, she asked staff to buy her drinks and snacks from the vending machine. Resident 26 stated, it was the staff who took her money. During a review of Resident 26's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify resident cognitive and physical function) Assessment, dated 6/10/22, indicated Resident 26's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - assessment of cognitive status for memory and judgment) scored 14 out of 15 (a score of 13-15 indicates cognitively intact, 08-12 indicates moderately impaired, and 00-07 indicates severe impairment). The BIMS assessment indicated Resident 26 was cognitively intact. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 3:29 p.m., with Social Service Director (SSD), Resident 26's Theft and Loss Referral Slip, dated 7/8/22, was reviewed. The slip indicated, . Staff will not replace money, HX [history of allegations of staff stealing money . SSD stated, Resident 26 received money from the business office monthly and would keep her money in the nightstand. SSD stated, at the time Resident 26's roommate was interviewed, she had validated staff did not count the money before putting the envelope with money into the drawer. SSD stated, Resident 26 often asked staff to purchase snacks and soda. SSD stated, it was the Certified Nursing Assistants duty to do inventory of the money. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 3:39 p.m., with Medical Records (MR), Resident 26's Inventory of Personal Possessions was reviewed. MR stated, there was no money inventoried. MR stated, if money was inventoried it would have been listed on the value items. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/25/22, at 9:23 a.m., with Business Office Manager (BOM), Resident 26's Receipt, dated 7/5/22, was reviewed. The receipt indicated, Resident 26's name, address, 40 dollars and signature of two witnesses. BOM stated, Resident 26 received 40 dollars with two witnesses present. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:55 p.m., with BOM, BOM stated, Resident 26's 40 dollars was not replenished due to having a history of accusing staff of stealing her money. BOM stated, there was no system to track and keep record of Resident 26's money. BOM stated, the facility should tally and keep record of Resident 26's money when she buys snacks to ensure remaining balance was inventoried. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 12:59 p.m., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON stated, residents should keep their money in a locked drawer for safekeeping. ADON stated, there should always be a witness (another person) when handling residents' money. During a review of the policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Theft and loss, dated 1/2021, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, . It is the policy of this facility provide a theft and loss program which protects and conserves residence, facility, visitors and employee property . this policy and procedure shall be the basis for the facility staffed and lost policies and procedures . A written resident personal property inventory must be recorded in the inventory list . upon the resident's admission and it must be: . updated and maintain current by noting all items being added or deleted by the written request of the resident or the person acting upon the residents behalf . During a review of the policy and procedure titled, Personal Property, dated 9/2012, was reviewed. The P&P indicated, . residents are permitted to retain and use personal possessions and appropriate clothing, as space permits . The facility will promptly investigate any complaints of misappropriation or mistreatment of residents property .
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS-assessment of physical...

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 Minimum Data Set assessment (MDS-assessment of physical and psychological functions and needs) accurately reflected resident's health and functional status for two of six sampled residents (Resident 9 and Resident 20) when Resident 9 and Resident 20's smoking habits was inaccurately coded on the MDS assessment. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 9 and Resident 20's care needs not met. Findings: During a review of Resident 9's, Face sheet (document with resident demographic and medical diagnosis information), dated 8/25/22, indicated diagnoses which included nicotine (the substance in tobacco that people become addicted to) dependence, emphysema (damage to the air sacs in the lungs) and shortness of breath. During a review of Resident 9's, Smoking Safety Evaluation, dated 2/21/22, the Smoking Safety Evaluation indicated, Resident 9 used tobacco. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 9:33 a.m., with Resident 9, Resident 9 stated, she had always smoked since she was admitted to the facility. Resident 9 stated, she and her roommate went out to smoke daily. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/25/22, at 9:53 a.m., with Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC), MDSC stated, Resident 9 was a smoker. MDSC reviewed Resident 9's smoking assessment dated [DATE] which indicated, Resident 9 was a smoker. MDSC reviewed Resident 9's annual MDS assessment dated [DATE], section J. Resident 9's tobacco use was not coded on the annual MDS assessment. MDSC stated, Resident 9 should have been coded as a smoker. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 9: 23 a.m., with Resident 20, Resident 20 stated, the staff asked him if he smoked when he got admitted to the facility. Resident 20 stated, he replied yes, he smoked everyday. Resident 20 stated, the facility had a smoking schedule and he went outside everyday to smoke. During a review of Resident 20's clinical record titled, admission Record (document containing resident personal information), dated 8/25/22, the admission Record indicated, Resident 20 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis which included, . Nicotine dependence, emphysema and wheezing (coarse whistling or rattling sound of breath when airway is partially blocked) . During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/25/22, at 9:58 a.m., with Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC), MDSC stated, Resident 20's name was included in the list of residents who smoked. MDSC reviewed Resident 20's Admission/Medicare 5 day MDS assessment, dated 5/26/2022, section J which indicated, Resident 20's tobacco use was not coded on the MDS assessment. MDSC stated, Resident 20 should have been coded as a smoker. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 4:01 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, the MDS should be accurately coded. DON stated, the MDS was to ensure accuracy of the assessment and to check the need for further assessments for new admissions. DON stated, if a new admissions was a smokers then smoking assessment was completed. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Assessment Instrument, dated 9/2010, the P&P indicated, . The Interdisciplinary Team must use the MDS form currently mandated by federal and State regulations to conduct the resident assessment . During a review of professional reference titled, Resident Assessment Instrument version #.0 Manual, dated 10/19, indicated, . Tobacco use includes tobacco used in any form . If the resident states he or she used tobacco in some form during the 7-day look back period code 1, yes . If the resident is unable to answer or indicates that he or she did not use tobacco of any kind during the look back period, review the medical record and interview staff for any indication of tobacco use by the resident during the look back period .
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a resident-centered comprehensive care plan for two of three sampled residents (Resident 21 and Resident 20) when: 1....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a resident-centered comprehensive care plan for two of three sampled residents (Resident 21 and Resident 20) when: 1. Residents 21 did not have a care plan for the use of anticoagulant [blood thinner] medications. This failure placed resident 21 at risk for complications from not having care needs planned by licensed nurses to determine if nursing interventions needed to be added, changed or completed. 2. Resident 20 did not have a care plan for smoking. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 20's smoking needs going unmet. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 21's clinical record titled admission RECORD dated 8/24/22, was reviewed. The admission Record indicated Resident 21 was admitted to the facility with the diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (an irregular, often rapid heart rate that commonly causes poor blood flow and blood clot formation). During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/25/22, at 10:09 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Resident 21 Medication Orders dated 8/12/22 was reviewed. The Medication Order indicated, . Apixaban [blood thinning medication used to treat and prevent blood clots] Tablet 2.5 MG [milligram-unit of measure] . LVN 1 reviewed resident 21's care plans. LVN 1 stated, there was no care plan developed for the use of apixaban. LVN 1 stated, the care plan should have included interventions such as monitoring for signs of bleeding, bruising, dizziness and GI [gastrointestinal ] discomfort. LVN 1 stated, the nurse who received the order for the medication should have made the care plan. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 1:01 p.m., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON stated, the Licensed Nurse should have developed a care plan for apixaban. ADON stated, a care plan should have been developed as soon as the medication was ordered. ADON stated, the importance of the care plan was to include interventions, risks and monitoring for signs of bleeding. During a review of the facility policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered dated 12/16 was reviewed. The policy indicated, . A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives in time timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident . Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change . 2. During a review of Resident 20's clinical record titled, admission RECORD [AR], dated 8/25/22, the AR indicated Resident 20 was admitted to the facility with the diagnosis of nicotine (the substance in tobacco that people become addicted to) dependence, emphysema (damage to the air sacs in the lungs) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (lung disease marked by permanent damage to tissues in the lungs, making it hard to breathe). During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/25/22, at 8:45 a.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS), RNS reviewed Resident 20's clinical record. RNS stated, Resident 20 did not have a care plan for smoking. RNS stated, there should have been a care plan or Resident 20's smoking habits. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/25/22, at 8:56 a.m., with Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC), MDSC reviewed Resident 20's care plans. MDSC stated, Resident 20 did not have a care plan for smoking. MDSC stated, there should have been a care plan for smoking since Resident 20 was a smoker who goes out to smoke daily. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 3:39 p.m., with DON, DON stated, MDS should have checked all new residents admitted in the facility to ensure care plans were in place. DON stated, if the new resident was a smoker, there should have been a care plan (smoking). DON stated, Resident 20 did not have a care plan for smoking. During a review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated 12/16, the policy and procedure indicated, . Identifying problem areas and their causes, and developing interventions that are targeted and meaningful to the resident . care plan interventions are chosen only after careful gathering, proper sequencing of events, careful consideration of the relationship between the resident's problem areas and their causes .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident-centered comprehensive care plan was revised for two of two non-sampled residents (Residents 80 and Resident 285) when:...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident-centered comprehensive care plan was revised for two of two non-sampled residents (Residents 80 and Resident 285) when: 1. Resident 80 was lactose intolerant and the care plan focus titled, Impaired nutritional and hydration status, did not reflect lactose intolerance. This failure placed Resident 80 at risk for complications abdominal cramps, bloating, and diarrhea) due to lactose intolerance and not having care needs planned by licensed nurses to determine if interventions needed to be added, changed or completed. 2. Resident 285 preferred her breakfast meal to be served at 7:00 a.m. and there was no documentation in Resident 285's care plan stating Resident 285 requested her breakfast at 7:00 a.m. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 285's mealtime preferences not being met. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 80's clinical record titled, admission RECORD, dated 8/25/22, was reviewed. The admission Record indicated, Resident 80 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of enterocolitis (inflammation of the small intestine and colon), asthma (respiratory condition marked by spasms in the bronchi of the lungs, causing difficulty breathing) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disease when the body's ability to produce insulin [a hormone] was impaired resulting in abnormal metabolism of carbohydrates and elevated levels of glucose [blood sugar] in the blood). During an interview on 8/24/22, at 9:01 a.m., with Registered Dietitian (RD) 1. RD 1 stated, she was not involved with resident care plans. RD 1 stated, Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) was responsible to revise the dietary care plan. RD 1 stated, care plans were resident centered and resident's lactose intolerance should have been addressed in the care plan. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 11:30 a.m., with RD 1, Resident 80's comprehensive care plan dated 7/26/22 was reviewed. RD 1 stated, if a resident was lactose intolerance it should be addressed on the care plan. RD 1 did not confirm Resident 80's lactose intolerance was addressed in the care plan. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 1:03 p.m., with CDM, CDM stated, nursing staff was responsible in initiating (developing) resident care plans. CDM stated, she was responsible for revising resident care plans to reflect new dietary interventions or problems. CDM stated, if a resident was lactose intolerant, she entered that information on the dietary profile (a document designed to obtain resident food preferences, intolerances and food allergies), the resident meal tray electronic system and the resident care plan. CDM stated, she was the only person in the dietary department responsible for updating resident dietary care plans. 2. During a review of Resident 285's clinical record titled, admission RECORD, dated 8/24/22, the admission Record indicated, Resident 285 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of fracture of unspecified part of neck of left femur (the bone of the thigh) and type 2 diabetes mellitus. During an interview on 8/24/22, at 9:01 a.m., with Registered Dietitian (RD) 1. RD 1 stated, she was not involved with resident care plans. RD 1 stated, Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) was responsible to revise the dietary care plan. RD 1 stated, care plans were resident centered and a preference for an early breakfast tray should have been addressed in the care plan. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 11:29 a.m., with RD 1, Resident 285's comprehensive care plan dated 8/24/22 was reviewed. RD 1 stated, care plans were resident-centered and a preference for an early breakfast tray should have been addressed in the care plan. RD 1 did not confirm a preference for an early breakfast tray was addressed in Resident 285's care plan. During a review of the facility policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated 12/16, the policy indicated, . A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives in time timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident . Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provided services which met professional standards of quality of care for one of four sampled residents (Resident 19) when Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provided services which met professional standards of quality of care for one of four sampled residents (Resident 19) when Resident 19's supplemental (added when there is a lack or deficiency) oxygen flow rate was not administered according to the physician order. This failure resulted in Resident 19 not receiving the amount oxygen she needed which could lead to breathing problems. Findings: During a review of Resident 19's admission Record (AR- document containing resident personal information), dated 8/25/22, the ARindicated, Resident 19 was admitted in the facility on 9/10/21, with diagnoses which included . dependence on supplemental oxygen . During a review of Resident 19's Order Summary Report, dated 8/25/22, the Order Summary Report indicated, . Oxygen @ [at] 2L [liter]/min [minute] via [by way of] nasal cannula [a tubing used to deliver oxygen through the nose] continuously every shift . During observation on 8/23/22, at 8:25 a.m., in room Resident 19's room, Resident 19 was laying in bed with eyes closed. Resident 19 was receiving oxygen at 1 liter per minute by nasal cannula. During a concurrent observation, interview and record review on 8/23/22, at 12:05 p.m., in Resident 19's room, Resident 19 was sleeping in bed. Resident 19 had an oxygen cannula on her. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 7 looked at Resident 19's supplemental oxygen flow rate. LVN 7 stated, Resident 19's oxygen flow rate was set at 1 liter per minute. LVN reviewed Resident 19's order summary. LVN stated, . The oxygen order flow rate was 2L/min . LVN stated, Resident 19's oxygen should have been set at 2L/min not 1L/min. LVN stated, she did not check Resident 19's the oxygen flow rate in the morning. LVN stated, Resident 19 could developed respiratory distress as a result of not receiving the right amount of oxygen ordered. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 9:33 a.m., with Resident 19, Resident 19 stated, she used oxygen only when she was in bed. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 9:45 a.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS), RNS stated, the physician's order for oxygen should be followed. RNS stated, if resident was receiving less oxygen than ordered it could lead to respiratory distress. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 4:15 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, . Resident is able to adjust the oxygen flow rate, but the nurse still have to check the flow rate to make sure resident was receiving the correct amount of oxygen . DON stated the physician order should be followed. During a review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Orders, dated 11/2014, the policy and procedure indicated, . when recording orders for oxygen, specify the rate of flow, route and rationale . During a professional reference review retrieved from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19377391/ titled, The use of medical orders in acute care oxygen therapy, dated 2009, the professional reference review indicated, . Oxygen is considered to be a drug requiring a medical prescription and is subject to any law that covers its use and prescription . authorized by a physician following legal written instruction to a qualified nurse .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

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 provide an ongoing activities program to support resid...

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 an ongoing activities program to support residents in their choice of activities for one of six sampled resident (Resident 61) when Resident 61 was not provided individual and independent activities designed to meet his interest. This failure resulted in Resident 61 inactivity (lack of activity) which could potentially affect his physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Findings: During an observation on 8/23/22, at 8:07 a.m., in Resident 61's room, Resident 61 was in bed in a semi-sitting position, eating. Resident did not answer to questions asked. During an observation on 8/23/22, at 1:15 p.m., in Resident 61's room, Resident 61 was sitting in bed eating lunch. During a review of Resident 61's clinical record titled, admission Record, (document containing resident personal information) dated 8/25/22, the admission Record' indicated Resident 61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included, . Alzheimer's disease (disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), Dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning) and muscle weakness . During a review of Resident 61's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool used to identify resident cognitive [pertaining to reasoning, memory and judgement] and physical functional level) Assessment, dated 7/25/22, the MDS indicated, Resident 61's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-screening tool used in nursing to assess cognition) assessment score was 3 (three) out of 15 (0-15 scale [0-6 severe cognitive deficit, 7-12 moderate cognitive deficit, 13-15 no cognitive deficit]) indicating Resident 61 had severe cognitive deficit. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 1:14 p.m., with Activity Coordinator (AD), AD stated, her assistant was doing the activities for the residents while she was on medical leave for almost a month (from July to August). AD stated, there was no documentation to show on the type of activities the residents were receiving and who were attending activities. AD stated, she had just started an attendance calendar for all the residents. AD stated, the last group activities provided was on 6/26/22 due to the COVID-19 pandemic restrictions. AD stated, activities for the month of July were all in-room activities. AD stated, for Resident 61, he was a one on one in-room visits but there were no documentation of the one on one visits provided to resident. AD stated, they (AD and assistant) did not keep a list of residents they saw when they go out every morning to provide activities. AD stated, they did not have a calendar of activities. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 3:28 p.m., with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 3, CNA 3 stated, she had seen the activity staff do nails with residents, mostly on Sundays. CNA 3 stated, she had not seen activity staff provide one on one activities to residents in their room. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 4:01 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, . Residents need to have activities especially now that they are in their rooms . residents get depressed because they do not have interactions . DON stated, his expectation was for activity staff to visit residents in their rooms to provide one on one activities. DON stated, room activity visits should be done especially to residents who are bedbound (unable to leave one's bed for some reason). DON stated, activity staff needed to start documentation of residents activities and preferences in their care plans. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Activity Policy and Procedure Manual (P&P), dated 7/12, the P&P indicated, . 1. The Activity Director plans and writes a schedule for all activities on a regularly scheduled basis. 2.The Activity Director uses attendance records, progress notes, and other pertinent resident data when planning the schedule . 4. The activity calendar includes inside and outside activities, including field and shopping trips for the residents as well as activities for bedridden residents . Monthly activity calendar will be posted in a conspicuous location. Calendars will be written in a large, visible print and readable from wheelchair height . For those residents whose physical disabilities prohibit movement to a group activity, or those who do not wish to participate in group activities, the activity program provides: Activities which make maximum use of each resident's physical and mental abilities .
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an environment free from accident hazards for two of three sampled residents (Resident 21 and 43) when Resident 21 an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an environment free from accident hazards for two of three sampled residents (Resident 21 and 43) when Resident 21 and 43's low air loss (LAL- an air mattress with fluctuating air) mattress prescribed air pressure setting was not set based on the patient' weight. This failure had the potential to cause fall with injury. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 8:33 a.m., with Resident 21, in Resident 21's room, Resident 21 was laying in bed on a LAL mattress. The LAL mattress air setting was on lock position and the LAL mattress air pressure was set at 180 pounds. Resident 21 stated, her mattress felt lumpy [uncomfortable] and was not at the correct setting. During a review of Resident 21's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify resident cognitive and physical function) Assessment, dated 5/31/22, indicated, Resident 21's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS- assessment of cognitive status for memory and judgment) assessment scored was 15 out of 15 (a score of 13-15 indicates cognitively intact, 8-12 indicates moderately impaired, and 0-7 indicates severe impairment). The BIMS assessment indicated Resident 15 was cognitively intact. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 9:40 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, Resident 21's weight summary was reviewed. The weight summary indicated, Resident 21 weighed 96 pounds on 8/24/22 and 8/16/22. LVN 2 stated, the Licensed Nurses were responsible in ensuring the LAL mattress was functioning correctly and the setting were corresponding with the residents current weight. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:45 a.m., with LVN 2, in Resident 21's room, Resident 21 was laying in bed on a low air loss mattress. The LAL mattress air pressure setting was on lock position and the air pressure was set at 180 pounds. The LAL mattress pump had six weight settings: 90 lb. (pound- unit of measure), 130 lb., 180 lb., 250 lb., 330 lb. LVN 2 stated, the mattress setting was set at 180 lbs. LVN 2 disarmed the lock button and changed the LAL mattress air pressure setting to 90 lbs. LVN 2 stated, Resident 21's weight was 96 pounds and the air pressure setting had been incorrectly set too high. LVN 2 stated, if the LAL mattress was not set at the correct air pressure weight setting, it could cause a fall or an injury to the resident. LVN 2 stated, it was the Licensed nurse responsibility to ensure that the air mattress air pressure setting was set at the correct weight. During a review of Resident 21's LAL mattress manufacturer's guidelines titled, [Brand name of mattress pump] undated, the LAL mattress guideline indicated, . The product can only be operated by personnel who are qualified to perform general nursing procedures and have received adequate training in knowledge of prevention and treatment of pressure ulcer . According to the weight and height of the patient, adjust the pressure setting to the most comfortable level without bottoming out, then the pressure in the mattress will slowly increase to the intended value after the air mattress is ready to use . During an observation on 8/24/22, at 9:25 a.m., in Resident 43's room, Resident 43 was laying in bed on a LAL mattress. The LAL mattress air setting was on lock position with the mattress air pressure set at 150 pounds During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 9:37 a.m., with LVN 2, Resident 43's weight summary was reviewed. The weight summary indicated, Resident 43 weighed 94 pounds on 8/24/22 and 8/16/22. LVN 2 stated, the LAL mattress was ordered for wound management. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:48 a.m., with LVN 2, in Resident 43's room, Resident 43 was laying in bed on a low air loss mattress. The LAL mattress air pressure setting was on lock position and the air pressure was set at 150 pounds. The LAL mattress pump had eight weight settings: 50 lb. (pound), 100 lb., 150 lb., 200 lb., 250 lb., 300 lb., 350 lb., 450 lb. LVN 2 stated the mattress setting was set at 150 lbs. LVN 2 disarmed the lock button and changed the LAL mattress air pressure setting to 100 lbs. LVN 2 stated, Resident 43's weight was 94 pounds and the air pressure setting had been incorrectly set too high. LVN 2 stated, if the LAL mattress was not set at the correct air pressure weight setting it could cause a fall or injury to the resident. LVN 2 stated it was the Licensed nurse responsibility to ensure that the air mattress air pressure setting was set at the correct weight. During a review of Resident 43's Order Summary, dated 7/5/22, the Order Summary indicated, . Provide Air loss mattress for wound management . During an interview on 8/26/22, at 12:44 p.m. with Administrator (ADM), ADM stated, if the resident needed a LAL mattress the facility called the company to install it. ADM stated, there was no process in place for licensed nurses to monitor the LAL pump setting to ensure the weight was coinciding with the residents' current weight. ADM stated, it was important for Licensed Nurses to be knowledgeable on the operation of the pump for power outages or weight changes. ADM stated, if the LAL mattress pressure was not at the correct setting it could be ineffective for wound management, ADM stated overinflation of the LAL mattress could possibly lead to a fall. ADM stated, the facility did not have a policy for LAL mattress use. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 12:56 p.m., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON stated, the facility did not have an LAL policy. ADON stated, there was no monitoring in place to ensure the LAL mattress was coinciding with the resident's current weights. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 1:34 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, the LAL pressure setting was set up by the company. DON stated, an overinflated mattress could potentially cause a resident to fall out of bed. DON stated, the LAL pressure should have been monitored because residents could have weight gain or weight loss. DON stated, the licensed nurses should have checked the settings to ensure the settings were coinciding with the residents' weight. During a review of Resident 43's LAL mattress manufacturer's guidelines titled, [Brand name of mattress pump] undated, the LAL mattress guideline indicated, . The Weight Setting Buttons (+) and (-) can be used to adjust the pressure of the inflated cells based on the patient's weight. As the weight setting increase, the pressure level indicator lights up (green) with each added level of pressure . Eight pressure levels are available and indicated by increasing green light indicator .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Licensed Nurses have the competencies necessary to meet the needs of the residents for two of three sampled residents (...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Licensed Nurses have the competencies necessary to meet the needs of the residents for two of three sampled residents (Resident 21 and 43) when Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 and 5 did not have training and competencies to operate the low air loss (LAL- an air mattress with fluctuating air) mattress. This failure had the potential to cause resident falls and injury due to inaccurate LAL pressure settings. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 8:33 a.m., with Resident 21, in Resident 21' s room, Resident 21 was laying in bed on a LAL mattress. The LAL mattress air setting was on lock position and the LAL mattress air pressure was set at 180 pounds. Resident 21 stated, her mattress felt lumpy [uncomfortable] and was not at the correct setting. During a review of Resident 21's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify resident cognitive and physical function) Assessment, dated 5/31/22, indicated Resident 21's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS -assessment of cognitive status for memory and judgment) assessment scored was 15 out of 15 (a score of 13-15 indicates cognitively intact, 08-12 indicates moderately impaired, and 00-07 indicates severe impairment). The BIMS assessment indicated Resident 15 was cognitively intact. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 9:40 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, Resident 21's weight summary was reviewed. The weight summary indicated, Resident 21 weighed 96 pounds on 8/24/22 and 8/16/22. LVN 2 stated, it was the licensed nurses responsibility to ensure the LAL mattress was functioning correctly and the setting were corresponding with the resident's current weight. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:45 a.m., with LVN 2, in Resident 21's room, Resident 21 was laying in bed on a low air loss mattress. The LAL mattress air pressure setting was on lock position and the air pressure was set at 180 pounds. The LAL mattress pump had six weight settings: 90 lb. (pound- unit of measure), 130 lb., 180 lb., 250 lb., 330 lb. LVN 2 stated, the mattress setting was set at 180 lbs. LVN 2 disarmed the lock button and changed the LAL mattress air pressure setting to 90 lbs. LVN 2 stated, Resident 21's weight was 96 pounds and the air pressure setting had been incorrectly set too high. LVN 2 stated, if the LAL mattress was not set at the correct air pressure weight setting, it could cause a fall or an injury to the resident. LVN 2 stated, it was the Licensed Nurses' responsibility to ensure that the air mattress air pressure setting was set at the correct weight. During a review of Resident 21's LAL mattress manufacturer's guidelines titled, [Brand name of mattress pump] undated, the LAL mattress guideline indicated, . The product can only be operated by personnel who are qualified to perform general nursing procedures and have received adequate training in knowledge of prevention and treatment of pressure ulcer . According to the weight and height of the patient, adjust the pressure setting to the most comfortable level without bottoming out, then the pressure in the mattress will slowly increase to the intended value after the air mattress is ready to use . During an observation on 8/24/22, at 9:25 a.m., in Resident 43's room, Resident 43 was laying in bed on a LAL mattress. The LAL mattress air setting was on lock position with the mattress air pressure set at 150 pounds. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 9:37 a.m., with LVN 2, Resident 43's weight summary was reviewed. The weight summary indicated, Resident 43 weighed 94 pounds on 8/24/22 and 8/16/22. LVN 2 stated, the LAL mattress was ordered for wound management. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:48 a.m., with LVN 2, in Resident 43's room, Resident 43 was laying in bed on a low air loss mattress. The LAL mattress air pressure setting was on lock position and the air pressure was set at 150 pounds. The LAL mattress pump had eight weight settings: 50 lb. (pound), 100 lb., 150 lb., 200 lb., 250 lb., 300 lb., 350 lb., 450 lb. LVN 2 stated the mattress setting was set at 150 lbs. LVN 2 disarmed the lock button and changed the LAL mattress air pressure setting to 100 lbs. LVN 2 stated, Resident 43's weight was 94 pounds and the air pressure setting had been incorrectly set too high. LVN 2 stated, if the LAL mattress was not set at the correct air pressure weight setting it could cause a fall or injury to the resident. LVN 2 stated it was the Licensed nurse responsibility to ensure that the air mattress air pressure setting was set at the correct weight. During a review of Resident 43's Order Summary, dated 7/5/22, the Order Summary indicated, . Provide Air loss mattress for wound management . During an interview on 8/25/22, at 10:22 a.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated, when the LAL mattress was installed the company set the weight and settings. LVN 1 stated, the facility did not have a policy on LAL mattress and how to adjust the settings. LVN 1 stated, she was untrained and unaware of how to change the setting of the LAL mattress. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 12:44 p.m. with Administrator (ADM), ADM stated, if the resident needed a LAL mattress the facility called the company to install it. ADM stated, there was no process in place for licensed nurses to monitor the LAL pump setting to ensure the weight was coinciding with the residents' current weight. ADM stated, it was important for Licensed Nurses to be knowledgeable on the operation of the pump for power outages or weight changes. ADM stated, if the LAL mattress pressure was not at the correct setting it could be ineffective for wound management, ADM stated overinflation of the LAL mattress could possibly lead to a fall. ADM stated, the facility did not have a policy for LAL mattress use. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 12:56 p.m., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON stated, the facility did not have an LAL policy. ADON stated, there was no monitoring in place to ensure the LAL mattress was coinciding with the residents current weights. ADON stated, there were no competencies or in-service education for the LAL mattress. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 1:18 p.m., with LVN 5, LVN 5 stated, she was untrained and unaware of how to change the setting of the LAL mattress. LVN 5 stated, she was unfamiliar with the weight settings on the LAL mattress pump. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 1:34 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, the LAL pressure setting was set up by the company. DON stated, an overinflated mattress could potentially cause a resident to fall out of bed. DON stated, the LAL pressure should be monitored because residents could have weight gain or weight loss. DON stated, the licensed nurses should check the settings to ensure the settings were coinciding with the residents weight. DON stated, licensed nurses should be competent in operating the LAL mattress. DON stated, there was no competency done for the operation of the LAL mattress. During a review of Resident 43's LAL mattress manufacturer's guidelines titled, [Brand name of mattress pump] undated, the LAL mattress guideline indicated, . The Weight Setting Buttons (+) and (-) can be used to adjust the pressure of the inflated cells based on the patient's weight. As the weight setting increase, the pressure level indicator lights up (green) with each added level of pressure . Eight pressure levels are available and indicated by increasing green light indicator .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

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 drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordanc...

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 drugs and biologicals were labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional principles when: 1. One Tuberculin (combination of proteins that are used in the diagnosis of tuberculosis [potentially serious infectious bacterial disease that mainly affects the lungs]) vial (small container for liquids) was opened with no indication of used-by date or open date. This failure had the potential to produce inaccurate PPD (purified protein derivatives) Test (skin test is a test that determines if you have tuberculosis) results and or cause harm to a vulnerable population if administered beyond the manufacturer's used by date. 2. Resident 64's Levalbuterol (medication used to prevent and treat difficulty breathing, wheezing, shortness of breath) medication was opened with no indication of used-by date or when the foil pouch was opened. This failure had the potential to decrease the medication potency that could compromise the therapeutic effectiveness when used by Resident 64. 3. Resident 28's Ipratropium/Albuterol (inhalation spray to treat and prevent wheezing and shortness of breath caused by ongoing lung disease) medication label was torn and was stored in the medication cart, available for use. This failure had the potential for the medication to be given to the wrong resident and cause adverse reactions. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on [DATE], at 11:30 a.m., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), in Station 2's medication room, an opened vial of Tuberculin was found in the medication refrigerator, with no opened or used-by date label. ADON stated, the opened vial of medication should be labeled with a used-by date according to manufacturer's guidelines. ADON stated, the opened vial was good for 30 days after it was opened. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on [DATE], at 10:29 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, in Station 2 nursing station. One medication cart was by the station. The medication cart contained Levalbuterol 0.63MG (milligram-unit of measurement)/3ML(milliliter-unit of measurement) SOL (solution) with the medication pouch opened without an open date (labeled). LVN 1 stated, the box of Levalbuterol should have been labeled with the open date when the medication pouch was opened. LVN 1 stated, the medication (levalbuterol) was only good for 14 days after it was opened according to manufacturer's guideline. LVN 1 stated, the medication should have been discarded and not stored in the medication cart. LVN 1 stated, being stored in the medication cart made it (levalbuterol) available for use (for residents). LVN 1 stated, she did not know if it was expired because there was no opened by date. During a review of Resident 64's clinical record titled, admission Record, (document containing resident personal information) dated [DATE], the admission Record, indicated, Resident 64 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included . Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD- group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe) . During a review of Resident 64's Order Summary Report, dated [DATE], the Order Summary report indicated, . Levalbuterol HCL Solution 0.63 MG/3ML 3 ml inhale orally [by mouth] via [by] nebulizer every 8 hours for SOB [shortness of breath], wheezing [high-pitched whistling sound made while breathing] stay with resident while giving receiving nebulizer . 3. During a concurrent observation and interview on [DATE], at 10:40 a.m., with LVN 1, in Station 2 nursing station. One medication cart was by the station. The medication cart contained Ipratropium/Albuterol 20mcg(microgram-unit of measurement)/100mcg per actuation (puff) which had a torned label. LVN 1 stated, the label from the Ipratropium/Albuterol medication was torn and did not show the complete name of the resident and the complete instruction of the medication. LVN 1 stated, she should not have stored the medications in the medication cart. LVN 1 stated, she should have called the pharmacy to replace medication. During a review of Resident 28's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated [DATE], the admission Record, indicated, Resident 28 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis which included . shortness of breath . During a review of Resident 28's Order Summary Report, dated [DATE], the Order Summary report indicated, . [Ipratropium/Albuterol brand name] 1 puff inhale orally every 4 (four) hours as needed for SOB (shortness of breath)/cough . During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE], at 3:39 p.m., with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated, the vial of PPD should have been labeled with the date it was opened. LVN 2 stated, the PPD vial was only good for 30 days after it was opened. LVN 2 stated, the levalbuterol medication should have been labeled with the date the pouch was opened because it was only good for 14 days. LVN 2 stated, giving the medication after the expiration date could be ineffective. LVN 2, the torn label of Ipratropium/Albuterol medication was not acceptable because the name of the resident and the instruction was ripped from the box. LVN 2 stated, the pharmacy should have been called to send a new medication. LVN 2 stated, the medication could be given to another resident. During an interview on [DATE], at 4:01 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, the vial of PPD should have been labeled when it was opened since using the medication after the expiration date may give a false positive/negative results. DON stated, the pouch of Levalbuterol should have been dated since it was only good for 14 day from the date it was opened. DON stated, the nurse should have discarded the medication and not kept in the cart. DON stated, medication when used past the expiration will be less effective or can have adverse effects to residents. DON stated the box of Ipratropium/Albuterol medication with a torn label should have been discarded in the discontinued medications to avoid using on other residents. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Vials and Ampules of Injectable Medications, dated 4/2008, the policy and procedure indicated, . The date opened and the initial of the first person to use the vial are recorded on multi-dose vials (on the vial label or an accessory label affixed for that purpose) . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Labels, dated 4/2008, the policy and procedure indicated, . Labels are permanently affixed to the outside of the prescription container . Each prescription medication label includes: Resident's name, Specific directions for use, including route of administration . Medication name . Strength of medication .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0800 (Tag F0800)

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 residents were provided a diet that accommodated residents p...

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 residents were provided a diet that accommodated residents preferences for one of one resident (Resident 99) when Resident 99's food preferences and intolerances were not obtained in a timely manner (past 7 days). This failure posed the risk for Resident 99 to not receive the food he preferred and food that he could tolerate which in turn could contribute to decreased intake and meal dissatisfaction. Findings: During a review of the clinical record titled, admission Record (AR), dated 12/13/22, for Resident 99, the AR indicated Resident 99 was a [AGE] year-old male with diagnoses which included acute kidney failure, type 2 diabetes mellitus (the body's inability to produce the hormone insulin), hypertension (high blood pressure), and peripheral vascular disease (a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to the limbs). During a review of Resident 99's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool used to identify resident cognitive and physical function), dated 12/29/22, the MDS assessment indicated, Resident 99's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, an assessment used to identify a resident's current cognition) score was 11 out of 15, which indicated Resident 99 was cognitively intact. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/20/22, at 10:00 a.m., with the Registered Dietitian (RD), the Nutrition Screen and Assessment (NSA), dated 12/19/22 by the RD for Resident 99 was reviewed. Section 2. Meal Consumption 2. Comments showed, . Res [resident] reported meat is kind of hard to chew ., Section 6. Physical and Mental Functioning 2. Comments showed, . Legally blind . edentulous. Section 9. Estimated Nutrient and Energy Needs 4. Comments showed, . preferences updated trial of pureed meat . The RD stated the NSA must be completed within seven days of the resident's admission. The RD was asked to locate the Dietary profile/Malnutrition Risk Tool (Admission/readmission on LY) (DPMRT), a form which included diet order, food texture, fluid, food allergies/intolerances, appetite, food preferences, chewing/swallowing problems, utensils, cultural, religious, ethnic preferences, height, and weight in the medical record for Resident 99. The RD confirmed the DPMRT for Resident 99 had not been completed. During an interview on 12/20/22 at 10:30 a.m., with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), the DSS stated she had seven days to complete the DPMRT for newly admitted residents. The DSS confirmed a DPMRT had not been completed for Resident 99. During an interview on 12/20/22 at 11:20 a.m., with the DSS, the DSS stated resident food preferences should be entered in the electronic meal tray system within 48 hours of admission. The DSS stated she had seven days to complete the DPMRT for newly admitted residents. During an phone interview on 12/20/22 at 11:50 a.m., with the Food and Nutrition Resource Service Director (FNRSD), the FNRSD stated the DPMRT was expected to be completed for all newly admitted residents within 24-48 hours of admission. The FNRSD stated the DPMRT was part of information gathering for the resident assessment and care plan which included resident food preference, allergies and any special dietary needs. During an interview on 12/20/22 at 12:10 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON confirmed a baseline care plan was initiated by nursing within the first 48 hours of the resident admission. The DON stated the baseline care plan was interdisciplinary, which included dietary. The DON stated the Dietary department should have visited the resident within 48 hours of admission to obtain food preferences, allergies or other special dietary needs. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Care Plans- Baseline, dated 12/2016, indicated, . 2. The Interdisciplinary Team will review the healthcare practitioner's orders (e.g., dietary needs ) and implement a baseline care plan to meet the resident's immediate care needs including but not limited to . c. Dietary orders . 3. The baseline care plan will be used until the staff can conduct the comprehensive assessment and develop an interdisciplinary person-centered care plan .
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the recipes were followed for puree (a smooth creamy substance made of liquidized food) diets when an unmeasured quant...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the recipes were followed for puree (a smooth creamy substance made of liquidized food) diets when an unmeasured quantity of food thickener was added to puree food items by [NAME] 2. This failure resulted in food recipes not followed which posed the risk to alter the nutritional value and taste of the food being produced which in turn could compromise the nutritional status and meal satisfaction for Residents 44, 28. 46, 31, 27 and 17. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 10:19 a.m., with [NAME] 2, in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was preparing food items for lunch. [NAME] 2 stated, she was preparing puree food for six residents (Residents 44, 28, 46, 31, 27 and 17). [NAME] 2 put an unmeasured quantity of cooked fish in the blender. [NAME] 2 stated, she was using about six pieces of fish. [NAME] 2 added an unmeasured amount of chicken broth to the fish three times. [NAME] 2 placed the blended fish into a steam table pan. The pureed fish had a liquid consistency. [NAME] 2 stated, It will get firmer. [NAME] 2 added more unmeasured broth. [NAME] 2 stated, she added more broth to Make it more smooth. [NAME] 2 added an unmeasured amount of thickener and mixed with a whisk. [NAME] 2 added an additional amount of unmeasured thickener. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:16 p.m., with Registered Dietician (RD), RD stated, the recipe should be followed for residents on puree diets. During a review of the facility document titled, Orientation, Inservice and Personnel Management, dated 2011, the document indicated, JOB DESCRIPTION . Subject: COOK . FUNCTION: The [NAME] prepares and serves food including texture modified and therapeutic diets according to the facility menu. The cook assists in assuring proper . preparation . procedures are followed . RESPONSIBILITIES: . 5. Follows instruction . in the preparation of meals . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, FOOD PREPARATION SUBJECT: FOOD PREPARATION, dated 2018, the P&P indicated . Employees will prepare foods by methods that conserve nutrients, enhance flavor, and maintain attractive appearance . Standardized recipes will be used to ensure meals are attractive, palatable and provide necessary nutritive value . During a review of the facility document titled, Persons by Texture - All Residents By Name, dated 8/25/22, the document indicated, . Puree [Residents 44, 28, 46, 31, 27 and 17 names listed]. During a review of the facility document titled, RECIPE: PUREED MEATS, undated, the document indicated, Serves 6 . Warm fluid such as gravy, or low sodium broth. If the meat is moist, you can start with only a few ounces of liquid . 6 to 12 oz . If needed: Stabilizer: instant potato, non fat dry milk . or commercial instant food thickener . 0 to 6 [tablespoons] . Directions: . Measure out the total number of portions needed for puree diets . Gradually add warm liquid . See above for recommended amounts of liquid, starting with the smaller amount and adding in more as needed to achieve the desired consistency . Add stabilizer to increase the density of the pureed food if needed .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

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 food preferences and intolerances were...

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 food preferences and intolerances were followed for one of one non-sampled resident (Resident 80) when Resident 80 was served milk with his lunch meal. This failure had the potential for Resident 80's meal intake to be inadequate which could compromise his nutritional status. Findings: During a review of Resident 80's clinical record titled admission RECORD dated 8/25/22, the admission Record indicated, Resident 80 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. During an observation on 8/23/22, at 1:09 p.m., in the dining room. Resident 80 was served his lunch meal. Resident 80's lunch meal consisted of eight ounces whole milk, eight ounces of (nutritional shake brand), four ounces cranberry juice, roast turkey with gravy, bread stuffing, broccoli, dinner roll and a glazed apple square. During a review of Resident 80's lunch meal ticket, dated 8/23/22, the ticket indicated, Resident 80 was on a consistent carbohydrate regular texture diet with large portions. The section titled notes indicated, lactose intolerant, no milk or milk products, vegetable or tomato soup, large portions for lunch and dinner. The section titled lunch preferences indicated, eight-ounce (nutritional shake brand), soup of the day, rice and diet cranberry juice. The section titled Intolerances showed: Milk, milk products, milk rice. The section titled Dislikes showed: milk, chicken, milk products, milk rice, cheese, cottage cheese, ice cream and yogurt. During an interview on 8/23/22, at 1:15 p.m., with Resident 80, Resident 80 stated, he received milk with his lunch meals but did not tolerate milk. Resident 80 stated, he preferred soup and rice with his lunch meal, but neither were on his lunch tray. Resident 80 did not eat any of his lunch meal. Resident 80 stated, the food was not good; the broccoli was over cooked, and the food was tasteless. Resident 80 stated, he did not want to eat any food on his lunch tray but would drink the (nutritional shake brand). During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:16 p.m., with Registered Dietitian (RD) 1, RD 1 stated, if a resident had a specific request such as rice and soup with meals, the kitchen should honor those preferences. RD 1 stated, if a resident was lactose intolerant and did not tolerate milk, milk should not be served to that resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

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 maintain medical records for residents that were complete, accurate...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain medical records for residents that were complete, accurately documented and readily accessible for two of six sampled residents (Resident 9 and Resident 16) when the Physician Order for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) form (a legal document that specifies the type of care a resident's treatment and services would like in an emergency life threatening medical situation) was incomplete for Resident 9 and Resident 16. This failure had the potential risk for Resident 9 and Resident 16's decisions regarding their healthcare and treatment options not being honored. Findings: During a review of Resident 9's clinical record titled, admission Record (document containing resident personal information), dated 8/25/22, indicated Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, . Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD-group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), emphysema (damage to the alveoli (air sacs in the lungs) and anemia (not enough healthy red blood cells to carry oxygen to your body's organs) . During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/23/22, at 12:22 p.m., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON reviewed Resident 9's POLST form. ADON stated, the POLST form was not accurate. ADON stated, the Medical Records (MR) was responsible in making sure the forms were complete and accurate before they file them in residents charts. ADON stated, the admission nurse were responsible in making sure the family and or the residents signed the POLST form on admission. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/23/22, at 12:30 p.m., with Medical Records Coordinator (MRC), the MRC reviewed Resident 9's POLST form. MRC stated, the POLST form was not accurate since it did not reflect the accurate year it was signed. MRC stated, it was the medical records staff responsibility to ensure resident records are accurate. During a review of Resident 16's admission Record (AR) dated 8/25/22, the AR indicated, Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included, . hemiplegia (hemiplegia refers to paralysis on one side of the body after a stroke) and hemiparesis (hemiparesis causes weakness on one side), dysarthria (speech disorder in which the muscles that are used to produce speech are damaged, paralyzed, or weakened), and anxiety (intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations) . During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 8:54 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, LVN 2 reviewed Resident 16's POLST form. LVN 2 stated, . The POLST form is incomplete, there was no signature of the responsible party . it should have been signed when [resident] admitted in the facility . LVN 2 stated, it was the responsibility of the admission nurse to fill up the form and the medical records staff to follow-up if there was no signature and to ensure it was complete and accurate. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 4:01 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON reviewed Resident 9 and Resident 16's POLST form. DON stated, the POLST forms were incomplete and inaccurate. DON stated, POLST form must be signed on admission. DON stated, if family was not able to sign, facility staff may obtain a verbal consent and indicate in the POLST form. DON stated, the family can sign as soon as they came in the facility. DON stated, the POLST form needed to be accurate and complete signed both by the Medical Doctor and the Resident and or a family member to be valid otherwise resident will be treated as a full code. During a review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Physician Orders for Life Sustaining Treatment (POLST), dated 3/2010, the P&P indicated, . Once the POLST form is completed, it must be signed by the resident, or if the resident lacks decision-making capacity the resident's legally recognized health care decision maker, and the attending physician . The POLST will be reviewed by the facility interdisciplinary team during the quarterly care planning conference, anytime there is a significant change in the resident's condition .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0909 (Tag F0909)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct regular inspections of bed rails as part of the facility's regular maintenance program for one of three sampled reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct regular inspections of bed rails as part of the facility's regular maintenance program for one of three sampled residents (Resident 14) when Resident 14's right side rail appeared bent leaning away from the bed. This failure had the potential to result in an injury or accident to Resident 14. Findings: During an observation on 8/23/22, at 11:05 a.m., in Resident 14's room, Resident 14 was laying in bed with two bed rails up. The bed rail (right side) appeared bent leaning away from the bed and had a large gap between the mattress and the bed rail in comparison to the left side rail. During a review of Resident 14's Order, dated 8/19/22, was reviewed. The Order indicated, . Bilateral ½ siderails up to assist the resident when turning and repositioning in bed . During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 10:56 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 5, the facility Maintenance Request Log, undated, was reviewed. The Maintenance Request Log indicated, the date, location, description of problem, requested by and name the request was done by. CNA 5 stated, Resident 14's bed rail problem was not in the maintenance request log. CNA 5 stated, the maintenance request log was a communication tool used by staff to report repairs needed. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 10:59 a.m., with CNA 5, in Resident 14's room, Resident 14 was laying in bed with two bed rails up. CNA 5 stated, the right-side bed rail appeared bent and should have been reported in the maintenance request log. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 11:05 a.m., with Maintenance Technician (MT) and Environmental Services Director (ESD), in Resident 14's room, MT measured the distance between the mattress and side rails. MT stated, the measurement between the mattress and side right rail was two and a half inches and the left side rail was half an inch. ESD stated, the right side rail was uneven and appeared to be leaning away from the bed. ESD stated, the side rail (right) needed adjustment and the gap was an entrapment risk. MT stated, he did not conduct regular inspections of the bed rails. MT stated, he checked the maintenance request log for repair needs. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/25/22, at 9:43 a.m., with MT, the facility policy and procedure titled, Bed Safety, dated 12/2018, was reviewed. The policy indicated, . Our facility shall strive to provide a safe sleeping environment for the resident . To try to prevent deaths/injuries from the beds and related equipment (including the frame, mattress, side rails . the facility shop promote the following approaches: a. Inspection by maintenance staff of all beds and related equipment as part of our regular bed safety program to identify risks and problems including potential entrapment risks . Review the gaps within the bed system or within the dimensions . The review shall consider situations that could be caused by the residents weight, book movement or bed position . The maintenance department shall provide a copy of inspections to the Administrator and report results to the QA Committee for appropriate action . MT stated, the facility policy was not followed because he did not perform regular inspections of the bed and did not have inspection reports. MT stated, he only addressed the issues reported in the maintenance request log when staff reported. MT stated, he did not regularly check the bed rails. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 1:40 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, it was MT's responsibility to inspect the resident beds and ensure there were no malfunctions. DON stated, MT should have inspected beds on a monthly basis to ensure safety and proper fit to prevent entrapment risk.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 12:44 p.m., with (CNA) 1, CNA 1 gloved her right hand and used a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 12:44 p.m., with (CNA) 1, CNA 1 gloved her right hand and used an ice scoop to scoop ice out of ice chest and poured the ice into a resident's cup in her left hand. CNA delivered cup to resident. CNA 1 returned to the ice chest holding another resident's cup with the handle in her left hand and her gloved right hand holding the bottom of the cup. CNA 1 used her gloved right hand to pick up the ice scoop and scoop ice from the ice chest and poured ice into resident's cup. CNA 1 stated, she should use a new glove each time she scoops ice out of the ice chest. CNA 1 stated, she understood that her gloved hand was contaminated and should have been changed. There was a hand sanitizer and a box of gloves next to the ice chest. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:00 p.m., with Infection Preventionist (IP), IP stated, staff should be using a new set of gloves each time they access the ice scoop. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 4:35 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, the expectation for retrieving ice from the ice chest for a resident was to glove before getting ice, remove the glove and wash hands before donning new gloves for next resident. During a review of a professional reference retrieved from https://www.foodsafety.com.au/blog/how-safely-handle-ice#:~:text=Rules%20for%20handling%20ice,-In%20order%20to&text=Never%20touch%20ice%20with%20bare,sure%20they%20are%20properly%20labelled titled, How to safely handle ice and avoid contamination, dated 2021, indicated, Ice is similar to food in that the sources of contamination are the same . ice can become biologically contaminated from . touching the ice with bare hands . ice is subject to cross-contamination from . the tools used to scoop and portion . During a review of the Center for Disease Control (CDC) professional reference retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/handhygiene/providers/ , titled When and how to wear gloves, dated 2021, indicated, . Never wear the same pair of gloves in the care of more than one patient . 4. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 9:45 a.m., a linen cart was observed to be uncovered and unattended outside room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an observation on 8/25/22, at 9:47 a.m., a linen cart was observed to be uncovered and unattended outside room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an observation on 8/25/22, at 9:52 a.m., a linen cart was observed to be uncovered and unattended outside room [ROOM NUMBER]. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:00 p.m., with IP, IP stated, linen carts on the units should be covered and closed. IP stated, linen carts should not be left open on the unit even during linen changing times. During a review of Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Clean Linen Handling, dated 3/2010, the P&P indicated, . Daily excess linen shall be stored on shelves and covered . Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to establish and maintain an effective infection control and prevention program designed to provide a safe, sanitary and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable (contagious) diseases and infections when: 1. Family (FM) was in a contact isolation room for Clostridium difficile (C. diff- bacterial infection that causes life threatening diarrhea) without gown and gloves. This failure place residents, visitors, and staff at risk for transmission (a process on how an infectious agent can be transferred from one person to another) of C. diff infections. 2. Nurse Practitioner (NP) entered the facility without self-screening for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19- virus that causes a respiratory disease and is spread from person to person through sputum droplets released when an infected person coughs, sneezes, or talks). This failure placed residents, visitors and staff at increased risk for transmission of SARS-CoV-2. 3. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, used a contaminated gloved hand to scoop ice for resident from an ice chest. 4. Three linen carts were left uncovered in the hallways These failures placed residents at risk for cross-contamination and transmission of infection. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 1:08 p.m., with FM, in the hallway near Resident 234's room, Resident 234's room door was open and visible from the hallway. FM was in Resident 234's room, seated across Resident 234's bed in Resident 234's wheelchair without gown and gloves. A plastic container with personal protective equipment (PPE) including gown and gloves was stored next to Resident 234's room. FM stated, she was unaware of needing to wear gown and gloves prior to room entry. FM stated, she sanitized her hands and was not told to wash her hands before leaving Resident 234's room. FM stated, she was not informed on wearing PPE and hand washing for C. diff isolation. During a review of Resident 234's Order Summary Report, dated 8/26/22, the order summary report indicated, . Strict Contact Isolation Precautions r/t [related to] C-Diff infection . During a review of Resident 234's Care Plan, dated 8/19/22, the Care Plan indicated, Require isolation precaution due to: C. Diff . Instruct resident, family, visitor, regarding proper use of personal protective equipment . observed contact isolation precautions . Inform resident, family, visitor and staff on indication for isolation . During an interview on 8/24/22, at 11:25 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated, families should be educated on C. diff isolation precautions and should not be allowed into the room if they chose not to follow PPE protocol. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 9:26 a.m., with Infection Preventionist (IP), the facility policy and procedure titled, Clostridium Difficile dated 10/2018 was reviewed. The policy indicated, Measures are taken to prevent the occurrence of Clostridium difficile infections (CDI) among residents. Precautions are taken while caring for residents with C. difficile to prevent transmission to others residents . Increasing awareness of symptoms and risk factors among staff, residents and visitors; . Considering C. difficile in differential diagnoses, especially in residents with symptoms or risk factors; . Frequent hand washing with soap and water by staff and residents; . IP stated, staff and visitors should don gown, gloves before entering a C. diff isolation room and wash their hands when exiting the room. IP stated, on 8/24/22 she noticed FM in Resident 234's room without a gown. IP stated, Resident 234 was admitted from the hospital on 8/19/22 with C. diff. IP stated, she had not provided education to FM. IP stated, there was a risk of C. diff transmission when PPE and hand washing protocols were not followed. IP stated, FM should have been educated on isolation precautions prior to entering Resident 234's room. During an interview on 8/26/22, at 9:39 a.m., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON stated, the licensed nurses were responsible to educate and document the education provided to FM regarding PPE required in C. diff isolation room. ADON stated, it was the licensed nurses responsibility to ensure FM understood the education and was able to demonstrate safe infection control practices. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/26/22, at 10:26 a.m., with LVN 2, LVN 2 reviewed Resident 234 clinical record. LVN 2 stated, there was no record to indicate that FM was educated on contact isolation precautions. LVN 2 stated, there should have been documentation to include the education provided and confirmation that the education was understood. LVN 2 stated, if it was no documentation it was not done. During a review of the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) Professional Reference titled, 2007 Guideline for Isolation Precautions: Preventing Transmission of Infectious Agents in Healthcare Settings dated 5/2022, retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/infectioncontrol/pdf/guidelines/isolation-guidelines-H.pdf indicated, . don the indicated personal protective equipment (gowns, gloves, mask) upon entry into the patient's room for patients who are on Contact and/or Droplet Precautions since the nature of the interaction with the patient cannot be predicted with certainty and contaminated environmental surfaces are important sources for transmission of pathogens . Education of . Families . Education on the principles and practices for preventing transmission of infectious agents should begin during training in the health professions and be provided to anyone who has an opportunity for contact with patients . Patients, family members, and visitors can be partners in preventing transmission of infections in healthcare settings . Additional information about Transmission-Based Precautions is best provided at the time they are initiated . Healthcare personnel must be available and prepared to explain this material and answer questions as needed . Wash hands with non-antimicrobial soap and water or with antimicrobial soap and water if contact with spores (e.g., C. difficile . is likely to have occurred. The physical action of washing and rinsing hands under such circumstances is recommended because alcohols . and other antiseptic agents have poor activity against spores . 2. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 8:07 a.m., at the facility entrance lobby, no staff was present at the front entrance. NP entered the facility, stood in the lobby then proceeded to enter the facility without self-screening. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 11:38 a.m., with Activities Director (AD), at the front lobby, AD was seated at the front desk. The lobby had a contactless temperature monitor and two screening tool binder titled Employees and Visitors. AD stated, she was seated at the front desk to ensure staff and visitors were taking their temperature and completing the screening tool. AD stated, there was no exception and that everyone had to take their temperature and answer the questions in the screening tool. AD stated, there were two binders for screening, one for staff and one for visitors. AD stated, after taking the temperature, the screening tool questions needed to be completed (the individuals name, vaccine status, recent COVID test result, signs and symptoms of COVID 19 if present, and if traveled outside the country in last 14 days). During an interview on 8/24/22, at 12:41 a.m., with ADON, ADON stated, NP visited the facility daily for approximately 2 hours. ADON stated, NP had seen Resident 63 on 8/24/22 and wrote orders for medication. ADON stated, NP was at the facility on 8/23/22 and had signed orders for Resident 183 and Resident 236. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 1:18 p.m. with IP, the facility screening tool titled visitors and employees dated 8/20/22 - 8/24/22 was reviewed. The screening tool indicated, the date, temperature, time, name, vaccination status, recent Covid test result, list of Covid-19 symptoms, travel outside country in last 14 days, and if recent exposure to COVID-19 and location prior to arriving to facility. IP stated, the two binders at the front lobby were the only screening binders where employees and visitors completed. IP stated, she reviewed the screening logs and NP's signature was not on in the employee or visitor screening log. IP stated, the purpose of the screening tool was to prevent the spread of COVID-19. IP stated, there was a risk for Covid-19 exposure to staff and residents when NP was not screened. IP stated, there were no tracking method to ensure the screening tools were reviewed by either the Director of Nurses (DON), Administrator (ADM) or herself to ensure that everyone who enters the building was screened. IP stated, the importance of reviewing the screening tool was to ensure all staff were screened. IP stated, it was important to review the screening tool so she could educate the staff who did not screen themselves. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 1:48 p.m., with IP, the facility policy and procedure titled, COVID-19 General Guidelines, dated 1/6/22, the policy indicated, The facility will have a screening process in place for COVID-19 infection with all persons, regardless of vaccination status. Any person entering the facility will be screened for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection, including temperature check, recent travel outside the state in the past 14 days and vaccination status . Screening of Staff and Visitor(s): 1. All staff and visitors, regardless of vaccination status, will be screened for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 infection including but not limited to fever, chills, cough, shortness of breath, new loss of taste or smell, muscle or body aches, headache, sore throat, congestion or runny nose, nausea or vomiting, diarrhea, or not feeling well. Anyone with fever or signs or symptoms of COVID-19 infection is prohibited from entry . IP stated it was the facility policy for everyone to get screened prior to entering the facility.
CONCERN (E)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

4. During an observation and interview on 8/25/22, at 10:43 a.m., with Laundry Supervisor (LS), two laundry dryers were missing the temperature and cool down time knobs. LS stated laundry staff were n...

Read full inspector narrative →
4. During an observation and interview on 8/25/22, at 10:43 a.m., with Laundry Supervisor (LS), two laundry dryers were missing the temperature and cool down time knobs. LS stated laundry staff were not to move the dials. LS stated, staff knew the temperature dial was on high because they are not to move it. There was a Sign taped to dryer which indicated, Attn: [attention] Laundry Please do not move knobs other than the timer and the start button. Thank you. During a review of professional reference titled, Mold on Clothes, dated May 2022, indicated, . keeping wet or even moist clothes . closely together becomes a breeding ground to grow mold on clothes . The reference also indicated, . the presence of mold has long-term adverse health effects . mold on clothes can easily be inhaled . and has been known to cause respiratory problems . for those who are particularly susceptible, like . the elderly, or asthmatics, the consequences can be serious . long-term effects of having mold on clothes . can lead to a weakened immune system and recurring ill-health that could lead to severe infections . Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the proper maintenance of essential equipment when: 1. Five of five freezers (including resident refrigerator [two] and medication refrigerator[two]) had excessive ice build-up. 2. The walk-in refrigerator door in the kitchen was not flush with the door frame exposing a gap. 3. The numbers indicating the temperature of the oven located on the oven dial used to prepare resident food were worn and illegible. These failures had the potential for equipment not functioning in the way they were intended and in turn cause contamination of food and medications which could lead to illnesses for the residents. 4. The two laundry dryers' did not have heat and cool-down time control knobs. This failure placed residents at risk for exposure to mold spores due to laundry not being thoroughly dried. Findings: 1. During a review of professional reference titled, USDA Food Code 2017, Section 4-501.11, indicated, Good Repair and Proper Adjustment, Proper maintenance of equipment to manufacturer specifications helped ensure that it will continue to operate as designed. The Failure to properly maintain equipment could lead to violations of the associated requirements of the Code that place the health of the consumer at risk. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 9:52 a.m., in the kitchen, the Environmental Service Director (ESD) conducted a walk-through. The walk-in freezer had ice accumulation on the floor, the fan and around the inside of the door. ESD stated, she had not been informed of the ice accumulation in the walk-in freezer. ESD stated, the CDM was responsible for notifying the maintenance department of any kitchen equipment problems. During an interview on 8/23/22, at 10:27 a.m., with CDM. CDM stated, she was aware of the ice accumulation in the walk-in freezer but was not sure what to do about it. CDM stated ,she kept a maintenance log to notify maintenance of kitchen equipment that needed to be repaired. CDM stated, she had not notified the maintenance department of the ice build-up in the freezer and was unable to confirm the ice build-up located in the walk-in freezer was on the maintenance log. During a concurrent observation, interview and record review on 8/23/22, at 11:34 a.m., in nursing station one and nursing station two, there were refrigerators used to store resident food brought in from the outside and refrigerator used for resident medication storage. The freezers of both refrigerators used to store resident food brought in from the outside had excessive ice accumulation. LVN 3 stated, the refrigerator freezers should not have ice accumulation (build-up). The freezers on both refrigerators used for storage of resident medications had excessive ice accumulation. LVN 3 stated, the ice accumulation was not acceptable. LVN 3 stated, nursing (staff) was responsible every Friday night to defrost the refrigerator used to store resident food brought in from the outside and the refrigerator used to store resident medications. The facility document located on the outside of the refrigerator doors for the refrigerators used to store resident food from the outside and the medication refrigerators indicated, NOC (night shift) Nurse: Defrost this fridge @ 11 pm every Friday and AM supervisor: turn fridge on after cleaning Saturday a.m. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 9:52 a.m., in the kitchen, there was a gap in the door jamb of the walk-in refrigerator door. Maintenance Technician (MT) conducted a walk-through. MT stated, he tried to fix the gasket of the walk-in refrigerator door in the past but was not able to obtain the original material used. MT stated, he installed a foam-like material on the walk-in refrigerator door where the original door gasket was located. MT stated, the foam-like material was worn and coming off the walk-in refrigerator door. MT stated, at the bottom of the walk-in refrigerator door there was a gap between the door and the door jamb, so the walk-in door did not have a complete seal. 3. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 10:18 a.m., in the kitchen, the numbers on the oven dial which indicated the oven temperature were worn off and illegible. [NAME] 2 was unable to state the exact oven temperature. [NAME] 2 stated, the oven temperature was over 400 degrees when the oven dial was turned completely to the left. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/25/22, at 4:24 p.m., in the kitchen, the numbers on the oven dial which indicated the oven temperature were worn off and illegible. ESD stated, she had not been notified of any issue with the temperature dial of the oven. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 4:29 p.m., with CDM, CDM stated, she was aware of the problem with the oven temperature dial. CDM stated, she had not notified maintenance because she needed to contact the oven manufacturer first.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on kitchen observations, interviews and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure one of two cooks (Cook 2) was competent in position related duties when [NAME] 2 was unable to dem...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on kitchen observations, interviews and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure one of two cooks (Cook 2) was competent in position related duties when [NAME] 2 was unable to demonstrate: 1. Adequate handwashing. 2. Prevention of cross contamination of food (measuring scoop use). 3. Cleaning, sanitizing and properly storing food preparation equipment (meat slicer, steam table pans & weighing scale). 4. Manual ware washing of cookware used for resident food preparation. 5. Proper testing of the kitchen sanitizing solution. 6. Preparation of puree food items for according to the recipe for Residents 44, 28, 46, 31, 27 and 17. 7. Preparation of food in a manner that maintained the nutritional value of resident meals. 8. Food prepared for the facility residents was palatable. These failures resulted in the inability to meet nutritional needs for residents receiving pureed diets, poor meal quality and decreased meal satisfaction in a medically vulnerable resident population of 76 residents who received food prepared in the kitchen and also posed a risk for food borne illness Findings: 1. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 8:25 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was washing steam table pans and placing them in the rinse sink. [NAME] 2 touched the trash can then obtained a rag out of the sanitation bucket and started sanitizing the counter tops. [NAME] 2 returned to the rinse sink and started removing the steam table trays from the rinse sink. During an interview on 8/24/22, at 8:38 a.m., with [NAME] 2, [NAME] 2 stated, sanitizing counters right after touching the trash can was not the facility's process. [NAME] 2 stated, You need to wash your hands after touching the trash can. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 4:29 p.m., with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), CDM stated, if kitchen staff touched a trash can, they would need to wash their hands. CDM stated, staff must wash hands anytime the hands become contaminated (having been made impure by exposure to something) to prevent cross contamination (the process by which bacteria or other microorganisms are unintentionally transferred from one thing to another with harmful effect). CDM stated, her last in-service on handwashing was in 2021. CDM stated, she did not have an in-service on handwashing for 2022. During a review the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT HANDWASHING, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . When to wash hands . after handling carts, soiled dishes, before sanitizing carts and utensils . During a review the facility document titled, Class Attendance Roster, dated 2/3/2021, the Class Attendance Roster indicated, Proper procedure of hand washing how often it should be done . Trainee Name [Cook 2] . 2. During an interview on 8/23/22, at 08:24 a.m., with CDM, CDM stated, it was the facility's practice to not store scoops inside food bins. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 10:19 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was preparing to puree (a smooth creamy substance made of liquidized food) food items for the lunch meal on top of a cart. [NAME] 2 had a plastic bin containing thickener (a substance added to a liquid to make it firmer) on the top of the cart. [NAME] 2 used a metal measuring scoop stored inside the plastic bin to scoop up the thickener. [NAME] 2 added thickener to the food multiple times. [NAME] 2 placed the measuring scoop on the top of the cart more than two times before placing it back into the plastic bin. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: CLEANING SMALL APPLIANCES/EQUIPMENT, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . Food Storage Bins . The scoop should be stored outside the bins in a designated area . 3. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., in the kitchen, there was a meat slicer covered with a plastic bag. CDM stated, if equipment was clean then it would be covered with a plastic bag. The bag covering the meat slicer was removed. The meat slicers' blade and grip had a brown sticky substance. CDM stated, the brown substance should not have been on the meat slicer. CDM stated, the meat slicer was not cleaned appropriately. CDM stated, the meat slicer should have been disassembled and sanitized. [NAME] 2 wiped the slicer with a rag she obtained from the sanitizing bucket. The meat slicer blade still had a brown sticky substance. CDM stated, [NAME] 2 needed to disassemble meat slicer and run it through the dish machine. During an observation on 8/23/22, at 10:15 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was slicing meat using the meat slicer then weighed each piece of meat on a weighing scale. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 8:25 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was washing steam table pans and placing them in the rinse side of the sink. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 8:57 a.m., with [NAME] 2, in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 placed a stack of newly washed steam table pans on a clean rack. The seven steam table pans were wet, stacked together and not inverted. One of the seven pans had food debris on the inside of the pan. [NAME] 2 stated, the practice was to air dry the steam table pans and store them inverted once they were dry. [NAME] 2 stated, the steam table pans were not stored correctly. [NAME] 2 stated, she usually stored them inverted. [NAME] 2 stated, one of the steam table pans was not clean. [NAME] 2 removed the seven pans from the clean rack. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 9:33 a.m., in the kitchen, there was a weighing scale stored in a drawer. [NAME] 2 stated, she used the weigh scale the previous day to weigh the meat used for the lunch meal. The weight scale had sticky substance and was visibly dirty. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:35 a.m., in the kitchen, with [NAME] 1, there was a weight scale with a sticky residue on it in the drawer. [NAME] 1 stated, the weight scale should be clean when stored in the drawer. [NAME] 1 stated, the scale was not clean and was sticky. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, CONTROL SUBJECT: SANITIZING EQUIPMENT, FOOD AND UTILITY CARTS, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . All kitchen equipment and surfaces, which come in contact with food, will be cleaned and sanitized after each use . During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:16 p.m., with the RD 1. RD 1 stated, the steam table pans should have been air dried and put away in a designated area. RD 1 stated, the pans should have been stored upside down (inverted). During a review of the facility's P&P titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: DISHWASHING PROCEDURES (DISHMACHINE), dated 2018, indicated, . All dishes should be inspected after coming out of the dish-machine and if the dishes are not clean then they should be washed again in the dish-machine. Allow racks of dishes . to air dry . Do not rack and stack wet dishes . allow dishes to drain thoroughly and air dry after washing . 4. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 8:38 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was manual ware washing. [NAME] 2 stated, she manually washed cookware in the first compartment of the sink with hot water, then rinsed the cookware in the second compartment of the sink. [NAME] 2 stated, she emptied the rinse water and filled the second compartment of the sink with the sanitizing solution. [NAME] 2 stated, the cookware should remain in the sanitizing solution for 15-30 seconds. There was a posted instructions for manual dishwashing by the sink indicating, items (washed) must be kept in the sanitizing solution for a minimum of one minute. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 1:04 p.m., with CDM, CDM stated, it was important to know how long to submerge cookware in the sanitizing solution when manually washing cookware for proper sanitation. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:16 p.m. with RD 1, RD 1 stated, when she performed the monthly sanitation review of the kitchen, she did not observe inappropriate dishware being washed in the manual dishwashing sink. RD 1 stated, she felt the food service employees were competent in manual dishwashing. RD 1 stated, she did not ask food service employees to demonstrate the proper method used for manual ware washing. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: WAREWASHING (HANDWASHING METHOD), dated 2018, indicated, . 6. Sanitize dishes by one of the following methods: . D. Immersion for at least 1 minute in solution containing 200 ppm [parts per million] quaternary ammonium [type of chemical used to kill bacteria, viruses and mold] . 5. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 8:43 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 demonstrated the testing of the sanitizing solution used to sanitize manually washed cookware and kitchen surfaces. [NAME] 2 obtained a purple chlorine test strip and dipped the test strip in the sanitizing solution and held it in the solution for ten seconds. The purple chlorine test strip did not change color. [NAME] 2 tested the solution with a purple test strip for a second time. The purple chlorine test strip still did not change color. [NAME] 2 went into the kitchen office where [NAME] 1 was. [NAME] 1 gave [NAME] 2 a different testing strips which were orange test strips to test the sanitizing solution. [NAME] 1 stated, the purple sanitizing test strips [NAME] 2 used to test the sanitizing solution was the incorrect sanitizing test strip. [NAME] 1 stated, the correct testing strip was the orange test strips. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:16 p.m., with RD 1, RD 1 stated, she performed the monthly sanitation review of the kitchen, RD 1 stated, she tested the sanitizing solution used to sanitize surfaces in the kitchen. RD 1 stated, she did not ask food service employees to demonstrate proper testing of the sanitizing solution. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: WAREWASHING (HANDWASHING METHOD), dated 2018, indicated, . 6. Sanitize dishes by one of the following methods: . D. Immersion for at least 1 minute in solution containing 200 ppm quaternary ammonium . 6. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 10:19 a.m., with [NAME] 2, in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was preparing food items for lunch. [NAME] 2 stated, she was preparing puree food for six residents (Residents 44, 28, 46, 31, 27 and 17). [NAME] 2 put an unmeasured quantity of cooked fish in the blender. [NAME] 2 stated, she was using about six pieces of fish. [NAME] 2 added an unmeasured amount of chicken broth to the fish three times. [NAME] 2 placed the blended fish into a steam table pan. The pureed fish had a liquid consistency. [NAME] 2 stated, It will get firmer. [NAME] 2 added more unmeasured broth. [NAME] 2 stated, she added more broth to Make it smoother. [NAME] 2 added an unmeasured amount of thickener and mixed with a whisk. [NAME] 2 added an additional amount of unmeasured thickener. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:16 p.m., with RD 1, RD 1 stated the recipe should be followed for residents on puree diets. During a review of the facility document titled, RECIPE: PUREED MEATS, [undated], the document indicated, . Serves 6 .Warm fluid such as gravy, or low sodium broth. If the meat is moist, you can start with only a few ounces of liquid . 6 to 12 oz . If needed: Stabilizer: instant potato, nonfat dry milk . or commercial instant food thickener .0 to 6 [tablespoons] . Directions: . Measure out the total number of portions needed for puree diets . Gradually add warm liquid . See above for recommended amounts of liquid, starting with the smaller amount and adding in more as needed to achieve the desired consistency . Add stabilizer to increase the density of the pureed food if needed . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, FOOD PREPARATION SUBJECT: FOOD PREPARATION, dated 2018, the P&P indicated . Employees will prepare foods by methods that conserve nutrients, enhance flavor, and maintain attractive appearance . Standardized recipes will be used to ensure meals are attractive, palatable and provide necessary nutritive value . 7. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:49 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was preparing the lunch meal. There were vegetables in a pot of boiling water on the stove. At 10:18 a.m. [NAME] 2 placed pureed vegetables in the oven. The oven had pans covered with foil of baked fish, italian vegetables and scalloped potatoes. The numbers on the oven dial indicating the temperature of the oven were worn off making the oven temperature illegible. The oven dial was turned all the way to the left. [NAME] 2 stated, she did not know what temperature the oven was set to. [NAME] 2 stated [the oven temperature setting] was over 400 degrees F. [NAME] 2 stated, she knew where 400 degrees was on the oven dial and turned the oven dial completely to the left (she previously stated was over 400 degrees F). During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:16 p.m., with RD I, RD 1 stated, she was not sure cooking vegetable at 400 degrees for more than two hours affected the nutritional value of the vegetables. During a review of the professional reference titled, https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/cooking-nutrient-content, dated 11/7/2019, the reference indicated, . The following nutrients are often reduced during cooking: water-soluble vitamins: vitamin C and the B vitamins - thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), pantothenic acid (B5), pyridoxine (B6), folic acid (B9), and cobalamin (B12), fat-soluble vitamins: vitamins A, D, E, and K, and minerals: primarily potassium, magnesium, sodium, and calcium . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, FOOD PREPARATION SUBJECT: FOOD PREPARATION, dated 2018, the P&P indicated . Employees will prepare foods by methods that conserve nutrients, enhance flavor, and maintain attractive appearance . Standardized recipes will be used to ensure meals are attractive, palatable and provide necessary nutritive value . 8. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22 at 1:09 p.m., on the nursing unit one, residents were being served lunch in their rooms. Resident 6 stated, the food was so bland and lacked flavor. Resident 6 did not eat the turkey served with his lunch meal. Resident 287 stated, the food was not good, but he forced himself to eat because he had lost weight in the hospital. Resident 287 did not eat the broccoli served with this lunch meal. Resident 287 stated, the broccoli was over cooked. Resident 80 stated, the food was tasteless, and the broccoli was over cooked. Resident 80 did not eat his entire lunch meal. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:49 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was preparing the lunch meal. There were vegetables in a pot of boiling water on the stove. At 10:18 a.m. [NAME] 2 placed pureed vegetables in the oven. The oven had pans covered with foil of baked fish, italian vegetables and scalloped potatoes. The numbers on the oven dial indicating the temperature of the oven were worn off making the oven temperature illegible. The oven dial was turned all the way to the left. [NAME] 2 stated, she did not know what temperature the oven was set to. [NAME] 2 stated. [the oven temperature setting] was over 400 degrees F. [NAME] 2 stated, she knew where 400 degrees was on the oven dial and turned the oven dial completely to the left (she previously stated was over 400 degrees F). During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 1:15 p.m., in the conference room, a taste-testing of a lunch meal was conducted with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) and Registered Dietitian (RD) 2. The lunch meal test tray consisted of fish italiano (fish with italian sauce), puree fish, scalloped potatoes, puree scalloped potatoes, italian herb vegetables (mixture of vegetables), puree italian herb vegetables and peach crisp (peach dessert). CDM stated, the italian herb vegetables lacked flavor and salt and were over cooked. RD 2 stated, the puree vegetables were gummy. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:16 p.m., with RD I. RD 1 stated, the facility used to monitor resident meal satisfaction with a survey. RD 1 stated, the previous RD told her the facility used to have a resident food satisfaction survey but was discontinued due to the COVID 19 pandemic. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, FOOD PREPARATION SUBJECT: FOOD PREPARATION, dated 2018, indicated . Employees will prepare foods by methods that conserve nutrients, enhance flavor, and maintain attractive appearance . Standardized recipes will be used to ensure meals are attractive, palatable and provide necessary nutritive value . During a review of the facility document titled, Orientation, Inservice and Personnel Management, dated 2011, the document indicated, JOB DESCRIPTION . Subject: COOK . FUNCTION: The [NAME] prepares and serves food including texture modified and therapeutic diets according to the facility menu. The cook assists in assuring proper . preparation . sanitation and cleaning procedures are followed . RESPONSIBILITIES: . 5. Follows instruction . in the preparation of meals . During an interview on 8/25/22, at 1:03 p.m., with CDM, CDM stated, she assessed the food service employees' competencies by return demonstration. CDM stated, she asked the food service employees to show how they washed their hands. CDM stated, she reviewed the Competency Checklist for Employee of Department of Nutrition and Food Services form with the employees. CDM stated, all food service employees were evaluated on the same competency form. CDM stated, the last page of the competency form was used for areas of improvement and if the last page was blank that meant there were no areas needed for improvement. CDM stated, the competency checklist was scored one through five. CDM stated, a score of four meant they needed to review the topic, a score of three meant there was improvement needed and a score of five meant they were competent in that topic. CDM stated, she quizzed the food service employees to determine if they were competent in the topic. CDM stated, there was no documentation of in-services given on topics including cross contamination, hand washing, cleaning and sanitizing food preparation equipment, manual ware washing, use and testing of the sanitizing solution, and following menus and recipes. CDM stated, the only available documentation of in-services was for hand washing. During A review of the facility document titled, Class Attendance Roster Course topic: Proper Procedure of Handwashing. How often it should be done, dated 2/3/21, indicated, [NAME] 2 was in attendance. A copy of the Policy and Procedure titled Handwashing dated 2018 was attached to the in-service. There was no documented evidence how competency of the in-service was measured. During A Review of the facility document titled, Competency Checklist for Employee of Department of Nutrition and Food Services, for [NAME] 2 dated 1/6/21, the checklist was completed with CDM. The section titled, Keep Food Safe, Prevent Cross Contamination, Clean and Sanitize Surface Correctly: a score of four (above standards) was given. The section titled, Proper Hand Washing, method to wash hands and when to wash hands: a score of four was given. The section titled, Operation of Equipment, meat slicer: a score of four was given. The section titled, Sanitation, two compartment sink: a score of four was given. The section titled, Diet, why do you follow recipes: a score of four was given. The last page titled, Job Skills Evaluation was blank. CDM stated, she could not remember why gave [NAME] 2 a score of four for the two-compartment sink, CDM stated, she could not remember how she assessed [NAME] 2's competency. The last page of the Competency Checklist for [NAME] 2 was blank meaning there were no areas needed for improvement for [NAME] 2. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:16 p.m., with RD 1. RD 1 stated, when she performed the monthly sanitation review of the kitchen, she looked at the cleanliness but not the condition of the cookware. RD 1 stated, she did not recall if pots or pans needed to be replaced. RD 1 stated ,she checked for cross contamination by checking appropriate colored cutting boards are being used (meats) and were stored properly. RD 1 stated, she did not observe inappropriate dishware being washed in the manual dishwashing sink. RD 1 stated, she felt the food service employees were competent in manual dishwashing. RD 1 stated, she did not ask food service employees to demonstrate the proper method used for manual ware washing. RD 1 stated, she tested the sanitizing solution used to sanitize surfaces in the kitchen. RD 1 stated, she did not ask food service employees to demonstrate proper testing of the sanitizing solution. During a review of the facility document titled, Quality Assessment for Performance Improvement [QAPI] completed by RD, dated 7/1/22, indicated, . MEAL PRODUCTION . 15. Does the production staff follow recipes? x [Met] . Kitchen Area . 2. Cleaning and sanitizing based on Policy and Procedure in place. x [Met] . SANITATION CONTINUED . 2. Staff able to show proper handwashing technique? x [Met] . 4. Cross contamination prevention in place? x [Met] . Dishwashing Area . 5. 2-Compartment Sink used properly x [Met] . 7. Dishes are air dried and put away? x [Met] . 8. Food preparation utensils and equipment cleaned and properly and sanitized? x [Met] . The QAPI dated 7/29/22, indicated, . MEAL PRODUCTION . 15. Does the production staff follow recipes? x [Met] . Kitchen Area . 2. Cleaning and sanitizing based on Policy and Procedure in place. x [Met] . SANITATION CONTINUED . 2. Staff able to show proper handwashing technique? x [Met] . 4. Cross contamination prevention in place? x [Met] . Dishwashing Area . 5. 2-Compartment Sink used properly x [Met] . 7. Dishes are air dried and put away? x [Met] . 8. Food preparation utensils and equipment cleaned and properly and sanitized? x [Met] . The QAPI indicated the facility was in compliance with foodservice standards of practice.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food prepared for residents was palatable and cooked to preserve nutritive value when: 1. Residents 6, 80, and 287 com...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food prepared for residents was palatable and cooked to preserve nutritive value when: 1. Residents 6, 80, and 287 complained the food lacked flavor and the vegetables were over cooked. 2. Vegetables were cooked more than two hours prior to meal service in an oven temperature above 400 degrees Fahrenheit (F). These failures could potentially affect the nutritive content of the food and the amount of food residents consume, which could result to decrease residents' food intake and lead to poor nutrition and health outcomes. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 1:09 p.m., on nursing unit one, residents were being served lunch in their rooms. Resident 6 stated, the food was so bland and lacked flavor. Resident 6 did not eat the turkey served with his lunch meal. Resident 287 stated, the food was not good, but he forced himself to eat because he had lost weight in the hospital. Resident 287 did not eat the broccoli served with this lunch meal. Resident 287 stated, the broccoli was over cooked. Resident 80 stated, the food was tasteless and the broccoli was over cooked. Resident 80 did not eat his entire lunch meal. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:49 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was preparing the lunch meal. There were vegetables in a pot of boiling water on the stove. At 10:18 a.m. [NAME] 2 placed pureed vegetables in the oven. The oven had pans covered with foil of baked fish, italian vegetables and scalloped potatoes. The numbers on the oven dial indicating the temperature of the oven were worn off making the oven temperature illegible. The oven dial was turned all the way to the left. [NAME] 2 stated, she did not know what temperature the oven was set to. [NAME] 2 stated, [the oven temperature setting] over 400 degrees F. [NAME] 2 stated, she knew where 400 degrees was on the oven dial and turned the oven dial completely to the left (she previously stated was over 400 degrees F). During an observation on 8/24/22, at 1:15 p.m., in the conference room, a taste-testing of a lunch meal was conducted with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) and Registered Dietitian (RD) 2. The lunch meal test tray consisted of fish italiano (fish with italian sauce), puree fish, scalloped potatoes, puree scalloped potatoes, italian herb vegetables (mixture of vegetables), puree italian herb vegetables and peach crisp (peach dessert). CDM stated, the italian herb vegetables lacked flavor and salt and were over cooked. RD 2 stated, the puree vegetables were gummy. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:16 p.m., with RD I. RD 1 stated, the facility used to monitor resident meal satisfaction with a survey. RD 1 stated, the previous RD told her the facility used to have a resident food satisfaction survey but was discontinued due to the COVID 19 pandemic. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, FOOD PREPARATION SUBJECT: FOOD PREPARATION, dated 2018, the (P&P) indicated . Employees will prepare foods by methods that conserve nutrients, enhance flavor, and maintain attractive appearance . Standardized recipes will be used to ensure meals are attractive, palatable and provide necessary nutritive value . 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:49 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was preparing the lunch meal. There were vegetables in a pot of boiling water on the stove. At 10:18 a.m. [NAME] 2 placed pureed vegetables in the oven. The oven had pans covered with foil of baked fish, italian vegetables and scalloped potatoes. The numbers on the oven dial indicating the temperature of the oven were worn off making the oven temperature illegible. The oven dial was turned all the way to the left. [NAME] 2 stated, she did not know what temperature the oven was set to [NAME] 2 stated [the oven temperature setting] over 400 degrees F. [NAME] 2 stated, she knew where 400 degrees was on the oven dial and turned the oven dial completely to the left (she previously stated was over 400 degrees F). During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:16 p.m., with RD I, RD 1 stated, she was not sure cooking vegetable at 400 degrees for more than two hours affected the nutritional value of the vegetables. During a review of the professional reference titled, https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/cooking-nutrient-content, dated 11/7/2019, the reference indicated, . The following nutrients are often reduced during cooking: water-soluble vitamins: vitamin C and the B vitamins - thiamine (B1), riboflavin (B2), niacin (B3), pantothenic acid (B5), pyridoxine (B6), folic acid (B9), and cobalamin (B12), fat-soluble vitamins: vitamins A, D, E, and K, and minerals: primarily potassium, magnesium, sodium, and calcium . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, FOOD PREPARATION SUBJECT: FOOD PREPARATION, dated 2018, the (P&P) indicated . Employees will prepare foods by methods that conserve nutrients, enhance flavor, and maintain attractive appearance . Standardized recipes will be used to ensure meals are attractive, palatable and provide necessary nutritive value .
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards for food safety guidelines were followed when: 1. [NAME] 2 touched the trash can then failed to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure professional standards for food safety guidelines were followed when: 1. [NAME] 2 touched the trash can then failed to wash hands and sanitized kitchen counters. 2. A measuring scoop was placed on a kitchen cart then placed in a plastic bin containing a food product without being sanitized. 3. Expired food items in the walk-in refrigerator, resident refrigerator, and dry storage room were not discarded. 4. Leftover potatoes were not cooled down properly. 5. Steam table pans, three frying pans, four cutting boards and a can opener blade were not safe for use. 6. A meat slicer, mixer, can opener and a weight scale were not clean. 7. Three food items in plastic bins were not labeled and did not have open dates. 8. Milk was stored in crates on the floor of the walk-in refrigerator. 9. More than five steam table pans were stored wet and not inverted. 10. Walk-in refrigerator door, knife rack and a plastic container with clean divided plates were not clean. 11. Two kitchen brooms were stored on the floor. 12. A beverage that belonged to an employee was stored in the walk-in freezer. 13. The ice machine did not have an air gap. These failures had the potential to cause foodborne illnesses in a medically vulnerable resident population of 76 residents who consumed food prepared in the kitchen. Findings: 1. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 8:25 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was washing steam table pans and placing them in the rinse sink. [NAME] 2 touched the trash can then grabbed a rag out of the sanitation bucket and started sanitizing the counter tops. [NAME] 2 then returned to the rinse sink and started removing the steam trays from the rinse sink. During an interview on 8/24/22, at 8:38 a.m., with [NAME] 2, [NAME] 2 stated, touching the trash can and then sanitizing counters was not the facility's process. [NAME] 2 stated, You need to wash your hands after touching the trash can. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 4:29 p.m., with Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), CDM stated, if kitchen staff touched a trash can they would need to wash their hands after. CDM stated, staff must wash hands anytime the hands become contaminated (having been made impure by exposure to something) to prevent cross contamination (the process by which bacteria or other microorganisms are unintentionally transferred from one thing to another with harmful effect). CDM stated, her last in-service on handwashing was in 2021. CDM stated, she did not have an in-service on handwashing for 2022. During a review of SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT HANDWASHING, dated 2018, the SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT HANDWASHING indicated, .When to wash hands . after handling carts, soiled dishes, before sanitizing carts and utensils . During a review of Class Attendance Roster, dated 2/3/2021, the Class Attendance Roster indicated, . Proper procedure of hand washing how often it should be done . Trainee Name [Cook 2] . During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: DISHWASHING PROCEDURES (DISHMACHINE), dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . the employee must wash hands thoroughly before handling clean dishes, trays and carts . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA [United States Food and Drug Administration] Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 2-301 . When to Wash, food employees shall clean their hands . after engaging in other activities that contaminate the hands . 2. During an interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., with CDM, CDM stated, it was the facility's practice to not store scoops inside bins. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 10:19 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was preparing to puree (a smooth creamy substance made of liquidized food) food items for the lunch meal on top of a cart. [NAME] 2 had a plastic bin that contained thickener (a substance added to a liquid to make it firmer) on the top of the cart. [NAME] 2 used a metal measuring scoop stored inside the plastic bin to scoop up the thickener. [NAME] 2 added thickener to the food multiple times. [NAME] 2 placed the measuring scoop on the top of the cart more than two times before placing it back into the plastic bin. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 3:10 p.m., with [NAME] 3, in the kitchen, there was a plastic bin containing thickener and a measuring scoop stored inside of it. [NAME] 3 stated, measuring cups should not be stored inside of the plastic bin. During a review of the facility's P&) titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: CLEANING SMALL APPLIANCES/EQUIPMENT, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . Food Storage Bins . The scoop should be stored outside the bins in a designated area . 3. During an observation on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., in the kitchen, there was a walk-in refrigerator and the dry storage room. The walk-in refrigerator had three bags of cabbage with expiration dates of 8/15/22. The dry storage room was 82 degrees and had five bags of corn tortillas with manufacture date of 5/23/22. The tortillas had no received date or expiration date on them . During an interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., with CDM, CDM stated, she did not know when the tortillas were received and would find the invoice for them. During an interview on 8/23/22, at 10:27 a.m., with CDM, CDM stated, the cabbage should have been discarded. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:35 a.m., with [NAME] 1, there were five bags of tortillas were stored in the dry storage room with a verified received date sticker of 8/17/22. [NAME] 1 stated, the process at the facility was food needed to be dated if it was removed from the box it came in. [NAME] 1 stated, the five bags of tortillas had received date of 8/17/22. [NAME] 1 stated, if tortillas were not dated, she would look at the facility's shelf-life (the length of time for which an item remains fit for consumption) list. [NAME] 1 stated, tortillas were not listed on the facility's shelf-life list. During an interview on 8/24/22, at 10:44 a.m., with CDM, CDM stated, the shelf life for corn tortillas was 45 days from the manufactures date per [brand name] website. CDM stated, that the tortillas were expired. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/22, at 12:01 p.m., with CDM, the INVOICE NO. 3132404 dated 8/2/22 was reviewed. The INVOICE NO. 3132404 indicated, . TORTILLA, CORN [WHITE] 6/60 EACH . [brand name] . CDM stated, she could not find any other invoice for tortillas. During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Commercially processed food . Marking the date or day the original container is opened in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, with a procedure to discard the FOOD on or before the last date or day by which the FOOD must be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded . During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 11:34 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, in station two medication room, there was a milk carton with an expiration date of 7/31/22 inside the resident (food storage) refrigerator. LVN 3 stated, expired food items should be thrown away. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, MEAL SERVICE SUBJECT: FOOD FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES, dated 2018, indicated, . All food brought in must be checked . with the resident's/patient's name and date on it . food that does not have a manufacturer's printed date must be thrown out 72 hours from the time it was brought in . 4. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:22 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, the walk-in refrigerator had a zip lock bag with sliced potatoes with a date that was not legible. CDM stated, the zip lock bag contained leftover cooked potatoes from 8/22/22. CDM stated, a resident requested cooked potatoes twice a day. During an interview on 8/24/22, at 3:10 p.m., with [NAME] 3, [NAME] 3 stated, the facility did not save leftovers. [NAME] 3 stated, the facility's process was not to re-heat food for safety reasons. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 9:36 a.m., with [NAME] 1, [NAME] 1 stated, the facility's practice was to prepare food same day the resident was eating it and not keep leftovers. [NAME] 1 stated, if the facility was to keep leftovers, a record of that food should be documented on the facility's cooling log. During an interview on 8/25/22, at 2:15 p.m., with Registered Dietician (RD) 1, RD 1 stated, she had not seen any leftovers kept at the facility. RD 1 stated, she was not aware facility was keeping leftovers. RD 1 stated, if facility was keeping leftovers the leftovers would need to be cool downed properly. During a review of the facility's document titled, COOLING/CHILLING TEMPERATURE CONTROL LOG,, dated 6/17/22 through 8/24/22, the COOLING/CHILLING TEMPERATURE CONTROL LOG indicated, no record of sliced potatoes. During a review of the facility's (P&P) titled, FOOD PREPARATION SUBJECT: FOOD PREPARATION, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . Leftovers must be refrigerated immediately utilizing cool down log, covered labeled and dated . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT USAGE AND STORAGE OF LEFTOVERS AND PRECOOKED ITEMS, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . Leftovers and precooked items will be placed in a shallow container to allow cooling to 41 [degrees] . Monitor precooked items by use of the Cooling/Chilling Temperature Control Log to ensure food is cooled to adequate temperature in the appropriate time periods . 5. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:22 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, there were more than five steam table pans with thick dark brown residue (amount of something that remains after the main part has gone or been used) on the inside and outside of the pans. Two small and a large frying pans had thick dark brown residue on the insides of the pans. Four cutting boards were heavily marred. The can opener blade was brown and worn. CDM stated, the pans with the dark brown residue were not acceptable to cook with and should be replaced. CDM stated, the cutting boards needed to be replaced. CDM stated, the can opener blade was worn and she would replace it. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 10:35 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, there was one rubber spatula with a chip in the rubber area. CDM stated, the spatulas needed to be discarded. During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . 4-202.11 Food-Contact Surfaces. (A) Multiuse FOOD- shall be: CONTACT SURFACES (1) SMOOTH; (2) Free of breaks, open seams, cracks, chips, inclusions, pits, and similar imperfections . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 4-501.12 Cutting Surfaces, surfaces such as cutting blocks that are subject to scratching and scoring [cut or scratch] shall be resurfaced if they can no longer be effectively cleaned and sanitized, or discarded if they are not capable of being resurfaced . 6. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, the meat slicer was covered with a plastic bag. CDM stated, if equipment was clean then it would be covered with a plastic bag. The bag covering the meat slicer was removed. The meat slicers' blade and grip had a brown sticky substance. CDM stated, the brown substance should not be on the meat slicer. CDM stated, the meat slicer was not cleaned appropriately. CDM stated, the meat slicer should be disassembled and sanitized. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:25 a.m., with CDM in the kitchen, the can opener blade was worn and brown. The can opener and can opener base had a brown sticky residue that transferred to the hand when touched. CDM stated, the can opener and can opener base was not clean and she would wash it. During a review of August 2022 DAILY CLEANING SCHEDULE SAMPLE FORM dated 8/1/22 through 8/14/22, the August 2022 DAILY CLEANING SCHEDULE SAMPLE FORM indicated, . ITEM . Slicer . RESPONSIBLE PARTY . Cooks . INITIALS AND DATE . Form was dated and signed off (documentation by staff that something was completed) for days 8/1/22 through 8/14/22. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, CONTROL SUBJECT: SANITIZING EQUIPMENT, FOOD AND UTILITY CARTS, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . All kitchen equipment and surfaces, which come in contact with food, will be cleaned and sanitized after each use . During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:55 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, the mixer was on the counter with a plastic bag covering it. CDM stated, clean equipment was covered with a plastic bag. The plastic bag was removed. The mixer had a white flakey residue on it. CDM stated, the mixer was not clean. During a review of facility document titled, August 2022 DAILY CLEANING SCHEDULE SAMPLE FORM, dated 8/1/22 through 8/14/22, the August 2022 DAILY CLEANING SCHEDULE SAMPLE FORM indicated, . ITEM . Mixer . RESPONSIBLE PARTY . Cooks . INITIALS AND DATE . Form was dated and signed off for days 8/1/22 through 8/14/22 . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: CLEANING SMALL APPLIANCES/EQUIPMENT, dated 2018, indicated, . Mixers will be cleaned and sanitized after each use . During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 10:15 a.m., with the CDM, in the kitchen, a rubber spatula with food residue was seen with a melted handle. The CDM stated the rubber spatula was dirty and handle not cleanable and would be discarded. During a review of USFDA 2017 Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surfaces, and Utensils (A): Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils shall be clean to sight and touch . During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 8:34 a.m., with Dietary Aid (DA) 2, in the kitchen, a plate was seen on the plate warmer with a orange residue. DA 2 stated, the plate warmer was an area for clean plates. DA 2 stated, the plate with the orange residue was not clean. DA 2 removed the plate from the plate warmer . During an interview on 8/25/22, at 4:29 p.m., with CDM, CDM stated, dishware with food debris was not be clean and should be washed again. CDM stated, dirty dishware should not be placed with clean dishware. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT DISHWASHING PROCEDURES (DISHMACHINE), dated 2018, indicated, . All the dishes should be inspected after coming out of dish-machine and if the dishes are not clean then they should be washed again in the dish-machine . During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 10:15 a.m., with [NAME] 2, in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was slicing meat on the meat slicer. [NAME] 2 weighed the slice of meat on a scale. [NAME] 2 stated, she was slicing turkey for the lunch meal. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:33 a.m., with [NAME] 2, in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 opened a drawer attached to the counter. [NAME] 2 stated, the drawer contained the scale she used the day before to weigh meat. The weigh scale in the drawer had a sticky residue. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:35 a.m., with [NAME] 1, in the kitchen, a food weight scale had sticky residue on it. [NAME] 1 stated, when the scale is stored in the drawer it should be stored clean. [NAME] 1 stated, the scale was not clean and was sticky. [NAME] 1 removed the weigh scale from the drawer and started cleaning it. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, FOOD PREPARATION SUBJECT: FOOD PREPARATION, dated 2018, the P&P indicated, . utensils and equipment will be cleaned and sanitized after each use . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 4-601.11 Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surfaces, and Utensils (A): Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils shall be clean to sight and touch . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . 4-602.13 Non FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be cleaned at a frequency necessary to preclude accumulation of soil residues . 7. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:22 a.m., with CDM, in the dry storeroom, a plastic bin of brown rice was not labeled or had a date listed. A plastic bin of dried potato was not labeled or dated. CDM stated, she was unable to find a label or date for the brown rice or dried potato. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 10:37 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, a clear plastic bin was seen with a white substance inside. The bin had no label or date on it. CDM stated, the white substance inside the bin was thickener. CDM stated, the bin should have been labeled and dated. During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Commercially processed food . Marking the date or day the original container is opened in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, with a procedure to discard the FOOD on or before the last date or day by which the FOOD must be consumed on the premises, sold, or discarded . 8. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., with CDM, in the walk-in refrigerator, crates used to store milk were on the floor. CDM stated, it was the facility's practice to store the milk in crates on the floor . During a review of professional reference titled, USDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USDA Food Code indicated, . Section 3-305.11, Foods should be stored six inches above the floor . 9. During an observation on 8/24/22, at 8:25 a.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 was washing steam table pans and placing them in the rinse side of the sink. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 8:57 a.m., with [NAME] 2, in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 placed a group of washed stacked steam table pans on a clean rack. The seven steam table pans were wet, stacked together and not inverted. One of the seven pans had food debris. [NAME] 2 stated, the practice was to air dry the steam table pans and store them inverted once they were dry. [NAME] 2 stated, the steam table pans were not stored correctly. [NAME] 2 stated, she usually stored them inverted. [NAME] 2 stated, one of the steam table pans was not clean. [NAME] 2 removed the seven pans from the clean rack . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL SUBJECT: DISHWASHING PROCEDURES (DISHMACHINE), dated 2018, indicated, . All dishes should be inspected after coming out of the dish-machine and if the dishes are not clean then they should be washed again in the dish-machine. Allow racks of dishes .,to air dry . Do not rack and stack wet dishes . allow dishes to drain thoroughly and air dry after washing . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 4-601.11 Equipment, Food- Contact Surfaces, Nonfood Contact Surface, and Utensils, the food- contact surfaces of cooking equipment and pans shall be kept free of encrusted grease deposits and other soil accumulations; Nonfood- contact surface of equipment shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, food residue, and other debris . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 4-901.11, Equipment and Utensils, Air Drying Required, after cleaning and sanitizing, equipment and utensils: (A) Shall be air-dried . 10. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:24 a.m., with CDM, in the kitchen, there was a black sticky substance on the walk-in refrigerator door. The black sticky substance obscured (keep from being seen) the color and texture of the door. CDM stated the walk-in door was not clean. CDM stated, the walk-in door should be cleaned. The walk-in refrigerator had food debris, a package of (brand name) snacks and food wrappers on the floor under the racks. CDM stated, the floor should be free of trash and food. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 8:36 a.m., with DA 1, in the kitchen, a plastic container containing clean divided plates had food debris and white/yellowish dried substance at the bottom of the container. DA 1 stated, the container was used to store clean divided plates. DA 1 stated, the container was not clean. DA 1 stated, the facility's practice was to clean the plastic container every couple of days. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/24/22, at 9:33 a.m., with [NAME] 1, in the kitchen, the knife rack had white, beige and brown particles on the top of it. Knives were stored on the rack. [NAME] 1 stated, the knife rack was used to store clean knives. [NAME] 1 stated, the rack was not clean. [NAME] 1 stated, it should have been wiped and sanitized . During an interview on 8/25/22, at 4:29 p.m., with the CDM, the CDM stated, dishware with food debris was not clean and should be washed again. CDM stated, dirty items should not be placed with clean dishware. During a review of professional reference titled, USDA Food code, dated 2017, the USDA food Code indicated, . 4-602.13 Non FOOD-CONTACT SURFACES of EQUIPMENT shall be cleaned at a frequency necessary to preclude accumulation of soil residues . 11. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:22 a.m., with CDM, in the sanitation closet, two brooms were touching the floor. CDM stated ,the brooms should not be on the floor. CDM stated, the brooms should be hung up so they do not touch the floor . During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . 501.113 Storing Maintenance Tools . Maintenance tools such as brooms, mops, vacuum cleaners, and similar items shall be: (A)Stored so they do not contaminate FOOD, EQUIPMENT,UTENSILS, LINENS, and SINGLE-SERVICE and SINGLE-USE ARTICLES; and (B) Stored in an orderly manner that facilitates cleaning the area used for storing the maintenance tools . 12. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 8:22 a.m., with CDM, in the walk-in freezer, a white foam cup containing a beverage without a date was on a shelf. CDM stated, the cup belonged to an employee and should not have been stored in the walk-in freezer. During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 6-403.11 Designated Areas, (B) - lockers or suitable facilities are to be located in a designated area where contamination of food, equipment, utensils cannot occur . 13. During an observation on 8/32/22, at 9:21 a.m., in the kitchen, the ice machine had 3 pipes underneath for drainage. One of three pipes was below the flood level. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/23/22, at 9:52 a.m., in the kitchen, the ice machines had 3 pipes for drainage. Maintenance Technician (MT) stated, the ice machine should have an air gap (an amount of space that separates a water line from an ice machine drain to a sewer). MT looked under the ice machine. MT stated, one of the pipes was below the flood level and should be cut. During a review of the professional reference titled, USFDA Food Code, dated 2017, the USFDA Food Code indicated, . Section 5-202.13 Backflow Prevention, Air Gap, an air gap between the water supply inlet and the flood level rim of the plumbing fixture, equipment, or nonfood equipment, shall be at least twice the diameter of the water supply inlet and may not be less than 25 mm (1 inch) .
Aug 2019 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the consulting pharmacist conducted a drug reg...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the consulting pharmacist conducted a drug regimen review at least once a month, identified and report any irregularities to the attending physician, the facility's medical director and director of nursing for 2 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 39 and Resident 66) when Resident 39 and Resident 66 prn (as needed) psychotropic (medications that affect a person's mental state) medications were not reviewed, identified and reported as exceeding the 14 day limit. These failures placed Resident 39 and Resident 66 at risk for receiving unnecessary medications, and increasing their risk to experience unnecessary side effects. Findings: 1. During an observation on 7/30/19, at 10:08 AM, down the hallway from Resident 39's room, Resident 39 could be heard making repetitive statements and noises which continued even when staff entered the resident's room. During an observation and concurrent interview with Resident 39, on 7/30/19, at 10:30 AM, she was lying on her left side with the bed in a low position. Resident 39 stated huge flies were in the room and were deliberately coming after her. Resident 39 stated the staff did not care. Resident 39 stated she wanted a fly swatter, became increasingly agitated and angry. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 39, the facesheet (a document with personal information) undated, indicated Resident 39 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia (a disorder of the mental processes caused by brain disease or injury marked by memory disorders, impaired reasoning), anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, unspecified psychosis (a severe mental disorder resulting in a loss of contact with reality), and palliative (specialized medical care for people living with a serious illness) care. Resident 39's physician orders dated 9/21/17, indicated she was admitted to hospice services (end of life services). During a review of the clinical record for Resident 39, the physician orders dated 8/9/18, indicated Lorazepam [a medication for anxiety] Concentrate 2 MG [milligrams-a unit measurement of mass]/ML [a unit of liquid volume] Give 0.5 ml by mouth every 6 hours as needed for increased agitation, restlessness. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 8/01/19, at 2:20 PM, he reviewed Resident 39's clinical record and stated the physician's order for Lorazepam was not limited to a 14-day limit. The DON stated the medication Lorazepam was ordered on 8/9/18 without a time limited date. The DON reviewed the clinical record and was unable to find physician documented rational for the medication to be extended beyond the 14-day limit. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 39, the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 12/2018 through 7/2019, indicated Resident 39 was administered Lorazepam 0.5 mg tablet prn over a 7-month period as follows: 1. December 2018: 9 times in 31 days 2. January 2019: 4 times in 31 days 3. February 2019: 1 time in 28 days. 4. March 2019: 7 times in 31 days. 5. April 2019: 14 times in 30 days. 6. May 2019: 9 times in 31 days. 7. June 2019: 5 times in 30 days. 8. July 2019: 8 times in 31 days. 2. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 66, the facesheet (a document with personal information) undated, indicated Resident 66 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included a urinary tract infection, anxiety disorder, and a pressure injury (a localized damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence). Resident 66's physician orders dated 6/21/19, indicated ALPRAZolam [a medication to treat anxiety] Tablet 0.25 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for anxiety m/b [manifested by] expressions of health related concerns. During an interview with the DON, on 8/01/19, at 3:03 PM, he reviewed Resident 66's clinical record and stated the physician's order for Alprazolam 0.25 mg was ordered on 6/21/19 and was not time limit to 14 days. The DON reviewed the clinical record and was unable to find physician documented rational for the medication to be extended beyond the 14-day limit. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 66, Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 6/2019 through 7/2019, indicated Resident 39 was administered Alprazolam 0.25 mg tablet prn from 6/21/19 through 7/31/19 as follows: 1. June 2019: 8 times in 10 days 2. July 2019: 41 times in 31 days During a telephone interview with the Consultant Pharmacist (CP), on 8/2/19, at 11:58 a.m., the CP stated she reviewed the prn psychotropic medications, but residents who were receiving hospice services have a physician who assigns and monitors those psychotropic she does not do that. The CP stated she was aware of the regulation for a 14-day time limit on prn psychotropic medications except if the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes that it was appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, he or she should document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order. The CP stated she did not routinely review residents receiving hospice ordered medications like Resident 39. The CP stated Resident 66 was on Alprazolam as needed and had no time limit of 14 days, Not sure why I did not see that. The facility policy and procedure titled PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC [agents used to treat a group of mental disorders] DRUG MANAGEMENT dated 3/2010, indicated .To provide a therapeutic environment using only those medications with therapeutic value to the individual resident. Unnecessary drugs shall be avoided .The physician shall follow the OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act- federal standards for nursing homes] guidelines for psychotherapeutic medications .the facility pharmacist shall review the monthly psychoactive [affecting the mind or behavior] summary and make recommendations as appropriate .
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

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 2 of 8 sampled residents (Resident 39 and Resi...

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 8 sampled residents (Resident 39 and Resident 66) were free of unnecessary medications when their prn (as needed) psychotropic (medications that affect a person's mental state) medications were not limited to 14 days and there was no documented rationale for the continued psychotropic medication use by their physician. This failure resulted in the failure to assess the need for psychotropic medication use and placed Resident 39 and Resident 66 at risk for unnecessary mediations and placed them at risk for unnecessary side effects. Findings: 1. During an observation on 7/30/19, at 10:08 AM, down the hallway from Resident 39's room, Resident 39 could be heard making repetitive statements and noises which continued even when staff entered the resident's room. During an observation and concurrent interview with Resident 39, on 7/30/19, at 10:30 AM, she was lying on her left side with the bed in a low position. Resident 39 stated huge flies were in the room and were deliberately coming after her. Resident 39 stated the staff did not care. Resident 39 stated she wanted a fly swatter, became increasingly agitated and angry. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 39, the facesheet (a document with personal information) undated, indicated Resident 39 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included dementia (a disorder of the mental processes caused by brain disease or injury marked by memory disorders, impaired reasoning), anxiety disorder, depressive disorder, unspecified psychosis (a severe mental disorder resulting in a loss of contact with reality), and palliative (specialized medical care for people living with a serious illness) care. Resident 39's physician orders dated 9/21/17, indicated she was admitted to hospice services (end of life services). During a review of the clinical record for Resident 39, the physician orders dated 8/9/18, indicated Lorazepam [a medication for anxiety] Concentrate 2 MG [milligrams-a unit measurement of mass]/ML [a unit of liquid volume] Give 0.5 ml by mouth every 6 hours as needed for increased agitation, restlessness. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 8/01/19, at 2:20 PM, he reviewed Resident 39's clinical record and stated the physician's order for Lorazepam was not limited to a 14-day limit. The DON stated the medication Lorazepam was ordered on 8/9/18 without a time limited date. The DON reviewed the clinical record and was unable to find physician documented rational for the medication to be extended beyond the 14-day limit. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 39, the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 12/2018 through 7/2019, indicated Resident 39 was administered Lorazepam 0.5 mg tablet prn over a 7-month period as follows: 1. December 2018: 9 times in 31 days 2. January 2019: 4 times in 31 days 3. February 2019: 1 time in 28 days. 4. March 2019: 7 times in 31 days. 5. April 2019: 14 times in 30 days. 6. May 2019: 9 times in 31 days. 7. June 2019: 5 times in 30 days. 8. July 2019: 8 times in 31 days. 2. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 66, the facesheet (a document with personal information) undated, indicated Resident 66 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses which included a urinary tract infection, anxiety disorder, and a pressure injury (a localized damage to the skin and underlying soft tissue usually over a bony prominence). Resident 66's physician orders dated 6/21/19, indicated ALPRAZolam [a medication to treat anxiety] Tablet 0.25 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours as needed for anxiety m/b [manifested by] expressions of health related concerns. During an interview with the DON, on 8/01/19, at 3:03 PM, he reviewed Resident 66's clinical record and stated the physician's order for Alprazolam 0.25 mg was ordered on 6/21/19 and was not time limit to 14 days. The DON reviewed the clinical record and was unable to find physician documented rational for the medication to be extended beyond the 14-day limit. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 66, Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 6/2019 through 7/2019, indicated Resident 39 was administered Alprazolam 0.25 mg tablet prn from 6/21/19 through 7/31/19 as follows: 1. June 2019: 8 times in 10 days 2. July 2019: 41 times in 31 days During a telephone interview with the Consultant Pharmacist (CP), on 8/2/19, at 11:58 a.m., the CP stated she reviewed the prn psychotropic medications, but residents who were receiving hospice services have a physician who assigns and monitors those psychotropic she does not do that. The CP stated she was aware of the regulation for a 14-day time limit on prn psychotropic medications except if the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes that it was appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, he or she should document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order. The CP stated she did not routinely review residents receiving hospice ordered medications. The CP stated Resident 66 was on Alprazolam as needed and had no time limit of 14 days, Not sure why I did not see that. The facility policy and procedure titled PSYCHOTHERAPEUTIC [agents used to treat a group of mental disorders] DRUG MANAGEMENT dated 3/2010, indicated .To provide a therapeutic environment using only those medications with therapeutic value to the individual resident. Unnecessary drugs shall be avoided .The physician shall follow the OBRA [Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act- federal standards for nursing homes] guidelines for psychotherapeutic medications .the facility pharmacist shall review the monthly psychoactive [affecting the mind or behavior] summary and make recommendations as appropriate .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to accommodate resident meal preferences for one of three sampled residents (Resident 46) when Resident 46 requested peanut butter and jelly (P...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to accommodate resident meal preferences for one of three sampled residents (Resident 46) when Resident 46 requested peanut butter and jelly (PBJ) sandwiches daily and were not provided. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 46's lack of pleasure in eating which could result in unplanned weight loss. Findings: During a Resident Council Group interview, at 7/31/19, at 9:31 a.m., Resident 46 stated she liked PBJ sandwich. Resident 46 stated she would frequently request a PBJ sandwich from the staff but did not receive it. Resident 46 stated she had not had a PBJ sandwich in a long time and would really like one. During an interview with Resident 46, on 7/31/19, at 4:05 p.m., in residents' room, Resident 46 stated she would really like a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. Resident 46 stated she has frequently requested PBJ sandwiches and has not received a PBJ sandwich since she was admitted to the facility. Resident 46 stated she would really like a PBJ sandwich for lunch. Resident 46 stated she was sure she asked multiple Certified Nurse Assistant (CNAs) but she was unsure if she had asked the kitchen staff. Resident 46 stated, I don't think it is a hard thing to make . I used to eat [PBJ] at home all the time. During a review of the clinical record for Resident 46 the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessment (a standardized comprehensive assessment and care planning tool) Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - assessment of mental status) dated 6/18/19, indicated, BIMS summary score 13 which indicated Resident 46 was cognitively intact. During a concurrent interview and record review with Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), on 7/31/19, at 4:10 p.m., the DSS reviewed Resident 46 document titled Dietary Profile and lunch meal tray ticket which indicated . PB&J sandwich daily . The DSS stated she did not have a way of knowing when the order was entered into the system or how long ago the request for PBJ sandwiches was made. The DSS stated both her and the Assistant Dietary Services Supervisor (ADSS) were the individuals responsible for entering resident food preferences into the computer system. During an interview with CNA 4, on 8/1/19, at 8:29 a.m., CNA 4 stated she did not remember if Resident 46 had asked her for a PBJ sandwich in the past. CNA 4 stated Resident 46 likes hot tea with sugar in the morning but does not eat anything for breakfast. CNA 4 stated she did not remember seeing a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on Resident 46's lunch tray. During an interview with CNA 5, on 8/1/19, at 8:35 a.m., CNA 5 stated she worked in the facility for two years and had cared for Resident 46 but did not recall if Resident 46 had asked her for a PBJ sandwich in the past. CNA 5 stated she had not seen a peanut butter and jelly sandwich on Resident 46's lunch tray. During an interview with License Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, on 8/1/19, at 8:38 a.m., the LVN 3 stated he takes care of resident 46 and had not heard or seen Resident 46 get a peanut butter and jelly sandwich at lunch time. During an interview with [NAME] 1, on 8/1/19, at 9:19 a.m., [NAME] 1 stated CNAs or nurses can take a slip to the kitchen at least one hour and 30 minutes ahead of time if residents had a special meal substitute request. [NAME] 1 stated she would make sandwiches for residents but the request was usually for a turkey sandwich. [NAME] 1 stated she did not remember making peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch for Resident 46. [NAME] 1 stated she made peanut butter and jelly sandwiches for snacks not for a meal period. During an interview with DSS and ADSS, on 8/1/19, at 9:27 a.m., the DSS and ADSS stated they were not sure when the order for peanut butter and jelly sandwich daily for Resident 46 was entered into the meal tray ticket system. During an interview with the Registered Dietitian (RD), on 8/1/19, at 11:05 a.m., the RD stated she reviewed preferences annually and talked to the residents. RD stated, Resident preferences should be honored if a reasonable request. The facility policy and procedure titled NUTRITION CARE RESIDENT/PATIENT FOOD PREFERENCES dated 2018, indicated . The resident/patient food preferences should be placed on the profile card and identified on the tray card. 3. The food preferences should be minimally reviewed quarterly with the resident/patient by the DSS and as needed with a clinical risk .
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed when: 1. An incorrect scoop was used to serve the pureed bread on 7/30/19 during the lunch meal se...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed when: 1. An incorrect scoop was used to serve the pureed bread on 7/30/19 during the lunch meal service for 13 of 13 sampled residents (Resident 57, 40, 11, 427, 8, 41, 428, 4, 22, 44, 21, 19 and 39) on the pureed diet; 2. [NAME] 1 served 1/4 cup of potatoes instead of 1/3 cup to residents on the Consistent Carbohydrate (CCHO) diet on 7/31/19 during the lunch meal service for 31 of 31 sampled residents (Resident 380, 37, 29, 279, 426, 35, 3, 16, 376, 28, 45, 8, 277, 67, 67, 428, 56, 278, 61, 22, 43, 5, 74, 68, 73, 19, 429, 64, 71, 430, 58 and 75) on the CCHO diet; 3. The large portion diet for Resident 377 was not followed. These failures had the potential to result in resident's receiving larger food portions than prescribed by their physician which could lead to unplanned weight gain and further compromise their medical status. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation of the lunch meal service and interview with [NAME] 1, on 7/30/19, at 12:10 p.m., there was a #16 scoop (1/4 cup) in the puree bread sitting on the side next to the oven/stove. [NAME] 1 stated the #16 scoop would be used to serve the puree bread. During a review of the lunch menu titled SUMMER MENUS week 4 Tuesday undated, indicated for the puree diet . wheat roll [scoop size] #12 . During a concurrent interview and record with [NAME] 1, on 7/30/19, at 1:12 p.m., once the lunch meal service was completed, [NAME] 1 stated the scoop in the puree bread was #16. [NAME] 1 reviewed the menu and confirmed she should have used the #12 scoop. [NAME] 1 stated, I thought bread was a #16 scoop but I guess I was wrong. During a review of the diet list, the list indicated the facility had 13 residents on the puree diet and all 13 residents received the incorrect portion size. 2. During a review of the lunch menu, titled Summer Menus Week 4 Wednesday, the menu indicated the following for the regular CCHO (Consistent Carbohydrate) diet: 3 ounces of Fish Italiano, 1 tablespoon of Tartar sauce, 1/4 cup (#16 scoop) of Scalloped potatoes, ½ cup (#8 scoop) Italian Herb Vegetables, ½ cup red and green salad, 1/2-ounce dressing, diet peach crisp 2 x 2-1/2, 4 ounces' milk. During an observation of the lunch meal service in the presence of the Registered Dietitian (RD) 2, on 7/31/19, at 12:35 p.m., the tray line food service area was observed with a #12 (1/3 cup), #16 (1/4 cup) and #8 (1/2 cup) scoop available near the potatoes. [NAME] 1 was observed serving the potatoes using the #12 scoop to all 31 residents on the CCHO diet during the meal service. During an interview with [NAME] 1 in presence of RD 2 at the end of the lunch meal service, on 7/31/19, at 1:35 p.m., she confirmed she used the #12 scoop for the potatoes for CCHO diet. A concurrent review of the menu in the presence of RD 2, indicated the CCHO should have been served using a #16 scoop (1/4 cup). [NAME] 1 acknowledged the incorrect scoop size was used to serve the residents on the CCHO diet. During a review of the diet list, revised date 7/31/19, indicated the facility had 31 residents on a CCHO diet and all 31 residents received the incorrect portion size. 3. During a concurrent observation of the lunch meal service, interview, and record review on 7/30/19, at 12:50 p.m., [NAME] 1 was observed serving two scoops of a #10 scoop (3.25 ounces) of mechanical soft turkey on plate for Resident 377. During a review of the tray ticket for Resident 377 indicated large protein mechanical soft. During a review of lunch menu titled SUMMER MENUS week 4 Tuesday, indicated for the Mechanical Soft Large portion .Roast Turkey .#10 . The Dietary Service Supervisor (DSS) stated Resident 377 should have received one scoop #10 and not two scoops. During a concurrent interview with RD 2 and review of the lunch menu, on 7/31/19, at 9:55 a.m., he confirmed the large portion diet served yesterday should have received the same protein portion as the regular portion for yesterday's lunch. During an interview with the RD 2, at 8/01/19, at 10:59 a.m., the RD 2 stated her expectation was for the cook to follow diet portions shown on the spreadsheet for the different diets.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an antibiotic stewardship program designed to reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for three of three sampled residents (Resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an antibiotic stewardship program designed to reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics for three of three sampled residents (Resident 5, Resident 23 and Resident 42) when the facility failed to inform the physicians for Resident 5, Resident 23 and Resident 42 who were prescribed antibiotics but whose signs and symptoms did not meet McGeer's Criteria (a guideline set of signs and symptoms to identify if a suspected infection meet the criteria of a true infection and requires antibiotic treatment). These failures posed the risk of Resident 5, Resident 23 and Resident 42's continued use of inappropriate antibiotics and developing antibiotic-resistant organisms. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), on 8/2/19, at 9:48 a.m., the DSD stated she was the individual responsible for the facility's infection control and antibiotic stewardship program. The DSD stated she completed a surveillance checklist for each resident who was ordered antibiotics to determine if the infection met McGeer's Criteria for the use of the antibiotic. The DSD stated if the resident's infection signs and symptoms did not meet McGeer's infection Criteria, the physician would be notified in a timely manner to give him or her the opportunity to determine if the antibiotic was necessary. The DSD stated she collected and analyzed data to track and trend infections and reported the results to the Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI) committee. During a review of the monthly Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log dated from April 2019 through June 2019, the infection surveillance log indicated the following number of residents were prescribed antibiotics and did not meet McGeer's infection criteria for continued use of the prescribed antibiotic: April 2019 - one resident (Resident 23), for May - one resident (Resident 5), and for June 2019 - one resident (Resident 42). During a concurrent interview and record review with the DSD, on 8/2/19, at 9:52 a.m., she stated licensed nurses and herself were responsible to notify the physicians and document the notification in the resident's chart when an infection did not meet McGeers infection criteria. The DSD stated there was no documentation to reflect the physicians for Resident 5, Resident 23 and Resident 42 were notified about the residents infections not meeting the McGeer's infection criteria and the overuse of antibiotic. The DSD stated she had not notified the prescribing physicians the residents clinical symptoms did not meet McGeer's Criteria. The DSD confirmed the physicians were not being notified. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), unnecessary antibiotic use promotes development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Every time a person takes antibiotics, sensitive bacteria are killed, but resistant germs may be left to grow and multiply. Repeated and improper use of antibiotics is the primary cause of the increase in drug-resistant bacteria. The CDC also insists regular reporting on antibiotic use and resistance to relevant staff such as prescribing clinician and nursing staff as part of their antibiotic stewardship. The facility policy and procedure titled, Antibiotic Stewardship - Review and Surveillance of Antibiotic Use and Outcomes dated 12/16, indicated .the IP, or designee, will review antibiotic utilization as part of the antibiotic stewardship program and identify specific situations that are not consistent with the appropriate use of antibiotics .at the conclusion of the review, the provider will be notified of the review findings .
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure their kitchen utensils were stored in a clean bin in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure their kitchen utensils were stored in a clean bin in accordance with professional standards for food service safety for all residents, staff and visitors who were served food from the kitchen, when three clear utensil storage bins with scoops, spoodles, spatulas and cooking utensils contained dried food crumbs and dried food particles. This failure had the potential to result in unsafe sanitation practices that could lead to food contamination and the growth of microorganisms for all residents who are served food from the kitchen. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview with [NAME] 1, on 7/30/19, at 8:43 a.m., three clear storage bins with scoops, spoodles, spatulas and cooking utensils contained dried food crumbs and dried food particles inside. [NAME] 1 confirmed the clean utensils were stored with dry food particles and crumbs inside the plastic storage bins. [NAME] 1 stated the three clear utensil storage bins with dried food particles were dirty and utensils should always be stored in clean containers. [NAME] 1 stated the utensil plastic containers were cleaned only once a week. During a concurrent observation, interview and record review with the Dietary Service Supervisor (DSS), on 7/30/19, at 10:16 a.m., the DSS confirmed the utensil plastic bins with kitchen utensil contained dried food crumbs and dried food particles. The DSS stated the plastic bins should be cleaned weekly. The DSS reviewed the facility record titled WEEKLY CLEANING SCHEDULE undated, . Prep area, WK1- 7/1/19, WK2- 7/7/19, WK3- 7/20/19, WK4- 7/26/19, WK5- 7/29/19 . The DSS stated according to the schedule the clear plastic bins were cleaned 7/29/19. The DSS stated the staff obviously did not clean it [plastic bins]. During an interview with the Registered Dietitian (RD), on 8/1/19, at 10:59 a.m., the RD stated she conducts the sanitation reviews and checks equipment making sure things are clean and organized. RD stated the bins should be clean and sanitized where utensils are stored. The facility policy and procedure titled SANITATION AND INFECTION CONTROL dated 2018, indicated .Sanitation and infection control measures will be followed to ensure resident/patients and staff receives safe food and water . Employees must follow specific procedures in all areas listed below to ensure the department operates under sanitary conditions on a daily basis . According to the 2017 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, Section 4-903.11 Equipment, Utensils, Linens, and Single-Service and Single-Use Articles, cleaned utensils shall be stored in a clean, dry location.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a facility wide assessment specific to the facility needs when the facility assessment did not include a water management plan. Thi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a facility wide assessment specific to the facility needs when the facility assessment did not include a water management plan. This practice failed to establish an individualized facility assessment to meet the requirement for a water management plan which had the potential for waterborne bacteria exposure to the residents including Legionella (disease is a severe form of pneumonia - lung inflammation usually caused by infection, caused by bacterium known as legionella, most people get legionnaires' disease from inhaling the bacteria in showers, water faucets, water fountain) in an event of an outbreak. Findings: During a concurrent interview with the Administrator and record review, on 8/2/19, at 1:51 p.m., the Administrator reviewed the facility document titled, Facility Assessment dated 11/29/18, and stated the facility assessment did not contain information regarding the facility's need for a water management program. The Administrator stated the water management plan was not addressed in the facility assessment. Professional references CMS Quality, Safety & Oversight (QSO) letter dated and revised 7/6/18, indicated, Expectations for Healthcare Facilities: CMS expects Medicare and Medicare/Medicaid certified healthcare facilities to have water management policies and procedures to reduce the risk of growth and spread of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in building water systems. Facilities must have water management plans and documentation that, at a minimum, ensure each facility: 1) Conducts a facility risk assessment to identify where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens .could grow and spread in the facility water system. 2) Develops and implements a water management program that considers the [American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning] ASHRAE industry standard and the [Centers for Disease Control] CDC tool kit. 3) Specifies testing protocols and acceptable ranges for control measures, and document the results of testing and corrective actions taken when control limits are maintained. 4) Maintains compliance with other applicable Federal, State and local requirements .
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program when the facility water management plan was not created and/or implemented t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an effective infection prevention and control program when the facility water management plan was not created and/or implemented to reduce the risk of Legionella (a waterborne bacteria) and/or other waterborne bacteria. This failure resulted in the facility not having a water management program which had the potential to expose the vulnerable residents of the facility to Legionella and other harmful waterborne bacteria. Findings: During an interview with the Environmental Director (ED), on 8/2/19, at 11:22 a.m., she stated the facility did not have a water management program to ensure the safety of water which included an assessment to ensure the growth and development of waterborne pathogens did not occur in the facility. During an interview with the Administrator, on 8/2/19, at 2:01 p.m., he stated the facility's risk assessment did not include a water management program to address the potential for Legionnaires' disease (a severe, often lethal, form of pneumonia [lung inflammation caused by bacterial, in which the lung air sacs fill with pus], caused by the bacterium Legionella pneumophila found in both potable (drinkable) and non-potable water systems [showers, sinks and water fountains]). The Administrator stated the facility's risk assessment to not identify a water management program. The Administrator stated they did not develop or implement a policy for the prevention of Legionella. Professional references CMS Quality, Safety & Oversight (QSO) letter dated and revised 7/6/18, indicated, Expectations for Healthcare Facilities: CMS expects Medicare and Medicare/Medicaid certified healthcare facilities to have water management policies and procedures to reduce the risk of growth and spread of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in building water systems. Facilities must have water management plans and documentation that, at a minimum, ensure each facility: 1) Conducts a facility risk assessment to identify where Legionella and other opportunistic waterborne pathogens .could grow and spread in the facility water system. 2) Develops and implements a water management program that considers the [American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning] ASHRAE industry standard and the [Centers for Disease Control] CDC tool kit. 3) Specifies testing protocols and acceptable ranges for control measures, and document the results of testing and corrective actions taken when control limits are maintained. 4) Maintains compliance with other applicable Federal, State and local requirements .
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?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 32% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $57,093 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 50 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $57,093 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in California. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (3/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 3/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Sierra Vista Healthcare's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns SIERRA VISTA HEALTHCARE an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Sierra Vista Healthcare Staffed?

CMS rates SIERRA VISTA HEALTHCARE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 32%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Sierra Vista Healthcare?

State health inspectors documented 50 deficiencies at SIERRA VISTA HEALTHCARE during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, and 46 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 Sierra Vista Healthcare?

SIERRA VISTA HEALTHCARE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by ASPEN SKILLED HEALTHCARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 91 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in FRESNO, California.

How Does Sierra Vista Healthcare Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, SIERRA VISTA HEALTHCARE's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (32%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Sierra Vista Healthcare?

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?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Sierra Vista Healthcare Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, SIERRA VISTA HEALTHCARE has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 1-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 Sierra Vista Healthcare Stick Around?

SIERRA VISTA HEALTHCARE has a staff turnover rate of 32%, which is about average for California nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Sierra Vista Healthcare Ever Fined?

SIERRA VISTA HEALTHCARE has been fined $57,093 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the California average of $33,650. 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 Sierra Vista Healthcare on Any Federal Watch List?

SIERRA VISTA HEALTHCARE 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.