GILROY HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER

8170 MURRAY AVENUE, GILROY, CA 95020 (408) 842-9311
For profit - Limited Liability company 134 Beds COVENANT CARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
18/100
#802 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: June 2025

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

Overview

Gilroy Healthcare and Rehabilitation Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranking #802 out of 1155 facilities in California places it in the bottom half, while its county rank of #39 out of 50 suggests that only a few local options are better. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues rising from 1 in 2024 to 16 in 2025. Although staffing is a relative strength with a 4 out of 5 rating and a 35% turnover rate (better than the state average), the facility has accumulated concerning fines totaling $103,645, which is higher than 88% of California facilities. There are serious issues to note from recent inspections: a resident fell and suffered a hip fracture after being left unsupervised in the restroom despite a care plan requiring assistance, and the facility failed to ensure that 67 residents were adequately monitored while on certain medications, which carry significant risks. Overall, while there are some strengths in staffing, the critical incidents and overall poor ratings suggest families should proceed with caution when considering this facility.

Trust Score
F
18/100
In California
#802/1155
Bottom 31%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 16 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
35% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$103,645 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 34 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for California. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
34 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 16 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (35%)

    13 points below California average of 48%

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

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 35%

11pts below California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $103,645

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

Chain: COVENANT CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 34 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jun 2025 16 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review , the facility failed to ensure 67 out of 67 residents (residents who received Levaquin [a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review , the facility failed to ensure 67 out of 67 residents (residents who received Levaquin [a brand name for levofloxacin, a type of antibiotic known as fluoroquinolone used to treat bacterial infections] and Metformin [a medication that helps control the amount of glucose (sugar) in the blood]) (Residents 392, 389, 122, 130, 127, 124, 383, 393, 132, 83, 126, 391, 125, 129, 388, 68, 7, 10, 82, 52, 41, 394, 123, 390, 70, 384, 21, 387, 133, 93, 74, 385, 326, 381, 103, 47, 377, 222, 89, 49, 46, 106, 131, 323, 16, 22, 33, 63, 50, 23, 386, 128, 111, 322, 4, 71, 80, 99, 15, 382, 2, 64, 26, 17, 380, 90, and 65) were free from unnecessary medications when there was inadequate monitoring and systemic failure in management of residents on medications with black box warning (BBW, is the strongest warning the Food and Drug Administration [FDA-it is a federal agency responsible for protecting and promoting public health by regulating and supervising food safety, medications, medical devices, cosmetics, and other products] gives for prescription drugs. It highlights serious or life-threatening risks associated with a medication, signaling to healthcare professionals and patients that they should be aware of potential dangers and use the drug with caution) like Levaquin and Metformin. They are as follows: 1. During a record review of the pharmacy list of residents who had Levaquin from January 2025 to June 2025, it revealed the following: 1a. 54 out of 54 residents (Residents 392, 389, 122, 130, 127, 124, 383, 393, 132, 83, 126, 391, 125, 129, 388, 68, 7, 10, 82, 52, 41, 394, 123, 390, 70, 384, 21, 387, 133, 93, 74, 385, 326, 381, 103, 47, 377, 222, 89, 49, 46, 106, 131, 323, 16, 22, 33, 63, 50, 23, 386, 128, 111, and 322) who received Levaquin, did not have documentation that the BBW was being monitored related to Levaquin use; 1b. 54 out of 54 residents (Residents 392, 389, 122, 130, 127, 124, 383, 393, 132, 83, 126, 391, 125, 129, 388, 68, 7, 10, 82, 52, 41, 394, 123, 390, 70, 384, 21, 387, 133, 93, 74, 385, 326, 381, 103, 47, 377, 222, 89, 49, 46, 106, 131, 323, 16, 22, 33, 63, 50, 23, 386, 128, 111, and 322) who received Levaquin, did not have a care plan developed related to Levaquin's BBW; and 1c. 30 out of 54 residents (Residents 392, 389, 122, 130, 127, 383, 391, 125, 129, 7, 394, 123, 390, 70, 384, 387, 133, 93, 103, 122, 89, 49, 106, 16, 50, 23, 386, 74, 128, and 385) who received Levaquin did not have an appropriate indication or diagnosis (specific and accurate identification of a disease, condition, or injury based on a patient's signs, symptoms, and medical history. 2. During a record review of the facility's list of residents who received Metformin from June 1, 2025, to June 17, 2025, it revealed the following: 2a. 19 out of 19 residents (Residents 4, 71, 80, 99, 15, 47, 222, 382, 83, 2, 64, 26, 17, 7, 10, 82, (380, 90, and 65) who received Metformin did not have documentation that the BBW was being monitored related to Metformin use; and 2b. 19 out of 19 residents (Residents 4, 71, 80, 99, 15, 47, 222, 382, 83, 2, 64, 26, 17, 7, 10, 82, 380, 90, and 65) who received Metformin did not have a care plan developed related to Metformin's BBW. 3. Six out of six residents (Residents 47, 222, 83, 7, 10, and 82) received both Levaquin and Metformin without proper documentation of the medications BBW monitoring and had no care plan developed related to the medications' BBW. 4. The facility's Infection Preventionist (IP) failed to identify and report the facility's irregularities related to frequent prescription and Levaquin use, missed BBW monitoring, inappropriate diagnosis of antibiotic use and no care plans for Levaquin use with BBW; . 5. The facility's Consultant Pharmacist (CP) failed to identify and report the facility's irregularities related to frequent prescription and Levaquin use, missed BBW monitoring, inappropriate diagnosis of antibiotic use and no care plans for Levaquin use with BBW during the medication regimen review (MRR) for 67 out of 67 residents. Due to these systemic failures (as stated above) with potential to affect all residents who received or still receiving Levaquin and Metformin medications, the facility needed to take immediate action to correct the noncompliance. On 6/18/2025 at 2:56 p.m., 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) was identified and declared, in the presence of the facility's Administrator (ADM) and director of nursing (DON) related to above failures. On 6/23/2025 at 3:56 p.m., the IJ was removed after the ADM submitted an acceptable IJ Removal Plan (IJRP, a plan with interventions to immediately correct the deficient practices), and after the survey team verified and confirmed the corrective actions while onsite. The failures had the potential for residents to suffer a serious adverse effect on: A. Levaquin use including tendinitis (the inflammation or irritation of a tendon, [the fibrous tissue that connects muscles to bones]), tendon rupture (a tear in a tendon, it can result in significant pain, swelling, and inability to move the affected joint), numbness or tingling or pricking sensation pins and needles in arms or legs, muscle weakness, muscle pain, joint pain, joint swelling, anxiety, depression, hallucinations, suicidal thoughts, confusion, worsening of myasthenia gravis (a chronic autoimmune disorder in which antibodies destroy the communication between nerves and muscles, resulting in weakness of the skeletal muscles), and abnormal, rapid or strong heartbeat; and B. Metformin use including lactic acidosis (a condition where too much lactic acid [a chemical your body produces when your cells break down carbohydrates for energy] builds up in the body, causing the blood to become too acidic) especially on residents with impaired kidney function, heart failure, or other conditions that can reduce oxygen supply to tissues. Findings: 1a. During a concurrent interview with the IP and document review of the facility's Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log on 6/12/2025 at 1:23 p.m., the IP confirmed Resident 68 and Resident 89 received Levaquin, and both residents did not have any documentation of BBW monitoring. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 6/13/2025 at 3:10 p.m., DON stated staff used the Medication Administration Record (MAR - a daily documentation record used by a licensed nurse to document medications and treatments given to a resident) to document the medication's black box warning. DON further stated, the nurse would click on the black box beside the medication and the BBW would show up and nurses should document their monitoring in the progress notes. During a concurrent interview with both DON and IP and record review of Resident 68 and Resident 89's e-MAR (electronic MAR) on 6/13/2025 at 3:45 p.m., IP stated whenever nurses would administer the Levaquin to the resident, the BBW would pop up in their system and nurses would document in the resident's progress note if they monitored the BBW. IP further stated nurses from three different shifts (Days, Evening, and Night shift) monitored Resident 68 and Resident 89 related to Levaquin's BBW. During an interview on 6/13/25 at 3:50 p.m. with licensed vocational nurse L (LVN L) she was asked about her understanding of the BBW for the medication Levaquin. She responded that Levaquin has a rare side effect of tendonitis, it is very painful, can be excruciating pain in a tendon. This must be addressed right away. The doctor should be called right away if the resident experiences this side effect. LVN L also stated in the MAR, the medication will have a black box that nurses will click on prior to administering the medication which will show what precautions to observe for. During an interview with registered nurse I (RN I) on 6/13/2025 at 3:51 p.m., RN I stated they monitored Levaquin's adverse side effects, but she was not sure about the BBW. During an interview with licensed vocational nurse J (LVN J) on 6/13/2025 at 3:57 p.m., LVN J stated the BBW warning should be documented in the progress notes. LVN J confirmed only day shift licensed nurses would be alerted about the Levaquin's BBW because they were the ones who administered the medication. LVN J stated evening and night shift nurses would not be alerted to monitor the BBW because they did not administer the medication. During an interview with licensed vocational nurse K (LVN K) on 6/16/2025 at 10:02 a.m., LVN K confirmed the BBW for Levaquin use would show up before the medication administration and nurses should document that the Levaquin's BBW were monitored. LVN K stated evening and night shift nurses would not be able to document because the BBW would not pop up in their electronic documentation. During an interview with medical director (MD) on 6/18/2025 at 9:45 a.m., MD confirmed she was aware that Levaquin was being prescribed especially by old, schooled doctor, and we talked about this before. MD stated when a medication with BBW was ordered, she expected licensed nurses (LN) to monitor residents on medication with BBW and to communicate with the doctors and pharmacists. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Black Box Warning Medication Policy, date revised 2/5/2025, indicated, Purpose: To ensure the safe use, monitoring, and documentation of medications that carry an FDA Black Box Warning, which indicates a serious or life-threatening risk associated with the drug. Policy: All medications with a Black Box warning must be reviewed for clinical appropriateness and administered with careful monitoring .4. Documentation: Nursing progress notes must reflect monitoring and resident response. Due to the inconsistencies with staff statements and the above policy and procedure review, the survey team reviewed all residents who received Levaquin from January 2025 to June 17, 2025. For Resident 21: Review of Resident 21's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including infection and inflammatory reaction (the body's immune system's response to injury or infection, characterized by redness, swelling, heat, pain, and sometimes loss of function) due to internal left hip prosthesis (artificial hip joint), aortic valve stenosis (narrowing of the valve in the large vessel branching off the heart {aorta} and hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident 21's physician order, dated 2/21/25, indicated Levaquin 750 mg once daily for wound infection until 3/5/25. Review of Resident 21's 2/2025 and 3/2025 MAR , indicated Resident 21 received Levaquin 750 mg daily at 8 p.m. from 2/21/25 until 3/5/25. Review of Resident 21's nursing progress notes dated 2/21 - 3/10/2025, indicated there was no documented monitoring by licensed staff related to the BBW potential serious adverse effects for the use of Levaquin. For Resident 33: Review of Resident 33's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including fracture right pubis (a break in the pubic bone, part of the pelvis), osteoarthritis (degenerative joint disease , a condition where the protective cartilage within joints gradually wears down, leading to pain, stiffness, and reduced range of motion) and hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident 33's physician order, dated 5/4/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg one time only for suspected UTI (Urinary Tract Infection , a bacterial infection that affects any part of the urinary system, including the kidneys, bladder, ureters, and urethra). An additional physician order, dated 5/6/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg STAT (immediately) for UTI. An additional physician order dated 5/7/25 indicated Levaquin 500 mg one time a day for UTI for 2 days. Review of Resident 33's 5/2025 MAR indicated Resident 33 received Levaquin 500 mg on 5/4/25 at 5:05 p.m., 500 mg at 5:31 p.m. on 5/6/25, and 500 mg at 9:00 a.m. on 5/7/25 and 5/8/25. Review of Resident 33's nursing progress notes dated 5/4 - 5/15/2025, indicated there was no documented monitoring by licensed staff related to the BBW potential serious adverse effects for the use of Levaquin. For Resident 74: Review of Resident 74's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute kidney failure, rhabdomyolysis (breakdown of muscle tissue that releases damaging protein into the blood) and hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident 74's physician order, dated 1/5/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg daily for infection for 5 days. An additional physician order, dated 2/10/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg daily for suspected URI (upper respiratory infection , a common illness caused by viruses or bacteria that infect the nose, throat, and sinuses) for 6 days. An additional physician order, dated 4/26/25, indicated Levaquin 250 mg two tablets STAT for suspected UTI. Review of Resident 74's 1/2025, 2/2025 and 4/2025 MAR indicated Resident 74 received Levaquin 500 mg at 1:00 p.m. from 1/5/25 through 1/9/25, 500 mg at 9:00 a.m. from 2/10/25 through 2/16/25, and 500 mg at 7:53 p.m. on 4/26/25. Review of Resident 74's 1/2025, 2/2025 and 4/2025 nursing progress notes indicated there was no documented monitoring by licensed staff related to the BBW potential serious adverse effects for the use of Levaquin. For Resident 93: Review of Resident 93's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic peripheral venous insufficiency (veins have problems sending blood from the legs back to the heart), idiopathic peripheral autonomic neuropathy (damage to the nerves that control automatic body functions) and hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident 93's physician order, dated 2/2/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg one time only for possible UTI. An additional physician order, dated 2/6/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg daily for suspected UTI for 6 days. An additional physician order, dated 3/5/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg one time only for UTI. An additional physician order, dated 3/7/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg daily for UTI for 7 days. Review of Resident 93's 2/2025 and 3/2025 MAR indicated Resident 93 received Levaquin 500 mg at 7:51 p.m. on 2/2/25, 500 mg at 9:00 a.m. from 2/6/25 through 2/11/25, 500 mg at 5:12 p.m. on 3/5/25, and 500 mg at 9:00 a.m. from 3/8/25 through 3/14/25. Review of Resident 93's 2/2025 and 3/2025 nursing progress notes indicated there was no documented monitoring by licensed staff related to the BBW potential serious adverse effects for the use of Levaquin. For Resident 122: Review of Resident 122's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including intracardiac thrombosis (formation of clots within the chambers of the heart), chronic kidney disease, chronic embolism (a blockage in your blood vessel usually from a blood clot) and thrombosis of deep vein of lower extremity Blood clot present in deep vein of leg for an extended period of time), long term use of anticoagulants (medication to prevent or treat blood clots). Review of Resident 122's physician order, dated 3/3/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg STAT for suspected UTI. An additional physician order, dated 3/13/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg one time only for UTI. An additional physician order, dated 3/14/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg one time only daily for UTI for 6 days. An additional physician order dated 4/13/25 indicated Levaquin 500 mg daily for suspected UTI for 2 days. Review of Resident 122's 3/2025 and 4/2025 MAR indicated Resident 122 received Levaquin 500 mg at 8:37 a.m. on 3/3/25, 500 mg at 11:04 p.m. on 3/13/25, 500 mg at 9:00 a.m. from 3/14/25 through 3/19/25, 500 mg at 5:12 p.m. on 3/5/25, 500 mg at 9:00 a.m. from 3/8/25 through 3/14/25, 500 mg at 2:38 p.m. on 4/13/25, and 500 mg at 9:00 a.m. on 4/14/25. Review of Resident 122's 3/2025 and 4/2025 nursing progress notes indicated there was no documented monitoring by licensed staff related to the BBW potential serious adverse effects for the use of Levaquin. For Resident 123: Review of Resident 123's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including pneumonia (an infection of the lungs that causes inflammation of the air sacs [alveoli]), diabetes mellitus (blood sugar levels are too high), congestive heart failure (heart does not pump the blood efficiently), chronic pain syndrome, and obesity. Review of Resident 123's physician order, dated 1/4/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg daily for infection for 5 days. An additional physician order, dated 2/18/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg daily for bronchitis for 5 days. Review of Resident 123's 1/2025 and 2/2025 MAR indicated Resident 123 received Levaquin 500 mg at 9:00 a.m. from 1/4/25 through 1/8/25, and 500 mg at 9:00 a.m. from 2/18/25 through 2/22/25. Review of Resident 123's 1/2025 and 2/2025 nursing progress notes indicated there was no documented monitoring by licensed staff related to the BBW potential serious adverse effects for the use of Levaquin. For Resident 124: Review of Resident 124's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including infection and inflammatory reaction due to internal prosthetic devices (an artificial device or implant that is surgically placed inside the body to replace a missing or damaged internal body part or function), polyneuropathy, (nerves in different parts of the body are damaged), diabetes mellitus (blood sugar levels are too high), Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD, progressive lung disease that makes it hard to breathe), end stage renal disease (ESRD, irreversible kidney failure), dependance on renal dialysis (a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney(s) have failed). Review of Resident 124's physician order, dated 1/8/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg daily every 2 days for Acute UTI for 6 administrations. Review of Resident 124's 1/2025 MAR indicated Resident 21 received Levaquin 500 mg daily at 8:00 p.m. on 1/8/25, 1/10/25, 1/12/25, 1/14/25, 1/16/25, and 1/18/25. Review of Resident 124's nursing progress notes dated 1/8 -1/25/25, indicated there was no documented monitoring by licensed staff related to the BBW potential serious adverse effects for the use of Levaquin. For Resident 125: Review of Resident 125's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute kidney failure, disease of the pancreas (a gland located in the abdomen, behind the stomach. It plays a crucial role in digestion, and blood sugar regulation), chronic viral hepatitis C (infection caused by a virus that attacks the liver) Review of Resident 125's physician order, dated 1/16/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg one time only for suspected infection. Review of Resident 125's 1/2025 MAR indicated Resident 125 received Levaquin 500 mg daily one time only at 12:47 p.m. on 1/16/25. Review of Resident 125's nursing progress notes dated 1/16 -1/25/2025, indicated there was no documented monitoring by licensed staff related to the BBW potential serious adverse effects for the use of Levaquin. For Resident 126: Review of Resident 126's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including pneumonia (inflammation or infection in the lungs), diabetes mellitus (blood sugar levels are too high), hypertension (high blood pressure), pulmonary embolism (arteries in the lungs become blocked by a blood clot). Review of Resident 126's physician order, dated 1/6/25, indicated Levaquin 500 mg daily for pneumonia for 6 days. Review of Resident 126's 1/2025 MAR , indicated Resident 126 received Levaquin 500 mg daily at 9:00 a.m. from 1/7/25 through 1/10/25. Review of Resident 126's nursing progress notes dated 1/7 - 1/15/2025, indicated there was no documented monitoring by licensed staff related to the BBW potential serious adverse effects for the use of Levaquin. For Resident 388: Review of Resident 388's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated she was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic kidney disease, hypertensive heart disease (heart problems that develop with chronic high blood pressure), atherosclerosis of aorta (build-up of plaque (a localized, abnormal patch or deposit on a body part or surface, often composed of accumulated substances) in the aorta {main artery of the heart}, pleural effusion ((build-up of fluid around the lungs). Review of Resident 388's physician order, dated 1/15/25, indicated Levaquin 750 mg one time only for pneumonia. Review of Resident 388's 1/2025 MAR indicated Resident 388 received Levaquin 750 mg daily at 9:58 p.m. on 1/14/25. Review of Resident 388's nursing progress notes dated 1/14 - 1/20/2025, indicated there was no documented monitoring by licensed staff related to the BBW potential serious adverse effects for the use of Levaquin. During an interview and concurrent record review on 6/18/25 at 10:00 a.m. with registered nurse H (RN H), she reviewed the records for Residents 21, 33, 74, 93, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, and 388. RN H confirmed there was no monitoring documented on the MAR or in the licensed nurse progress notes related to the BBW potential serious adverse effects for the use of Levaquin for the above - mentioned residents. RN H stated the nurses progress notes do identify the residents are receiving an antibiotic but there is no specific mention of Levaquin's BBW. For Resident 10: Review of Resident 10's face sheet (FS: a document that gives resident's information at a quick glance) indicated Resident 10 was admitted to facility on 4/8/2019. Review of Resident 10's diagnoses included diabetes type 2 (a chronic condition that happens with persistent high blood sugar levels) and psoriasis (a condition in which skin cells build up and form scales and itchy, dry patches). Review of Resident 10's physician orders dated 2/7/2025 indicated Levaquin 500 milligram (mg: a unit of mass equal to one-thousandth of a gram) one time a day for 6 days for respiratory infection. Review of Resident 10's electronic medication administration record (EMAR: digital system for documenting medication administration) for February/2025 indicated Resident 10 received Levaquin from 2/7/2025 to 2/13/2025 at 9:00 a.m. Review of Resident 10's nursing progress notes for February/2025 indicated there was no documented evidence that nursing staff monitored and documented BBW serious adverse reactions every shift for Levaquin use. Resident 377: Review of Resident 377's FS indicated Resident 377 was admitted to facility on 4/10/2025. Review of Resident 377's diagnoses included diverticulosis (when small, bulging pouches [called diverticula] form in the lining of your intestine, usually the colon) of large intestine (part of body organ responsible for processing indigestible food materials) and infection (inflamed and infected lining of the large intestine) and inflammatory reaction (complication following knee surgery with infection inflammation) due to internal right knee prothesis (an artificial device that replaces a missing or impaired part of the body). Review of Resident 377's order summary report, date ordered 5/20/2025, indicated an order of Levaquin 500 mg one time a day for 5 days for respiratory infection. Review of Resident 377's EMAR for May/2025 indicated Resident 377 received Levaquin from 5/20/2025 to5/25/2025 at 9:00 a.m. Review of Resident 377's nursing progress notes for May/2025 and June/2025 till 6/14/2025 indicated there was no documented evidence that nursing staff monitored and documented BBW serious adverse reactions every shift for Levaquin use. Resident 222: Review of Resident 222's FS indicated Resident 222 was admitted to facility on 5/22/2025. Review of Resident 222's diagnoses included cellulitis of right lower limb (a skin infection of right leg). Review of Resident 222's order summary report, date ordered 5/22/2025, it indicated an order of Levofloxacin 750 mg one time a day until 5/25/2025 for cellulitis. Review of Resident 222's EMAR for May/2025 indicated Resident 222 received Levofloxacin from 5/23/2025 to 5/25/2025 every day at 9:00 a.m. Review of Resident 222's nursing progress notes for May/2025 and June/2025 till 6/14/2025 indicated there was no documented evidence that nursing staff monitored and documented BBW serious adverse reactions every shift for Levaquin use. Resident 49: Review of Resident 49's FS indicated Resident 49 was admitted to facility on 2/5/2025. Review of Resident 49's diagnoses included urinary tract infection (an infection of system of body organs that makes urine) and unspecified Escherichia coli (common bacteria found in human gut, commonly harmless. However, certain strains cause infections and illnesses). Review of Resident 49's order summary report, date ordered 5/29/2025, it indicated an order of Levaquin 500 mg one time for infection for 1 day. Review of Resident 49's EMAR for May/2025 indicated Resident 49 received Levaquin on 5/29/2025 (one dose) at 7:23 p.m. Review of Resident 49's nursing progress notes for May/2025 and June/2025 till 6/14/2025 indicated there was no documented evidence that nursing staff monitored and documented BBW serious adverse reactions every shift for Levaquin use. Resident 106: Review of Resident 106's FS indicated Resident 106 was admitted to facility on 2/26/2025. Review of Resident 106's diagnoses included diabetes type 2 and peripheral vascular disease (a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to arms and legs). Review of Resident 106's order listing report date ordered 5/28/2025, it indicated an order of Levaquin 500 mg one time a day for infection until 6/24/2025. Review of Resident 106's EMAR for May/2025 indicated Resident 106 received Levaquin on 5/28/2025 till 5/31/2025 at 9:00 a.m. Review of EMAR for June/2025 indicated Resident 106 currently receiving Levaquin every day at 9:00 a.m. Review of Resident 106's nursing progress notes for May/2025 and June/2025 till 6/14/2025 indicated there was no documented evidence that nursing staff monitored and documented BBW serious adverse reactions every shift for use of Levaquin. Resident 323: Review of Resident 323's FS indicated Resident 323 was admitted to facility on 2/7/2025 and discharged home on 5/18/2025. Review of Resident 323's diagnoses included diabetes type 2 and pseudomonas as the cause of diseases (type of bacteria common cause of infections from mild skin rashes to severe, life-threatening illnesses). Review of Resident 323's order summary report, date ordered 5/15/2025, it indicated an order of Levaquin 500 mg one time a day for right thigh wound infection for 14 days, and this order had been discontinued on 5/18/2025. Review of Resident 323's EMAR for May/2025 indicated Resident 323 received Levaquin on 5/16/2025 and 5/17/2025 at 5:00 p.m., (2 doses). Review of Resident 323's nursing progress notes for May/2025 and June/2025 till 6/14/2025 indicated there was no documented evidence that nursing staff monitored and documented BBW serious adverse reactions every shift for Levaquin use. Resident 16: Review of Resident 16's FS indicated Resident 16 was admitted to facility on 3/1/2025 and discharged from facility on 6/6/2025. Review of Resident 16's diagnoses included diabetes type 2 and aftercare following neoplasm surgery (monitoring healing, managing potential complications and ensuring overall well-being during recovery after tumor [abnormal tissue growth] surgery). Review of Resident 16's order listing report, date ordered 5/21/2025, it indicated an order of Levofloxacin 500 mg stat (immediately or at once) for cough. Review of Resident 16's EMAR for May/2025 indicated Resident 16 received Levofloxacin on 5/21/2025 at 12:06 pm., (one dose). Review of Resident 16's nursing progress notes for May/2025 and June/2025 till 6/6/2025 indicated there was no documented evidence that nursing staff monitored and documented BBW serious adverse reactions every shift for Levofloxacin use. For Resident 22: Review of Resident 22's FS indicated Resident 22 was admitted to facility on 1/30/2023. Review of Resident 22's diagnoses included congestive heart failure (chronic condition where the heart muscle is unable to pump enough blood to meet body's needs) and disorder of urinary system (a condition impacts the body's ability to filter and pass urine). Review of Resident 22's order listing report, date ordered 5/8/2025, it indicated an order of Levaquin 250 mg one time a day for respiratory infection for 7 days. Review of Resident 22's EMAR for May/2025 indicated Resident 22 received Levaquin from 5/8/2025 till 5/14/2025 at 9:00 a.m. Review of Resident 22's nursing progress notes for May/2025 and June/2025 indicated there was no documented evidence that nursing staff monitored and documented BBW serious adverse reactions every shift for use of Levaquin. Resident 63: Review of Resident 63's FS indicated Resident 63 was admitted to facility on 3/1/2025. Review of Resident 63's diagnoses included hypertension (a condition in which the force of the blood against the artery [a blood vessel that carries blood from heart to tissues and organs in the body] walls is too high). Review of Resident 63's order summary report, date ordered 5/15/2025, it indicated an order of Levaquin 500 mg one time only for PNA (pneumonia: inflammation and fluid in lungs [a pair of spongy. Pinkish-gray organs essential for breathing and gas exchange] caused by infection) and this order had been extended for 6 more days till 5/21/2025. Review of Resident 63's EMAR for May/2025 indicated Resident 63 received Levaquin from 5/15/2025 till 5/21/2025 (7 doses) at 9:00 a.m. Review of Resident 63's nursing progress notes for May/2025 and June/2025 till 6/14/2025 indicated there was no documented evidence that nursing staff monitored and documented BBW serious adverse reactions every shift for use of Levaquin. For Resident 322: Review of Resident 322's FS indicated Resident 322 was admitted to facility on 11/4/2024 and discharged from facility on 2/7/2025. Review of Resident 322's diagnoses included diabetes type 2 and chronic kidney (kidney: body organ that filters waste and excess fluid from blood) disease (progressive damage and loss of function in the kidneys). Review of Resident 322's order listing report, date ordered 12/28/2024, it indicated an order of Levaquin 500 mg one time a day for respiratory infection for 6 days. Review of Resident 322's EMAR for December/2024 and January/2025 indicated Resident 322 received Levaquin on 12/29/2024 to 1/3/2025(6 doses) at 9:00 a.m. Review of Resident 322's nursing progress notes for December/2024 and January/2025 indicated there was no documented evidence that nursing staff monitored and documented BBW serious adverse reactions every shift for use of Levaquin. During an interview with RN O on 6/16/2025 at 4:00 pm, RN O stated medications' severe allergic reaction was different from BBW serious adverse reactions . RN O also stated there was no monitoring of BBW serious adverse reactions for residents on medications with BBW. RN O further stated nursing staff should have[TRUNCATED]
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure needs were accommodated for three of 26 sample...

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 needs were accommodated for three of 26 sampled residents (Residents 100, 96, and 52) when: 1. Resident 100 and Resident 96's call light button (a red or white button used to call for assistance) were not within their reach for use; and 2. Resident 52 did not receive the appropriate call system (a device used to communicate a need for help) based on his needs. These failures had the potential for a delayed response and not meeting Resident 100, Resident 96 and Resident 52's needs. Findings: 1a. Review of Resident 100's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated 6/13/2025, indicated Resident 100 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including wedge compression fracture (a type of spinal fracture where one or more vertebrae [back bones] collapse due to pressure, often resulting in a wedge shape) of first lumbar vertebrae (the five bones that make up the lower part of the spine, situated between the thoracic vertebrae and the sacrum) acquired deformity of chest and rib, passenger injured in collision with other motor vehicles in traffic accident and other amnesia (the loss of memory, which can involve forgetting past events or the inability to form new memories). Review of Resident 100's quarterly minimum data set (MDS - a federally mandated resident assessment tool) assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 100's brief interview for mental status (BIMS- an assessment tool used by facilities to screen and identify memory, orientation, and judgement status of the resident) score was 09 (a score of 0 to 7 indicates severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate impairment, 13-15 patient is cognitively intact). During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 100 on 6/9/2025 at 9:34 a.m., inside Resident 100's room, Resident 100 was in bed and his call light button was on the floor. Resident 100 stated he did not know how long the call light was on the floor. Resident 100 further stated, .I just want my call light. During a concurrent observation and interview with restorative nursing assistant T (RNA T) on 6/9/2025 at 9:43 a.m., inside Resident 100's room, RNA T confirmed the call button was on the left side of the bed's floor. 1b. Review of Resident 96's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated Resident 96 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (a problem with how the brain works because of an underlying condition that disrupts the body's metabolism), epilepsy (an abnormal activity in the brain causing uncontrollable jerking movements of the arms and legs, and loss of consciousness), dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing), aphasia (a language disorder that affects a person's ability to communicate) and hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) , unspecified affecting right dominant side (frequently used or stronger side of the body).\ Review of Resident 96's 5-day/quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 96 had the ability to make self-understood and understand others. Further review indicated Resident 96's BIMS score was 05 (a score of 0 to 7 indicates severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate impairment, 13-15 patient is cognitively intact). During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 96 on 6/9/2025 at 10:11 a.m., inside Resident 96's room, Resident 96 was in bed and the call button was on the left side of the bed's floor. Resident 96 tried to state he couldn't find my cord [call light]. During a concurrent observation and interview with certified nursing assistant U (CNA U) on 6/9/2025 at 10:12 a.m., inside Resident 96's room, CNA U confirmed Resident 96's call light was on the floor. CNA U stated there should be a clip to hold the call light on residents' bed sheet to prevent it from sliding down to the floor. During an interview with registered nurse H (RN H) on 6/12/2025 at 9:42 a.m., RN H stated there should be a clip attached to the call light cord to clipped it on residents' pillowcase or bed sheet to prevent the call light from sliding down to the floor. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 6/13/2025 at 2:05 p.m., DON stated staff should make sure there was a clip available to help hold the call light for it to be within each resident's reach for use. DON further stated each manager had a room assignment where they had to check each residents' call lights were available and could be reached for use. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Call Lights: Accessibility and Timely Response, date revised 10/21/2024, indicated, Staff will ensure the call light is within reach of resident and secured, as needed. The call system will be accessible to residents while in their bed or other sleeping accommodations within the resident's room. 2. Review of Resident 52's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated, Resident 52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] (original admission date 3/11/25) with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis (a condition that causes partial paralysis or weakness on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (also called stroke) affecting left non-dominant side (the part of the body [like hand, foot or eye] that is less preferred nor used for tasks compared to its paired counterpart, which is the dominant side), muscle weakness (generalized) and aphasia following cerebral infarction. During an observation on 6/9/25 at 8:53 a.m. in Resident 52's room, the call light button for Resident 52 was positioned hanging from the urinary catheter (a thin, flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) tubing, at the right bed rail, resting on the floor, and was not within Resident 52's reach for use. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/11/25 at 9:00 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) G in Resident 52's room, the call light button was found on the floor. LVN G confirmed the above observation and stated Resident 52 never used his call light button. LVN G further stated that a different call system would be more beneficial and appropriate for Resident 52. During a concurrent interview and record review with RN H, on 6/12/25 at 8:52 a.m., RN H described Resident 52 as very dependent, having limited movement, and bed bound. RN H further stated that if the call light button was not appropriate for Resident 52, nurses should have reassessed Resident 52 and implement specific interventions based on his needs. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Accommodation of Needs, date revised 12/4/24, the P&P indicated, The facility will treat each resident with respect and dignity and will evaluate and make reasonable accommodation for the individual needs . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Call Lights: Accessibility and Timely Response, date revised 10/21/2024, indicated, Each resident will be evaluated for unique needs and preferences to determine any special accommodations that may be needed in order for the resident to utilize the call system. Special accommodations will be identified on the resident's person-centered plan of care, and provided accordingly. (Examples include touch pads, larger buttons, bright colors, etc.)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the residents were made aware of the location of the latest facility's State inspection result (Statement of Deficien...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility failed to ensure the residents were made aware of the location of the latest facility's State inspection result (Statement of Deficiencies and Statement of Isolated Deficiencies generated by the most recent standard survey and any subsequent extended surveys, and any deficiencies resulting from any subsequent complaint investigations) and available to read for six out of seven residents (Residents 34, 7, 55, 88, 68, and 71). This failure had the potential to result in residents being uninformed. Findings: During an interview in the Resident Council (a group of people living in a shared space [like a nursing home, public housing, or assisted living facility] who organize to represent the interests of all residents) meeting on 6/10/2025 at 9:56 a.m., when asked if the State inspection results were available to read without asking, Residents 34, 7, 55, 88, 68, and 71 stated they were not aware of where to find the survey results. They further stated no one from the facility told them where to find it. During an observation at the front lobby on 6/10/2025 at 1:45 p.m., there was no State inspection result posted, or binder placed in the lobby's desk. There were two other white binders found on top of the lobby's desk, but they did not indicate the State inspection result or survey results. During observation at nurse station 1 and 2 on 6/10/2025 at 1:47 p.m., there was no State inspection result posted, or binder placed at the nurse station. During observation at nurse station 3 and 4 on 6/10/2025 at 1:50 p.m., there was no State inspection result posted, or binder placed at the nurse station. During a concurrent observation and interview with activities supervisor (AS) on 6/11/2025 at 3:47 p.m., in front of nurse station 1 and 2, AS whispered at the administrator's (ADM) right ear, when asked where to find the latest State survey results. Both AS and ADM started to look for the State survey results. AS stated, the State survey results were in a binder, and it should be placed at the front lobby's desk. During an interview with the unit clerk (UC) on 6/11/2025 at 3:50 p.m., UC confirmed the red binder (State survey results) was not available at the lobby desk when she came at the facility at 2:30 p.m. UC stated she called the morning UC and was told that the red binder was not also at the lobby's desk in the morning. During an interview with registered nurse H (RN H) on 6/12/2025 at 10:05 a.m., when asked where to find the State survey results, RN H did not answer the question but stated, I know it's in the binder. During an interview with certified nursing assistant V (CNA V) on 6/13/2025 at 8:42 p.m., when asked where to find the State survey results, CNA V stated, It's in the DON's [director of nursing) office. When asked where it was filed, and described it, CNA smiled and stated, Oh you got me there. I failed. During an interview with the DON on 6/13/2025 at 2:09 p.m., DON stated the latest State survey binder should always be available for residents, and staff should know where it was located. DON further stated, the activities staff should inform the residents where to find the latest State survey binder. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Availability of Survey Results, date implemented 3/1/2025, indicated, The survey binder is located (in the main lobby) and is available for review by interested persons who wish to review information relative to our company's compliance with federal or state rules, regulations, and guidelines governing our company's operation.
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 facility's document review, the facility failed to maintain resident's rights to privacy and confidentiality to three of 26 sampled residents (Resident 371, Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility's document review, the facility failed to maintain resident's rights to privacy and confidentiality to three of 26 sampled residents (Resident 371, Resident 372, and Resident 373) when: 1. Resident 371's Foley catheter drainage bag, (a device inserted into the bladder [organ that collects urine] to drain urine, made of a semi-flexible plastic tube, one end inserted into the bladder and the other end attached to a bag that collects urine) drain bag was left uncovered; and 2. Resident 372 and Resident 373's personal information and care instructions were posted in the room visible to roommate and visitors. These failures had the potential to compromise resident's rights and dignity. Findings: 1. During an observation on 6/9/25 at 2:08 p.m., in Resident 371's room, Resident 371 was sharing a room with another resident. Resident 371's bed was towards the entrance door and privacy curtains were open. Resident 371's foley catheter drainage bag with yellow colored urine about 150 ml (milliliter) was left uncovered with privacy bag that can be seen from the hallway. During a follow-up observation on 6/10/25 at 9:15 a.m., Resident 371 was observed lying in bed. Resident 371's foley catheter drainage bag with yellow colored urine about 200 ml (milliliter) was still uncovered with privacy bag the uncovered foley catheter drainage bag can be seen from hallway. Review of Resident 371's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on 6/12/2025, it indicated Resident 371 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses includes muscle weakness and benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH, which is a non-cancerous enlargement of the prostate gland). During a review of Resident 371's physician order indicated an order for Foley Catheter: 16 French 10 ml balloon to gravity Drainage and change catheter and drainage bag monthly order, dated 4/17/25. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/12/25 at 10:40 a.m., with Registered Nurse H (RN H) She confirmed Resident 371's foley catheter bag was uncovered on 6/9/25 and 6/10/25. She further stated it should be covered mostly for infection and to protect privacy and dignity, not exposed to everyone. During an interview on 6/13/25 at 1:47 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON) about Resident 371's foley catheter drainage bag was left uncovered. The DON stated they changed the foley catheter drainage bag with cover. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Catheter Care dated 12/2/24, indicated, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents with indwelling catheters receive appropriate catheter care and maintain their dignity and privacy when indwelling catheters are in use . 2.Privacy bags will be available and catheter drainage bags will be covered at all times while in use.3.Privacy bags will be changed out when soiled, with a catheter change or as needed . 2.a. During an observation on 6/10/25 at 10:15 a.m., in Resident 372's room, Resident 372 was sharing a room with one other resident. Resident 372 was awake sitting on his wheelchair and there was a big care instruction posted at the wall above Resident 372's head of bed (HOB) the care instruction indicated *Please remove Dentures at night!!! * Please put on Dentures back on AM!!! Resident 372 stated he doesn't know who posted it. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/12/25 at 10:33 a.m., with Registered Nurse H (RN H), she confirmed the care instruction posted at the wall above Resident 372's head of bed was uncovered. She stated posting care instruction signs should have a cover for Resident 372. Review of Resident 372's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on 6/12/2025, it indicated Resident 372 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (a condition which affects the way the body processes blood sugar) without complications. 2.b. During an observation on 6/10/25 at 10:18a.m., in Resident 373's room, Resident 373 was sharing a room with one other resident. Resident 373 was awake lying on his bed and there were two big care instructions posted on the wall above Resident 373's head of bed (HOB) the care instructions indicated 1. Important!!! Neck brace must be on at all times (spinal Injury Preve .). 2. PLEASE USE CAUTION WHEN WORKING WITH RESIDENT; ESPECIALLY NECK AREA. Resident 373 stated a nurse or therapy posted the care instructions on the wall. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/12/25 at 10:34 a.m., with Registered Nurse H (RN H), she confirmed the care instructions posted at the wall above Resident 373's head of bed was uncovered. She stated posting care instructions should have a cover for privacy. Review of Resident 373's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on 6/12/2025, it indicated Resident 373 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (a condition which affects the way the body processes blood sugar) without complications. During a review of Resident 373's physician order indicated an order dated 6/6/25, Cervical collar at all times. During an interview on 6/13/25 at 1:53 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated care instructions supposed to have a cover or placed not visible to others. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Resident Rights dated 3/4/25, indicated, .7. Privacy and confidentiality. The resident has a right to personal privacy and confidentiality of his or her personal and medical records. a. Personal privacy includes accommodations, medical treatment, written and telephone communications, personal care .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0605 (Tag F0605)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 14 and 21...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 2 of 5 sampled residents (Residents 14 and 21) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) when: 1. Resident 21 received a high dose of quetiapine (generic: Seroquel: an antipsychotic medication, used to regulate the functioning of brain circuits that control thinking, mood, and perception) without documented necessity for its use and without demonstration of how the behavioral symptoms caused harm to the resident/others or causing significant distress to the resident; 2. Resident 14 received Seroquel and Fluoxetine (an anti-depressant) with no documented non-drug interventions for both medication; 3. Resident 83 received pro re nata (PRN: as needed or as the situation arises) psychotropic medication with no stop date. These failures resulted in inadequate indication and unnecessary medications which had the potential for increased risks associated with psychotropic medication use that include but are not limited to sedation, respiratory depression, falls, constipation, anxiety, agitation, and memory loss. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 21's clinical record indicated she was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions) and dementia [impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities] in other diseases. A review of Resident 21's clinical record indicated she had been receiving Seroquel routinely since admission in January 2025. Her current physician's order, dated 5/26/25, was for quetiapine 25 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement), give 4 tablets (100 mg) by mouth in the afternoon, and 1 tablet (25 mg) by mouth at bedtime for psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnect from reality) manifested by auditory hallucinations. A review of Resident 21's medication administration record (MAR where the staff documented behavioral symptoms), the progress notes, and the care plan for Seroquel use did not indicate what type of auditory hallucinations the resident was experiencing, such as what she hears (e.g., voices), and how the behavioral symptoms caused harm to the resident/others or significant distress to the resident. During the survey, on 6/11/25 at 9:21 a.m., Resident 21 was observed in the activity room, participating in an activity with four other residents. She was observed being calm, pleasant, and without distress or behaviors. During an interview with the Activity Director (AD) on 6/11/25 at 9:26 a.m., the AD stated Resident 21 comes to activities every day which happens throughout the day. The AD stated Resident 21 does not have any behaviors during activities that are concerning or disruptive. On 6/11/25 at 11:27 a.m., Resident #21 was observed again sitting in activity room with other residents. She was quiet and participating in the current activity. There was no behaviors or distress noted. On 6/11/25 at 12:38 p.m., Resident 21 was observed self-feeding lunch in the the dining/activity room. No behaviors or distress was observed. In an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) D on 6/11/25 at 1:34 p.m., CNA D stated Resident 21 is sometimes moody whenever she did not sleep well the night before, but she was not aware of Resident 21 having any auditory hallucinations such as hearing voices. During an interview with CNA E on 6/11/25 at 1:40 p.m., she stated she was not aware of Resident 21 ever exhibiting any visual or auditory hallucinations. During an interview with CNA F on 6/11/25 at 1:45 p.m., CNA F stated she has not witnessed any hallucinations by Resident 21. During an interview on 6/11/25 at 01:49 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) G, when asked about the Seroquel use for Resident 21, LVN G stated Resident 21 was on Seroquel for auditory hallucinations and that her Seroquel dose was higher than other residents here. When asked to show what auditory hallucinations the resident was exhibiting and how they affected the resident, LVN G reviewed Resident 21's clinical record and stated, I am not seeing anything. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant DON (ADON) on 6/11/25 at 2:19 p.m., the ADON reviewed Resident 21's clinical record and acknowledged it only indicated auditory hallucinations for Seroquel use in the medication order and in the care plan without demonstration how it affects the resident, causing significant distress, or harm to herself or to others. During an interview with Resident 21's family member (FM) on 6/11/25 at 4:02 p.m., she stated, prior to coming to the facility, Resident 21 had behavioral symptoms of hearing and seeing things, such as believing that someone invaded their house and shot her loved ones, which caused her a lot of fear and distress. This was the reason why her psychiatrist prescribed a high dose of Seroquel. During an interview with DON on 6/12/25 at 1:17 p.m., the DON acknowledged none of these behaviors described by Resident 21's FM was in the clinical record to support the necessity for Seroquel use, and for staff to monitor. A review of the facility's policy and procedures titled Use of Psychotropic Medication, dated 12/2017, indicated, when psychoactive [drug affecting the mind] medications are prescribed, the clinical record should reflect the diagnosis and specific condition or target behavior being treated and Care plans should be updated to reflect behavior(s) causing functional, emotional, or safety impairment. A review of the American Psychiatric Association [APA] Practice Guidelines on the use of Antipsychotics to Treat Agitation or Psychosis in Patients with Dementia, 2016 indicated, APA recommends that nonemergency antipsychotic medication should only be used for the treatment of agitation or psychosis in patients with dementia when symptoms are severe, are dangerous, and/or cause significant distress to the patient. Findings: 2. Review of Resident 14's face sheet (FS: a document that gives a resident's information at a quick [NAME]) indicated Resident 14 was admitted to facility on 3/12/2024. Review of Resident 14's FS indicated Resident 14's diagnoses included bipolar disorder (a disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs) and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest in daily active living). Review of Resident 14's physician orders (PO) indicated fluoxetine (prescribed medication used to treat depression) 60 milligrams (mg: a unit of mass equal to one-thousandth of a gram) one time a day, dated 3/7/2025 . Review of Resident 14's PO also indicated quetiapine (prescribed antipsychotic medication used to treat mental health condition) 200 mg at bedtime, dated 5/16/2025 . Review of clinical record for Resident 14 indicated there was no documented evidence of non-drug interventions/approaches attempted before administered above both psychotropic medications for Resident 14. Resident 83: 3. Review of Resident 83's FS indicated Resident 83 was admitted to facility on 3/12/2024. Review of Resident 83's FS indicated Resident 83's diagnoses included depression. Review of Resident 83's PO indicated, dated 2/12/2025, lorazepam (prescribed medication used to treat anxiety [persistent, excessive fear or worry in day to day situations that are not threatening] 0.5 mg every 12 hours as needed with no stop date . Review of electronic medication administration record (EMAR: digital system for documenting medication administration) for April/2025 indicated Resident 83 received 25 doses, EMAR for May/2025 indicated 24 doses and EMAR for July/2025 indicated 10 doses till 6/12/2025. Review of Resident 83's clinical record indicated there was no documented evidence of medical doctor (MD) assessed Resident 83's medical condition, progress and evaluated the need to continue as needed lorazepam 14 days after 2/12/2025. During concurrent record review of Resident 14 for non-drug approaches for medications fluoxetine and quetiapine and interview with facility's director of nursing (DON) on 6/13/2025 at 1:42 p.m., DON confirmed there was no documentation of nursing attempted non-drug interventions/approaches before administered both medications for Resident 14. DON stated nursing staff should have attempted non-drug interventions before administered psychotropic medications for resident to minimize the use of these medications for Resident 14. During concurrent record review of Resident 83 for lorazepam as needed order, medical doctor's notes and interview with facility's DON on 6/13/2025 at 2:09 p.m., DON confirmed Resident 83 has an order for lorazepam PRN with no stop date since 2/12/2025. DON also confirmed there was no documented evidence of MD re-evaluated Resident 83's medical condition and needed to continue PRN lorazepam beyond 14 days. DON stated MD should have documented the appropriate reason to continue PRN lorazepam or ordered a stop date for PRN lorazepam for Resident 83. Review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Use of Psychotropic Medication (s), revised 2/5/2025, the P&P indicated, Non-pharmacological approaches must be attempted, unless, clinically contraindicated, to minimize the need for psychotropic medications, use the lowest possible dose, or discontinue the medications. PRN orders for psychotropic medications, excluding antipsychotics, shall be limited to no more than 14 days, unless the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes it is appropriate to extend the order beyond 14 days.
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 accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) for two residents (83 and 119) when: 1. For Resident 119, the facility failed to accurately complete the discharge status; 2. For Resident 83, the facility did not code the use of injectable medication and incorrectly coded Resident 83's falls. Failure to accurately assess the residents had the potential to result in inadequate or inappropriate care planning and interventions. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 119's physician order, dated 3/18/25, indicated Discharge to home with medications on 3/18/25. Home Health Services for PT (Physical Therapy) OT (Occupational Therapy) and nursing services. Review of Resident 119's discharge MDS, dated [DATE], indicated she was discharged to the acute hospital. During an interview and concurrent record review with the Minimum Data Set Manager (MDSM) on 6/11/25 at 9:13 a.m., the MDSM confirmed Resident 119 was discharged to her home on 3/18/25. The MDSM verified that Resident 119's discharge MDS was coded incorrectly. The MDSM stated that Resident 119 was discharged home, not to the acute hospital as was coded on Resident 119's 3/18/25 discharge MDS. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) 10/2019 Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual (RAI Manual, MDS coding instructions) indicated for section A2100, Discharge Status, Code 01, community, if discharge location is a private home. Findings: Review of Resident 83's face sheet (FS: a document that gives a resident's information at a quick glance) indicated Resident 83 was admitted to facility on 3/12/2024. Review of Resident 83's diagnoses included diabetes type 2 (a chronic condition that happens with persistent high blood sugar levels) and ataxic gait (lack of coordination and balance resulting in unsteady, jerky and irregular body movements). Review of Resident 83's physician orders indicated an order dated 2/20/2025 for Ozempic (medication used to treat diabetes) 1milligram (mg: Unit of mass equal to one thousandth of a gram) inject subcutaneously (SQ: a method of administering medication by injecting into the layer just below the skin) every Friday for diabetes. Review of Resident 83's electronic medication administration record (EMAR: digital system for documenting medication administration) for May/2025 indicated Resident 83 received SQ injection every Friday on 5/2, 5/9, 5/16, 5/23, and 5/30/2025. Review of Resident 83's fall report of incidents indicated Resident 83 had a fall with no injury on 3/27/2025. Review of Resident 83's minimum data set (MDS: clinical and functional assessment tool) dated 5/14/2025, section N medications for injections indicated 0 received during the last 7 days or since admission/entry or reentry if less than 7 days. Review of section J health conditions for number of falls since admission/entry or reentry or prior assessment indicated 1 fall with no injury and 1 fall with injury (except major). During concurrent record review of Resident 83's EMAR and fall report of incident and interview with minimum data set coordinator manager (MDSCM) on 6/11/2025 at 11:51 a.m., MDSCM confirmed Resident 83 received SQ injections once a week and had a fall with no injury on 3/27/2025. MDSCM also reviewed MDS assessment dated [DATE] for sections N and J. MDSCM also confirmed above findings for both sections for MDS assessment. MDSCM stated MDS assessment for injections and fall were not completed accurately for this resident. MDSCM also stated MDS staff should have assessed and completed MDS assessment accurately for Resident 83. During an interview with facility's director of nursing (DON) on 6/13/2025 at 2:12 pm., DON stated facility's MDS staff should have assessed and completed MDS assessment accurately for Resident 83. Review of facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Resident Assessment-RAI (resident assessment instrument), revised 9/24/2024, the P&P indicated, The current version of the RAI (MDS 3.0) will be utilized when conducting a comprehensive assessment of each resident in accordance with instructions found in the RAI Manual (official guidance for using the RAI process, ensuring consistent and accurate assessments and care planning).
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure to provide necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing, prev...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure to provide necessary treatment and services consistent with professional standards of practice to promote healing, prevent infection and prevent new pressure injuries/ulcers (injury to skin from prolonged pressure on the skin) from developing for one of four sampled resident (Resident 57) when: 1. No dressing on right outer ankle pressure injury for Resident 57; 2. No prevalon (a medical device designed to prevent and treat heel pressure injury/ulcer) heel protector boot on to right foot for Resident 57. Above failures had the potential for delayed pressure ulcer healing and developing new pressure injuries for Resident 57. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview with certified nursing assistant P (CNA P) on 6/10/2025 at 9:26 a.m., CNA P also observed Resident 57's right foot and confirmed right outer ankle open area with no dressing or prevalon boot were not on while Resident 57 was in bed with bare feet. CNA P confirmed prevalon boot was left on nightstand next to Resident 57's bed. CNA P stated she forgot to verify and place the boot on to right foot for Resident 57. During a second concurrent observation and interview with registered nurse H (RN H) on 6/10/2025 at 9:32 a.m., RN H confirmed there was no dressing covered right outer ankle pressure injury and heel protector (a device designed to cushion, support, or protect the heel area of the foot) boot (prevalon boot) was not on while Resident 57 was in bed with bare feet. RN H also stated license nurse will apply dressing to pressure injury in few minutes and instructed CNA P to apply boot to right foot for Resident 57. Review of Resident 57's face sheet (FS: a document that gives resident's information at a quick glance) indicated Resident 57 was admitted to facility on 3/3/2025. Review of Resident 57's order summary report indicated an order, dated 6/11/2025, Cleanse PU (pressure ulcer) to right outer ankle with NS (normal saline, salt water used to clean skin open areas), pat dry, apply medihoney (natural, non-toxic agent used to treat pressure injuries) to the wound bed, and cover with dry dressing every day shift and as needed . Review of another order, dated 4/18/2025, Prevalon Heel Protector to R (right) foot for PU to R outer ankle. During an interview with RN H on 6/11/2025 at 9:39 a.m., RN H stated license staff should have applied dressing as ordered for right outer ankle pressure injury for Resident 57 to prevent delayed healing of pressure injury. RN H also stated CNA staff should have verified right foot and placed heel protector boot for Resident 57 to promote pressure injury healing. During an interview with facility's director of nursing (DON) on 6/13/2025 at 2:14 p.m., DON stated nursing staff applied dressing and heel protector boot as ordered by medical doctor (MD) for Resident 57's right ankle to promote pressure injury healing and prevent new pressure injuries. Review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Pressure Injury prevention and Management, revised 12/3/2024, the P&P indicated, Redistribute pressure (such as repositioning, protecting and /or offloading heels, etc.) Evidence-based treatments in accordance with current standards of practice will be provided for all residents who have a pressure injury present.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure controlled medications (those with a high abuse potential) were fully accounted when controlled medication use audit for three out o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure controlled medications (those with a high abuse potential) were fully accounted when controlled medication use audit for three out of seven sampled residents (Residents 53, 106, and 109) did not reconcile. The residents' medications were signed out of the Controlled Drugs Records (CDR, inventory record of controlled drugs) but not documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR, record of medications administered to a resident) to indicate they were administered to the residents. The failure resulted in inaccurate accountability and had the potential for abuse and diversion (unlawful distribution or use) of controlled medications. Findings: During the survey, the CDRs for seven random residents receiving as-needed (PRN) controlled medications were selected for review. On 6/10/25 at 1:41 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated any time a PRN controlled medication was requested from the resident, the nursing staff would assess the resident's pain; review the medication order, and if within the time frame, open the narcotic bin, retrieve the medication; sign medication out from the CDR; give the medication; and document the administration on the MAR. a. A review of Resident 53's physician's orders indicated an order for hydrocodone-acetaminophen (brand name: Norco, a potent narcotic for pain) 5-325 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement), give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for moderate to severe pain, dated 5/16/25. On 6/10/25 at 1:50 p.m., a review of Resident 53's CDR for Norco 5/325 mg and May 2025 MAR with the DON and ADON indicated the nursing staff signed 1 tablet out of the CDR but did not document the administration on the MAR: on 5/25/25 at 2:48 a.m. After reviewing the resident's clinical record including the MAR and the nursing progress notes, the ADON stated, Yeah I can't see it. She stated it should have been documented on the MAR to show it was administered to the resident. b. A review of Resident 106's clinical record indicated he had a physician's order for hydrocodone/acetaminophen (Norco)10-325 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth every 3 hours PRN pain management, dated 02/28/25. On 6/10/25 at 1:54 p.m., a review of Resident 106's CDR for Norco 10-325 mg and the May 2025 MAR with the DON and ADON indicated the nursing staff signed 1 tablet out of the CDR but did not document the administration on the MAR: on 5/21/25 at 4:45 a.m. Both the DON and ADON confirmed this finding after reviewing the resident's clinical record and stated it should have been documented on the MAR. c. A review of Resident 109's clinical record indicated he had a physician's order, dated 4/22/25, for oxycodone (a potent narcotic for pain) 5 mg, give 0.5 tablet every 8 hours PRN pain. On 6/10/25 at 1:56 p.m., a review of Resident 109's CDR for oxycodone 5 mg and the June 2025 MAR with the DON and ADON indicated the nursing staff signed out 1 tablet from the CDR but did not document the administration on the MAR: on 6/3/25 at 10 a.m. Both the DON and ADON reviewed the resident's clinical record, including the MAR and the progress notes, and confirmed this finding. During an interview on 6/10/25 at 1:59 p.m., the DON stated sometimes the staff get busy and rushed, and forget to document on the MAR. However, both the DON and ADON confirmed all controlled medications would need to be documented on the MAR to account for the medications. Review of facility's policy and procedures titled Medication Administration, reviewed/revised 3/28/25, indicated the nursing staff administering the medications to [s]ign MAR after administered. A review of facility's policy and procedures titled Inventory Control of Controlled Substances, revised 08/01/24, indicated the facility should maintain controlled substance records including Date and time of administration and Name and signature of person administering the medication.
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

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported irregularities during the medication regimen review (MRR) for one out of 26 s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported irregularities during the medication regimen review (MRR) for one out of 26 sampled residents (Resident 373) when Resident 373 had two similar orders for Dilaudid (brand name for hydromorphone, a potent opioid medication used to treat moderate to severe pain).This deficient practice had the potential for excessive dose/adverse effects for Resident 373. Finding: Review of Resident 373's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on 6/12/2025, it indicated Resident 373 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (a condition which affects the way the body processes blood sugar) without complications. During a review of Resident 373's physician order, dated 5/26/25 indicated an order for Dilaudid oral tablet 2 mg (milligram, unit of measurement) give 4 tablet by mouth every 3 hours as needed for pain. During a review of Resident 373's physician order, dated 5/26/25 indicated an order for hydromorphone [brand name for Dilaudid] oral tablet 8 mg give 1 tablet by mouth every 3 hours as needed for pain max (maximum) 4 tabs per day. During a review of Resident 373's physician order, dated 5/26/25 indicated an order for Fentanyl (is more potent [powerful] than many other opioid drugs.) Patch 72 hours 100 mcg (microgram)/hr (hour) apply 1 patch transdermally (the administration of medication through the skin, typically via a patch or ointment, where it is absorbed into the bloodstream for systemic effects) for pain management. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/12/25 at 10:37 a.m., with Registered Nurse H (RN H) she reviewed Resident 373's physician order she confirmed the two similar orders for Dilaudid. She stated the Dilaudid 2 mg give 4 tabs order is for e-kit (emergency kit) upon admission for one time order. She further stated she will clarify with the doctor. During an interview and record review on 6/13/25 at 1:54 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON) the DON look at Resident 373's physician order for Dilaudid and hydromorphone. The DON stated if you look at the orders it's the same dose and frequency. During a review of the MRR, dated 5/29/25 indicated there were no reports about the two similar orders of Dilaudid. During a phone interview on 6/13/25 at 4:06 p.m., with the Consultant Pharmacist (CP), about Resident 373's two similar Dilaudid orders she stated, it's duplicate. She reviewed the MRR, dated 5/29/25. She stated her colleague missed it. The CP was asked if she will recommend discontinuing if not missed CP answered of course. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/13/25 at 4:23 p.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) she reviewed Resident 373's Controlled Drug Records (CDR, inventory record of controlled drugs) for hydromorphone 8 mg. The ADON counted the CDR for date 6/8/25 and she confirmed hydromorphone 8 mg was signed 5 times on 6/8/25 indicated hydromorphone was taken 5 times in one day more than the order of max (maximum) 4 tabs per day. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures titled, Medication Regime Review, revised 4/9/25, indicated, 1. Medication Regimen Review (MRR), or Drug Regimen Review, is a thorough evaluation of the medication regimen of a resident, with the goal of promoting positive outcomes and minimizing adverse consequences and potential risks associated with medication. The MRR includes: a. Review of the medical record in order to prevent, identify, report, and resolve medicationrelated problems, medication errors, or other irregularities .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure their policy and procedure (P&P) for completion of physician...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure their policy and procedure (P&P) for completion of physician orders for life-sustaining treatment (POLST: a document that specifies the medical treatments the resident wants to receive during serious illness) form for six of eight sampled residents (Resident 34, 42, 57, 83, 104 and 106). This failure could lead to the delivery of unnecessary or inappropriate medical services against sampled residents' goals and wishes. Findings: Review of Resident 34's face sheet (FS: a document that gives a resident's information at a quick [NAME]) indicated Resident 34 was admitted to facility on 1/16/2019. Review of Resident 34's POLST form date prepared on 4/12/2024 indicated section for advance directive (AD: a written instruction, such as a living will or durable power of attorney [a document that authorizes a person to act on behalf of resident] for healthcare when the individual is incapacitated) not completed, left blank. Review of Resident 42's FS indicated Resident 42 was admitted to facility on 1/19/2025. Review of Resident 42's POLST form date prepared on 1/20/2025 indicated section D for AD was not completed, left blank. Review of Resident 57's FS indicated Resident 57 was admitted to facility on 3/3/2025. Review of Resident 57's POLST form date prepared on 3/4/2025 indicated section D for AD was not completed, left blank. Review of Resident 83's FS indicated Resident 83 was admitted to facility on 3/12/2024. Review of Resident 83's POLST form date prepared on 3/12/2024 indicated section D for AD was not completed, left blank. Review of Resident 104's FS indicated Resident 104 was admitted to facility on 2/17/2025. Review of Resident 104's POLST form date prepared on 2/17/2025 indicated section D for AD was not completed, left blank. Review of Resident 106's FS indicated Resident 42 was admitted to facility on 2/26/2025. Review of Resident 106's POLST form date prepared on 2/26/2025 indicated section D for AD was not completed, left blank. During a concurrent record review of POLST form and interview with facility's director of nursing (DON) on 6/13/2025 at 2:16 p.m., DON reviewed POLST forms for Residents 34, 42, 57, 83, 104, and 106. DON confirmed section D for AD not completed for all these residents. DON stated nursing staff should have completed all sections of POLST form for residents. Review of facility's P&P titled, Promoting the right of self-determination for healthcare decisions and advanced healthcare directives, dated, November 2016, the P&P indicated, A completed, fully executed form is a legal physician order and is immediately actionable. Review of facility's P&P titled, Residents' Rights Regarding Treatment and Advance Directives, revised 3/4/2024, the P&P indicated, Any decision making regarding the resident's choices will be documented in the resident's medical record and communicated .
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** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans that in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans that included target symptoms, measurable objectives, and interventions for nine out of 26 sampled residents (Resident 5, Resident 96, Resident 109, Resident 10, Resident 106, Resident 111, Resident 89, Resident 91, and Resident 52) when: 1. Resident 5 had no care plan developed related to nebulization treatment (using a machine called a nebulizer to convert liquid medicine into a fine mist that can be inhaled into the lungs); 2. Resident 96 had no care plan developed for diagnosis of epilepsy (an abnormal activity in the brain causing uncontrollable jerking movements of the arms and legs, and loss of consciousness); 3. Resident 109 had no care plans developed for the use of craniotomy helmet (a protective medical device worn by patients who have undergone a craniotomy [a surgical procedure that involves cutting into the skull to access the brain] or craniectomy [a surgical procedure where a portion of the skull is removed to relieve pressure on the brain, often due to swelling or bleeding]) and Resident 109's non-compliance of helmet use; 4. Resident 10 had no care plans developed for wheezing/shortness of breath (SOB); 5. Resident 106 had no care plans developed for infection; 6. Resident 111 and Resident 89 had no care plan developed for Eliquis (blood thinner); 7. Resident 91 had no care plan developed for Warfarin (blood thinner); and 8. Resident 52's care plan did not reflect the appropriate call bell system (a device used to communicate a need for help) needs. These failures had the potential for the residents not attaining their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 5's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated 6/12/2025, indicated Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM, a condition which affects the way the body processes blood sugar), with diabetic neuropathy (nerve damage caused by DM), chronic kidney disease (a condition where the kidneys are damaged and cannot filter blood as well as they should, leading to a buildup of waste and excess fluid in the body), atrial fibrillation (a common heart rhythm disorder where the heart's upper chambers [atria} beat irregularly and often rapidly) and heart failure (a condition where the heart muscle is unable to pump enough blood to meet the body's needs). Review of Resident 5's Order Summary Report, with order dated 3/9/2025, indicated, Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution [a medicine used to treat breathing problems] 0.5-2.5 (3) MG [milligrams, unit of measurement]/3 ML [milliliters, volume of measurement] (Ipratropium-Albuterol) 3 ml inhale orally every 4 hours as needed for Wheezing [a high pitched whistling sound that occurs during breathing, typically when air passes through narrowed or obstructed airways in the lungs]. Review of Resident 5's care plans revealed there was no care plan developed for Resident 5's nebulization therapy for wheezing. During a concurrent interview with registered nurse H (RN H) and record review on 6/12/2025 at 9:33 a.m., RN H reviewed Resident 5's list of plans and confirmed there was no care plan developed for Resident 5's nebulization treatment. RN H stated Resident 5 had episodes of wheezing which was a change in his condition and nebulization therapy was new. RN H further stated we should have care planned it. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 6/13/2025 at 1:39 p.m., DON confirmed nurses should developed a care plan, if a resident had a problem with respiratory (the network of organs that enables breathing, the process of taking in oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide). and needed nebulization. 2. Review of Resident 96's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated Resident 96 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (a problem with how the brain works because of an underlying condition that disrupts the body's metabolism), epilepsy (an abnormal activity in the brain causing uncontrollable jerking movements of the arms and legs, and loss of consciousness), dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing), aphasia (a language disorder that affects a person's ability to communicate) and hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) , unspecified affecting right dominant side (frequently used or stronger side of the body). Review of Resident 96's evaluation on 3/29/2025, it indicated Resident 96 was found unresponsive and was sent out to the hospital on 3/29/2025 for further evaluation and management. Review of Resident 96's admission notes dated 4/3/2025, it indicated Resident 96 was readmitted to the facility with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy and epilepsy. Reviewed Resident 96's Order Summary Report, with order dated 4/3/2025, indicated, Keppra tablet 500 MG (LevETIRAcetam) [a medication used to treat certain types of seizures caused by epilepsy] Give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for Seizure [a sudden, uncontrolled surge of electrical activity in the brain that can cause a range of symptoms, from brief lapses in awareness to convulsion]. Review of Resident 96's care plans, revealed Resident 96 did not have a care plan developed for epilepsy and used of Keppra. During a concurrent interview with RN H and record review on 6/12/2025 at 9:24 a.m., RN H reviewed Resident 96's clinical records and list of care plans and confirmed Resident 96 was readmitted to the facility with diagnosis of epilepsy and had been receiving Keppra. RN H further confirmed Resident 96 had no care plan developed for diagnosis of epilepsy and used of Keppra. RN H stated, the admission nurse was responsible for initiating a care plan and the minimum data set nurse (MDSN) should review the resident's chart and should add any missing care plans. During an interview with DON on 6/13/2025 at 1:38 p.m., DON confirmed Resident 96 was readmitted to the facility with diagnosis of epilepsy and had a new order of Keppra. DON stated nurses should have developed a care plan to address Resident 96's diagnosis of epilepsy with the use of Keppra. 3. Review of Resident 109's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated 6/12/2025, indicated Resident 109 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (a condition that causes partial paralysis or weakness on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (commonly referred to as stroke) affecting left non-dominant side (the part of the body [like hand, foot or eye] that is less preferred nor used for tasks compared to its paired counterpart, which is the dominant side), atrial fibrillation, heart failure, aphasia and unspecified convulsions (a medical event characterized by involuntary, violent muscle contractions that can cause sudden, uncontrolled shaking of the body). Review of Resident 109's Order Summary Report, order dated 4/7/2025, indicated Craniotomy helmet to be worn when OOB [out of bed] During an observation on 6/9/2025 at 9:21 a.m., inside Resident 109's room, Resident 109 was seated on a wheelchair, with splint to his left hand, and a helmet placed on his lap. During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 109 on 6/10/2025 at 1:06 p.m., inside Resident 109's room, Resident 109 was seated on a wheelchair and the helmet was on his bed. No staff supervision. Resident 109 stated he removed the helmet because it was heavy. During a concurrent observation and interview with RN H on 6/10/2025 at 1:08 p.m., inside Resident 109's room, RN H confirmed the above observation and stated Resident 109 removed his helmet. Review of Resident 109's list of care plans revealed there was no care plan developed for craniotomy helmet use and Resident 109's non-compliance with it's use. During a concurrent interview with RN H and record review on 6/12/2025 at 9:01 a.m., RN H reviewed Resident 109's care plans and confirmed she just added the care plan related to the use of Resident 109's helmet and his noncompliance on 6/10/2025. RN H stated the care plan related to the use of helmet should have been developed since admission because Resident 109 was admitted with the craniotomy helmet on 4/7/2025. During an interview with DON on 6/13/2025 at 1:41 p.m., DON stated care plan should be developed by the MDS nurse, assistant director of nursing (ADON) and DON. DON further stated, we have 21 days from resident's admission to complete the comprehensive care plans. 4. Review of Resident 10's face sheet (FS: a document that gives resident's information at a quick glance) indicated Resident 10 was admitted to facility on 4/8/2019. Review of Resident 10's diagnoses included wheezing (a high-pitched whistling sound made while breathing). Review of Resident 10's order listing summary indicated order for ipratropium-albuterol (a combination of liquid medication used to control and treat air flow blockage to facilitate breathing) solution 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3 ML (MG: milligram, unit of mass equal to one-thousandth of a gram, ML: milliliters: a measure of volume equal to one-thousandth of a liter) inhale (to breath in) orally (by mouth) every 8 hours for SOB (shortness of breath, difficulty breathing) and every 6 hours as needed for SOB dated 4/7/2025. Review of 10's electronic medication administration record (EMAR: digital system for documenting medication administration) for June/2025 indicated Resident 10 receiving above medication every 8 hours every day and every 6 hours as needed. Review of Resident 10's care plans indicated there was no documented evidence of care plan for wheezing/SOB. 5. Review of Resident 106's FS indicated Resident 106 was admitted to facility on 2/26/2025. Review of Resident 106's diagnoses included diabetes type 2 (a chronic condition that happens with persistent high blood sugar levels) and peripheral vascular disease (a circulatory condition in which narrowed blood vessels reduce blood flow to arms and legs). Review of Resident 106's order listing report indicated Levaquin 500 mg one time a day for infection until 6/24/2025, date ordered on 5/28/2025. Review of Resident 106's EMAR for May/2025 indicated Resident 106 received Levaquin on 5/28/2025 till 5/31/2025 at 9:00 a.m. Review of EMAR for June/2025 indicated Resident 106 currently receiving Levaquin every day at 9:00 a.m. Review of Resident 106's care plans indicated there was no documented evidence of care plan for infection. During an interview with facility's director of nursing (DON) on 6/13/2025 at 1:38 p.m., DON confirmed there was no care plan for SOB for Resident 10 and infection for Resident 106. DON stated nursing staff should have implemented care plan for both resident 10 and 106. 6.a. Review of Resident 111's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on 6/12/2025, it indicated Resident 111 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses includes atrial fibrillation (a common heart condition where the heart's upper chambers (atria) beat irregularly and often rapidly) and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 111's physician orders indicated an order dated 4/29/25 Eliquis tablet 5 mg (milligram, unit of measurement) give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for atrial fib (fibrillation). During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/12/25 at 10:47 a.m., with Registered Nurse H (RN H), she reviewed Resident 111's care plan and she confirmed there was no care plan developed for Eliquis. She stated no care plan pertaining to blood thinner. She further stated they should have used the templates care plan for residents using blood thinner. 6.b. Review of Resident 89's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on 6/12/2025, it indicated Resident 89 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses includes Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and mental functions) and unspecified atrial fibrillation (a common heart condition where the heart's upper chambers (atria) beat irregularly and often rapidly). During a review of Resident 89's physician orders indicated an order, dated 4/16/25 Eliquis tablet 2.5 mg (milligram, unit of measurement) give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for Atrial fibrillation. During a review of Resident 89's clinical record indicated there was no care plan developed related to use of Eliquis. During a concurrent interview and record review om 6/12/25 at 10:51 a.m., with Registered Nurse H (RN H), she reviewed Resident 89's care plan. RN H confirmed there was no care plan developed for Eliquis. She further stated she [Resident 89] should have a care plan for Eliquis. 7. Review of Resident 91's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on 6/12/2025, it indicated Resident 91 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses includes unspecified atrial fibrillation (a common heart condition where the heart's upper chambers (atria) beat irregularly and often rapidly) and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 91's Medication Administration Records (MAR) May 2025 indicated an order, dated 5/29/25 for Warfarin (blood thinner) Sodium tablet 2.5 mg (milligram, unit of measurement) give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for atrial fib (fibrillation). During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 91's care plan on 6/13/25 at 11:30 a.m., with Registered Nurse H (RN H), she confirmed there was no care plan developed for warfarin. She stated she cannot see a care plan for warfarin. She further stated Resident 91 should have a care plan for warfarin. During an interview on 6/13/25 at 1:38 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated they review the new admit resident the next day probably missed the care plans. She further stated if the care plan is not there is not there. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Comprehensive Care Plans dated 2/5/25, indicated, Policy: It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs and ALL services that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment and meet professional standards of quality. 8. Review of Resident 52's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated, Resident 52 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] (original admission date 3/11/25) with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis (a condition that causes partial paralysis or weakness on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (also called stroke) affecting left non-dominant side (the part of the body [like hand, foot or eye] that is less preferred nor used for tasks compared to its paired counterpart, which is the dominant side), muscle weakness (generalized) and aphasia following cerebral infarction. During an observation on 6/9/25 at 8:53 a.m. in Resident 52's room, the call light button for Resident 52 was positioned hanging from the urinary catheter (a thin, flexible tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine) tubing, at the right bed rail, resting on the floor, and was not within Resident 52's reach for use. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/11/25 at 9:00 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) G in Resident 52's room, the call light button was found on the floor. LVN G confirmed the above observation and stated Resident 52 never used his call light button. LVN G further stated that a different call system would be more beneficial and appropriate for Resident 52. During a concurrent interview and record review with RN H, on 6/12/25 at 8:52 a.m., RN H reviewed Resident 52's clinical records and list of care plans and confirmed Resident 52 was very dependent, had limited movement, and bed bound. RN H further stated that if the call light button was not appropriate for Resident 52, nurses should have reassessed Resident 52 and implement specific interventions based on his needs. RN H further confirmed there was no care plan developed to address Resident 52's call system needs. During an interview with the DON on 6/13/2025 at 1:34 p.m., DON stated the resident's needs for an appropriate call light system should have been assessed within two hours upon resident's admission. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Call Lights: Accessibility and Timely Response, date revised 10/21/2024, indicated, Each resident will be evaluated for unique needs and preferences to determine any special accommodations that may be needed in order for the resident to utilize the call system. Special accommodations will be identified on the resident's person-centered plan of care, and provided accordingly. (Examples include touch pads, larger buttons, bright colors, etc.) During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Comprehensive Care Plans, date revised 2/5/2025, indicated, It is the policy of this facility to develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with resident rights, that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs and ALL services that are identified in the resident's comprehensive assessment and meet professional standards of quality. The comprehensive care plan will describe, at a minimum, the following: a. The services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. b. Any services that would otherwise be furnished, but are not provided due to the resident's exercise of his or her right to refuse treatment.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility had a medication error rate of 18.18% when 6 medication errors occurred out of 33 opportunities during the medication administration fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility had a medication error rate of 18.18% when 6 medication errors occurred out of 33 opportunities during the medication administration for three out of eight residents (Resident 52, 106, and 112). For Resident 106, the nursing staff did not prime (the process of removing air from the insulin pen and needle before each injection) the insulin (medication to lower blood sugar) pen and needle before giving insulin. Resident 112 received fluticasone nasal spray (a medication for seasonal allergies) not as ordered. Resident 52 received 4 medications that were combined, crushed, administered together via the gastrostomy tube (G-tube, a tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition and medications directly to the stomach), a practice contrary to the facility's policy and procedures (P&P). The failures resulted in a medication not given as ordered; potential for too low or high dose of insulin that could lead to adverse effects; and potential for physical and chemical incompatibilities (undesirable chemical or physical reactions that occur when two or more drugs are mixed) and tube occlusion (blockage) when medications are crushed and mixed together given via the feeding tube. Findings: 1. During the medication administration observation on 6/9/25 at 9:42 a.m., at Resident 106's bedside, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) C was observed pricking Resident 106's right middle finger to obtain a blood sample to get a blood sugar reading. Returning to the medication cart, on 6/9/25 at 9:47 a.m., LVN C was observed removing an insulin pen called Tresiba Flextouch (a pre-filled pen containing insulin degludec, an ultra-long-acting insulin, which works steadily throughout the day to control blood sugar between meals and overnight) from the medication cart. Then she removed the pen cap, wiped the rubber seal, placed a needle on the rubber seal, and turned the dose dial to 40 units. She stated she will give 40 units to the resident. During this process, LVN C did not prime the pen and needle. On 6/9/25 at 9:48 a.m., at Resident 106's bedside, LVN C injected Tresiba dose into the resident's abdomen. During an interview with LVN C on 6/9/25 at 9:52 a.m., when asked about priming insulin pen before injection, LVN C stated, I am supposed to prime with 3 units but I did not. A review of Resident 106's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated 3/19/25, for Insulin Degludec FlexTouch, inject 40 units subcutaneously (under the skin) one time a day for diabetes (a condition that happens when your blood sugar is too high). During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 6/10/25 at 9:54 a.m., she stated, You prime the insulin pen before administration. During a telephone interview with the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) on 6/12/25 at 1:49 p.m., when asked about insulin pen administration, the CP stated the pen has to be primed before each administration. A review of the facility's P&P titled Insulin Pen, reviewed/revised 4/9/25, indicated the following: 6. Insulin pens will be primed prior to each use to avoid collection of air in the insulin reservoir . h. Prime the insulin pen: i. Dial 2 units by turning the dose selector clockwise. ii. With the needle pointing up, push the plunger, and watch to see that at least one drop of insulin appears on the tip of the needle. If not, repeat until at least one drop appears. i. Set the insulin dose: i. Turn the dose selector to ordered dose . 2. During a medication administration observation on 6/9/25 at 10:01 a.m., LVN A was observed preparing 7 medications for Resident 112 including a nasal spray bottle called fluticasone 50 micrograms (mcg, unit of measurement) per spray. A review of the pharmacy label on the fluticasone bottle indicated to administer 2 sprays into each nostril. On 6/9/25 at 10:12 a.m., at Resident 112's bedside, LVN A was observed administering only 1 spray of fluticasone into each of the resident's nostrils. During an interview with LVN A on 6/9/25 at 10:23 a.m., when asked how many fluticasone sprays should be administered per nostril, LVN A reviewed the physician's order on her laptop and stated, It says two. She confirmed she administered only 1 spray per nostril and will give another spray now. A review of Resident 112's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated 4/10/25, for Fluticasone Propionate Nasal Suspension 50 MCG/ACT[uation] . 2 spray[s] in each nostril one time a day for Allergy. A review of the facility's P&P titled Medication Administration, revised on 3/28/25, indicated the staff administering medications ensure the six rights of medication administration including the right dose. 3. During a medication administration observation on 6/9/25 at 4:37 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) B was observed preparing 4 medications for Resident 52, who was receiving medications via the G-tube. The 4 medications were: 1 tablet of carvedilol (for hypertension or high blood pressure) 3.125 mg, 1 tablet of docusate sodium (a laxative) 100 mg, 1 tablet of famotidine (medication to reduce acid in the stomach) 20 mg, and 1 tablet of hydralazine (for hypertension) 50 mg. During the preparation on 6/9/25 at 4:53 p.m., RN B was observed placing all 4 tablets into a small plastic bag and crushed them together into fine powder by using the pill crusher. Then she transferred the medication mixture powder into the medication cup and added some water to dilute the powder. On 6/9/25 at 4:55 p.m., at Resident 52's bedside, RN B was observed flushing the resident's G-tube with about 20 milliliters (mL) of water using a large syringe. Next, she drew the diluted medication mixture from the cup into the syringe, attached the syringe to the resident's G-tube, and pushed it into the G-tube. Then she did the final flushing of the tubing with some water. During an interview on 6/9/25 at 4:58 p.m., RN B was asked about medications being crushed and administered together via the feeding tube. She stated, I should have done separate. It didn't come to my mind. She stated there was no hold parameters for the medications so she thought it was okay to give them together. A review of Resident 52's clinical record indicated the following physician's orders: a. Carvedilol 3.125 mg, give 1 tablet via G-tube two times a day for hypertension, dated 4/3/25; b. Docusate sodium 100 mg, give 1 tablet via G-tube two times a day for constipation, dated 4/19/25; c. Famotidine 20 mg, give 1 tablet two times a day for gastrointestinal protection, dated 5/29/25; and d. Hydralazine 50 mg, give 1 tablet via G-tube two times a day for hypertension, dated 4/3/25. On 6/10/25 at 9:54 a.m., in an interview with the DON regarding medication administration via the feeding tube, she stated medications are not to be combined together; they are to be crushed separately and administered separately with flushing of water before, between, and after medication administration. During a telephone interview with the CP on 6/12/25 at 1:49 p.m., she stated there has been a lot of reminders to the nursing staff not to mix medications together via enteral tube administration. She stated, Meds have to be separated and flushing of water before, and in between each med, and afterwards. A review of the facility's P&P titled Medication Administration via Enteral Tube, revised 4/09/25, indicated: Each medication will be administered separately, not combined or added to an enteral feeding formula . Flush enteral tube with at least 15 mL of water prior to administering medication . Dilute the solid or liquid medication as appropriate and administer using a clean oral syringe . Flush tube again with at least 15 mL water taking into account resident's volume status.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure food served was palatable and attractive. This failure had the potential to affect the amount of food residents consume, which could de...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview the facility failed to ensure food served was palatable and attractive. This failure had the potential to affect the amount of food residents consume, which could decrease their food intake and lead to poor nutrition and health outcomes. Findings: During an interview on 6/9/25 at 9:34 a.m. with Resident 17, Resident 17 stated that Breakfast this morning was terrible, no taste, and bland. She also stated the food overall in the facility was terrible most of the days. During an interview on 6/9/25 at 10:10 a.m. with Resident 42, Resident 42 stated The breakfast is not exciting, same food every day, no change, eggs every day. Resident 42 also stated that the meals had no flavor and no taste and that she does not like the food. During an interview on 6/9/25 at 10:15 a.m. with Resident 98, Resident 98 stated Breakfast is just OK, nothing exciting. She stated she is getting eggs with no taste and the edges are too dry. During an interview on 6/9/25 at 11:09 a.m. with Resident 321, Resident 321 stated the food is terrible, no taste, and the same food every day. As a result of multiple resident complaints about the food, a test tray evaluation was conducted during the lunch service on 6/11/25 at 1:28 p.m. The registered dietician (RD) and the dietary manager (DM) were in attendance when the test tray contents were sampled by seven surveyors. One item on the test tray was green beans, an alternate vegetable for those residents who disliked broccoli. The surveyors stated the green beans did not look appealing at all, had very little green color, and appeared overcooked. The surveyors who sampled the green beans stated the green beans had no flavor. The DM tasted the green beans and stated, The green beans are mushy and don't have any flavor. The RD stated, I did not even taste them, they do not look appetizing to me, I would not eat them. A review of the facility document titled, Job Description: Cook, dated 1/1/08, indicated essential duties of the cook were to Ensure that all food has an appealing presentation (we eat with our eyes). A review of the facility document titled, Job Description: Registered Dietician, dated 4/1/11, indicated job duties included Observes and assesses residents to monitor food acceptance and nutritional status and Evaluates and monitors the operations of the Dietary Department to assure the provision of adequate, high-quality food.
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 food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food safety when pans ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food safety when pans used for food preparation and food service were stacked and stored wet. This failure had the potential to cause food contamination and food-borne illness to 117 of 118 residents who received their food from the kitchen. Findings: During an initial kitchen tour on 6/9/25 at 9:30 a.m., accompanied by the dietary manager (DM), there were 11 metal pans of various sizes, observed to be stored under the steam table. The pans were stacked upside down inside of one another and were wet inside and outside of the pan's surfaces. The DM confirmed the pans were wet and he stated they should have been air dried before being stacked and stored. According to the 2022 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code, Section 4-901.11 Equipment and Utensils, Air-Drying Required, After cleaning and sanitizing, equipment and utensils: shall be air-dried . According to the FDA Food Code 2022 4-903 Storing, Clean equipment and utensils shall be stored in a self-draining position that allows air drying.
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** 5. On [DATE] at 9:19 a.m., Licensed Vocation Nurse (LVN) C was observed removing a glucometer from the medication cart. On [DATE...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. On [DATE] at 9:19 a.m., Licensed Vocation Nurse (LVN) C was observed removing a glucometer from the medication cart. On [DATE] at 9:22 a.m., at Resident 5's bedside, LVN C was observed pricking the resident's left middle finger to get a blood sample for the blood sugar reading. On [DATE] at 9:28 a.m., LVN C was observed removing a pre-saturated chlorox disinfectant wipe and wrapping it around the glucometer without wipping it down first. Then she placed it on top of the medication cart. On [DATE] at 9:38 a.m., LVN C used the same glucometer and entered Resident 106's room to obtain his blood sugar reading. She stated she could not get a reading because the battery in the glucometer died. Two minutes later, on [DATE] at 9:40 a.m., LVN C returned to the medication cart, and again, used the chlorox disinfectant wipe to wrap around the glucometer without cleaning it first with the wipe. On [DATE] at 9:42 a.m., LVN C returned to Resident 106's room with another glucometer and was able to obtain a blood sugar reading. On [DATE] at 9:45 a.m., LVN C returned to the medication cart and again wrapped the glucometer with a chlorox disinfectant wipe. On [DATE] at 9:52 a.m., LVN C was asked to show the label on the chlorox disinfectant wipe, which indicated to allow wet time for one minute. LVN C stated she disinfects the glucometer by wrapping a wipe around the glucometer and allow it to stay wet between resident uses. She acknowledged she did not use the wiping motion to cover the surfaces of the glucometer for 1 minute as instructed on the bottle. During an interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) in the presence of the Director of Nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 10:15 a.m., the IP stated the nurse needs to wipe down the glucometer for 1 minute and wrap it afterwards. She further stated they need to wipe down first before wrapping. A review of the facility's P&P titled Glucometer Disinfection, dated [DATE], indicated, Glucometers will be cleaned and disinfected after each use . Procedure: . i. Retrieve (2) disinfectant wipes from container. j. Using first wipe, clean first to remove heay soil, blood and/or other contaminants left on the surface of the glucometer. k. After cleaning, use second wipe to disinfect the glucometer thoroughly with the disinfectant wipe, following the manufactuer's instructions. Allow the glucometer to air dry. 6. On [DATE] at 9:19 a.m., upon meeting with LVN C, she stated she had already prepared the morning medications for Resident 5. She placed the medication cup along with the glucometer in the medication tray and took it to Resident 5's room. On [DATE] at 9:22 a.m., at Resident 5's bedside, LVN C placed the medication tray on the resident's over-bed table. After administering the medications and obtaining the blood sugar reading, LVN C took the medication tray, returned to the medication cart in the hall way, and placed the tray on top of the cart. LVN C did not wipe or clean the medication tray. On [DATE] at 9:32 a.m., LVN C started preparing 6 medications for the next resident, Resident 106. After finished, she placed Resident 106's medication cup, along with a cup of water, into the same medication tray. On [DATE] at 9:38 a.m., at Resident 106's bedside, LVN C placed the medication tray on the resident's over-bed table and administered the medications to the resident. On [DATE] at 9:45 a.m., LVN C returned to the medication cart and and placed the medication tray on top of it without cleaning or disinfecting it. During an interview on [DATE] at 9:52 a.m., LVN C confirmed she did not disinfect the medication tray between the uses for Resident 5 and Resident 106. LVN C stated she should have. A review of the facility's P&P titled Infection Prevention and Control Program revised [DATE], indicated, All staff shall assume that all residents are potentially infected or colonized with an organism that could be transmitted during the course of providing resident care services and All reusable items and equipment . shall be cleaned in accordance with our current procedures governing the cleaning and sterilization of soiled or contaminated equipment. 7. During a medication administration observation on [DATE] at 4:37 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) B was observed preparing 4 medications for Resident 52, who was receiving medications via the G-tube. A signage indicating ENHANCED BARRIER PRECAUTIONS was observed posted at the door outside of Resident 52's room. On [DATE] at 4:55 p.m., RN B brought the prepared medications into Resident 52's bedside and administered the medications via G-tube with gloves on but without wearing a gown. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:58 p.m., when asked whether she should have worn a gown for the G-tube administration for Resident 52, RN B stated the gown was required only for anything with high contact. I didn't touch his skin. During an interview with the DON on [DATE] at10:05 a.m., she stated nurses are required to wear gloves and gown during enteral tube medication administration according to the facility's EBP policy. A review of the facility's P&P titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated [DATE], indicated personal protective equipment (PPE) with gowns and gloves for EBP is only necessary when performing high-contact activities. The P&P further indicated, High-contact resident care activities include . Device care or use . feeding tubes . 2. Review of Resident 5's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM - a condition which affects the way the body processes blood sugar), with diabetic neuropathy (nerve damage caused by DM), chronic kidney disease (a condition where the kidneys are damaged and cannot filter blood as well as they should, leading to a buildup of waste and excess fluid in the body), atrial fibrillation (a common heart rhythm disorder where the heart's upper chambers [atria} beat irregularly and often rapidly) and heart failure (a condition where the heart muscle is unable to pump enough blood to meet the body's needs). Review of Resident 5's Order Summary Report, with order dated [DATE], indicated, Ipratropium-Albuterol Inhalation Solution [a medicine used to treat breathing problems] 0.5-2.5 (3) MG [milligrams, unit of measurement]/3ML [milliliters, volume of measurement] (Ipratropium-Albuterol) 3 ml inhale orally every 4 hours as needed for Wheezing [a high pitched whistling sound that occurs during breathing, typically when air passes through narrowed or obstructed airways in the lungs]. During an observation on [DATE] at 9:39 a.m., inside Resident 5's room, Resident 5 was in bed and observed his used nebulizer kit with mask and tubing was on top of his other belongings in the bedside drawer, unlabeled and undated. Picture taken. During a concurrent observation and interview with restorative nursing assistant T (RNA T) on [DATE] at 9:43 a.m., inside Resident 5's room, Resident 5's used nebulizer kit with mask and tubing were still on top of Resident 5's personal belongings in the bedside drawer, unlabeled and undated. RNA T confirmed the above observation and stated the nebulizer kit with mask and tubing should be placed inside a plastic bag when not in used. RNA T further confirmed, the nebulizer kit with mask or its tubing did not have any label. During a concurrent interview with case manager W (CM W) and photo review on [DATE] at 8:38 a.m., CM W reviewed the photo of Resident 5's nebulizer kit with mask and tubing placed on top of Resident 5's belongings in the bedside drawer. When asked about the facility's policy and procedure of how to care of residents' nebulizer kit with mask and how often should they change it, CM W was unable to answer the question and stated, I'll get back to you. During an interview with licensed vocational nurse G (LVN G) on [DATE] at 9:04 a.m., LVN G stated the nebulizer mask should be changed monthly and they did not have to label it with the date because it was already indicated in the resident's medication administration record (MAR - a daily documentation record used by a licensed nurse to document medications and treatments given to a resident). LVN G further stated, after the resident had completed the nebulization, licensed nurses had to rinse the nebulizer kit with mask, air dried and placed inside the plastic bag. During a follow-up concurrent interview with CM W and record review on [DATE] at 9:20 a.m., CM W reviewed Resident 5's Order Summary Report, and stated the order indicated to change the nebulizer mask and tubing monthly. When asked to view the order audit details, the order revealed it was created by CM W on [DATE] at 9:24 a.m. after this surveyor spoke to her. CM W confirmed and stated, to be honest with you, I entered the order [above order] yesterday [[DATE]]. During an interview with registered nurse H (RN H) on [DATE] at 9:33 a.m., RN H stated, after resident's nebulization, they would place the nebulizer kit with mask inside the plastic bag. RN H further stated she was not sure if they needed to clean the nebulizer kit first. RN H confirmed they would just place the kit inside the plastic bag after each use and never cleaned it. RN H stated she would check the manufacturer's guideline and would get back to this surveyor. During an interview with the facility's infection preventionist (IP) on [DATE] at 1:23 p.m., IP stated the nebulizer kit with mask and tubing should be rinsed after used and placed inside the plastic bag. IP stated she was not sure about the policy but the nebulizer kit with mask and tubing should be changed every 30 days, and they did not need to label it because the date changed was documented in the resident's MAR. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Nebulizer Therapy, date revised [DATE], indicated, When medication delivery is complete, turn the machine off .Disassemble and rinse the nebulizer with sterile or distilled water and allow to air dry. Care of the Equipment: 1. Clean after each use. 2. Wash hands before handling equipment. 3. Disassemble part after every treatment. 4. Rinse the nebulizer cup and mouthpiece with sterile or distilled water. 5. Shake off excess water. 6. Air dry on an absorbent towel. 7. Once completely dry, store the nebulizer cup and the mouthpiece in a zip lock bag. 8. Change nebulizer tubing every 7 days and prn [as needed]. 8. Periodically disinfect unit per manufacturer's recommendations. 3. During a concurrent observation and interview with RNA T on [DATE] at 9:47 a.m., inside a shared bathroom of Room AA and Room BB, a used and unlabeled basin was found on top of the toilet's tank. RNA T confirmed the above observation and stated the bathroom was shared by four residents. RNA T stated the used basin should have been labeled with resident's name and room number. RNA T was unable to state where the used basin should have been stored. During an interview with the facility's IP on [DATE] at 1:23 p.m., IP stated non-critical items such as a basin should have been rinsed after use and placed in a bag. IP stated it should also be labeled with a resident's name. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure titled, Labeling Critical and Non-Critical Personal Belongings Policy 409, indicated, All personal belongings of residents as well as items supplied by the facility (such as urinals, bedpans, etc.) will be labeled .Store all items in appropriate place. 4. During a concurrent observation and interview with IP on [DATE] at 11:41 a.m., in front of the facility's soiled linen room, a plastic bag of dirty towels was observed on the floor beside the soiled linen room door. IP confirmed the above observation and stated the plastic bag of soiled towels should not be on the floor. During a concurrent observation and interview with laundry staff X (LS X) on [DATE] at 11:43 a.m., in front of the soiled linen room, LS X stated (as translated by the IP) she had no idea who placed the plastic bag of dirty towels on the floor, and she immediately tossed it in the soiled linen basket inside the soiled linen room. LS X confirmed the plastic bag contained dirty towels. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, date revised [DATE], indicated, Soiled linen shall be collected at the bedside and placed in a linen bag. When the task is complete, the bag shall be closed securely and placed in the soiled utility room. Soiled linen shall not be kept in the resident's room or bathroom. 8. During an observation on [DATE] at 9:50 a.m., noted undated and uncovered nasal cannula left on bed for Resident 34 while O2 not in use. Another undated and uncovered NC wrapped around emergency oxygen tank (a portable oxygen cylinder) while O2 not in use for Resident 34. Review of Resident 34's face sheet (FS: a document that gives resident's information at a quick glance) indicated Resident 34 was admitted to facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 34's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a group of lung [a pair of spongy body organs crucial for breathing and gas exchange] diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe). Review of Resident 34's order summary report indicated oxygen at 2 LPM (LPM: liters per minute, flow rate of supplemental oxygen deliver to resident) via NC as needed ., dated [DATE]. During an interview with certified nursing assistant Q (CNA Q) on [DATE] at 9:55 a.m., CNA Q confirmed above undated and uncovered NCs for Resident 34. 9. During an observation on [DATE] at 10:36 a.m., noted undated nebulizer face mask with tubing placed in a plastic bag left on nightstand next to Resident 8's bed. Observation of undated NC attached to RAC while O2 in use for Resident 8. Review of Resident 8's FS indicated Resident 8 was admitted to facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 8's diagnoses included chronic respiratory failure (a long term condition which causes low levels of O2 in blood) and congestive heart failure (a chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should). Review of Resident 8's order summary report indicated ipratropium-albuterol ((a combination of liquid medication used to control and treat air flow blockage to facilitate breathing) solution 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3ML (MG: milligram, unit of mass equal to one-thousandth of a gram, ML: milliliters: a measure of volume equal to one-thousandth of a liter) inhale (to breath in) orally (by mouth) every 6 hours as needed for SOB/wheezing (shortness of breath, difficulty breathing/ a high-pitched whistling sound made while breathing) dated [DATE]. Another order dated [DATE] indicated, oxygen at 2 LPM via NC continuous every shift for SOB. 10. During an observation on [DATE] at 10:43 a.m., noted nebulizer face mask with tubing undated, left in a plastic bag located on night stand next to Resident 10's bed. Review of Resident 10's face sheet (FS: a document that gives resident's information at a quick glance) indicated Resident 10 was admitted to facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 10's diagnoses included wheezing. Review of Resident 10's order listing summary indicated order for ipratropium-albuterol solution 0.5-2.5 (3) MG/3ML inhale orally every 8 hours for SOB (shortness of breath, difficulty breathing) and every 6 hours as needed for SOB dated [DATE]. During an interview with CNA P on [DATE] at 10:52 a.m., CNA P confirmed above findings for undated face mask and NC for Resident 8 and 10. 11. During an observation on [DATE] at 10:56 a.m., noted Resident 104's foley catheter's urine collection drain bag anchored to bed, was touched the floor. Review of Resident 104's FS indicated Resident 104 was admitted to facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 104's diagnoses included urinary obstruction (a condition that occurs when urine flow obstructed that inhibits the flow of urine through its normal path). Review of Resident 104's order summary report indicated, Foley Catheter: 14 French 10 ML (F/C size) to Gravity (downward flow) Drainage . During an interview with CNA R on [DATE] at 10:59 a.m., CNA R confirmed above finding for Resident 104's urine collection bag touched the floor. CNA R adjusted the bag to off the floor and stated urine collection drain bag should be above the floor for infection control. During an interview with registered nurse S (RN S) on [DATE] at 9:30 a.m., RN S stated NC and nebulizer mask with tubing should be changed every week, labeled with date when changed and NC should be stored in a plastic bag when O2 not in use for infection control. RN S also stated if not dated nursing staff would not know when they were changed for residents. RN S further stated F/C urine collection drain bag should not touched floor. During an interview with facility's infection preventionist (IP) on [DATE] at 9:54 a.m., IP stated nursing staff should have labeled NC when changed for residents. IP also stated nursing staff should have placed F/C urine collection drain bag above the floor or placed in a plastic container, so bag do not touch the floor for infection control practice. IP further stated NC should be stored in a plastic bag when O2 not in use for infection control. During another interview with IP on [DATE] at 9:54 a.m., IP stated nursing staff should have dated nebulizer mask/tubing when changed for residents. IP also stated facility's policy to change NC and nebulizer mask once a month. During continuation of the interview, IP stated NC and nebulizer mask with tubing should be changed once a week not once a month and then IP stated not sure how often they needed to change. During an interview with facility's DON on [DATE] at 11:21 a.m., DON stated currently nursing staff changing NC every week for residents. DON also stated facility changing policy to change NC every week, not once a month as current policy indicated. Review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Nebulizer Therapy, revised on [DATE], the P&P indicated, Change nebulizer tubing every 7 days and prn (as needed). Review of facility's P&P titled, Oxygen Administration, revised on [DATE], the P&P indicated, Nasal Cannula- Oxygen is administered through plastic cannulas in the nostrils. Review of facility's P&P titled, Catheter Care, revised on [DATE], the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to ensure that residents with indwelling catheters (F/C) receive appropriate catheter care . Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were implemented when: 1. Resident 111's room there were no Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP, are a set of infection control measures used in nursing homes to reduce the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms [MDROs. It refers to a microorganism, usually bacteria, that has developed resistance to multiple classes of antimicrobial agents, such as antibiotics and antifungals.]) signage posted outside the room; 2. Resident 5's used nebulizer kit with mask and tubing (a medical device that turns liquids into fine mist that can be inhaled easily) were placed on top of Resident 5's personal belongings in the bedside drawer, unlabeled and undated; 3. Used basin was found unlabeled and stored on top of a toilet's tank in a shared bathroom; 4. A bag of dirty towels was observed on the floor beside the soiled linen room door; 5. One of two nurses observed during the medication administration did not correctly clean and disinfect the glucometer (blood glucose meter to measure and display the amount of sugar in the blood); 6. One of seven nurses observed during the medication administration did not disinfect the medication tray between resident uses; 7. One of one nurse observed during medication administration did not wear a gown during the administration of medications via enteral tube (a tube inserted into the stomach to deliver nutrition and medications) in accordance with the facility policy and procedures (P&P) for enhanced barrier precautions (EBP); 8. Resident 34's nasal cannula (NC: a medical device used to deliver supplemental oxygen [O2: a colorless, odorless, and tasteless gas essential to living organisms] to a resident through the nostrils) attached to room air concentrator (RAC: a machine that takes in room air and filters to produce a concentrated supply of O2 for residents who needed supplemental O2) was undated and uncovered; 9. Resident 8's nebulizer (delivers liquid medication in the form of mist typically used for respiratory treatment) face mask (medical device that fits over the nose and mouth, allows the resident to inhale medication as they breath normally) was undated; 10. Resident 10's nebulizer face mask tubing was undated; 11. Resident 104's foley catheter (F/C: a thin flexible tube inserted into the bladder [a body organ that stores urine before it is expelled from body] to drain urine)'s urine collection drain bag anchored to bed, was touched the floor; and 12. Resident 52's urinary catheter drainage bag (is a container/bar that collects urine drained from the bladder through a urinary catheter [a thin tube inserted into the bladder to help it empty]) was observed touching the floor. These failures had the potential to compromise resident's health and safety, and spread infections to residents, staff, and visitors. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 111's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on [DATE], it indicated Resident 111 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses includes atrial fibrillation (a common heart condition where the heart's upper chambers (atria) beat irregularly and often rapidly) and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 111's physician order dated [DATE] indicated Cleanse PU (pressure ulcer, also known as bedsore or pressure sore) on left gluteus (three large skeletal muscles that form the buttock and move the thigh.) with NS (normal saline), pat dry, apply medi-honey ( medical-grade honey product used for wound care ) and cover with foam dressing. During a review of Resident 111's clinical records indicated a care plan titled St (stage) 3 PU to left buttock, dated [DATE]. During an observation on [DATE] at 11:42 a.m., in Resident 111's room there was no EBP signage posted outside the room. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:38 a.m., with the Treatment Nurse (TN), TN stated Resident 111 has stage 3 wound to gluteus. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:23 p.m., with the Infection preventionist (IP), the IP stated she is familiar with Resident 111. She stated Resident 111 does have a wound stage 3 and she is aware now that she doesn't have EBP signage posted outside Resident 111's room. She further stated she will go and fix it now. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions dated [DATE], indicated, . 2. Initiation of Enhanced Barrier Precautions: b. An order for enhance barrier precautions will be obtained for residents with any of the following: i. Wounds (e.g., chronic wounds such as pressure ulcers .). 12. During observations on [DATE] at 10:02 a.m., and on [DATE] at 1:05 p.m., inside Resident 52's room, Resident 52's urinary catheter drainage bag was observed touching the floor. During a concurrent observation and interview on [DATE] at 9:00 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) G, in Resident 52's room, Resident 52's urinary catheter drainage bag was touching the floor. LVN G confirmed the above observation and stated, the urinary catheter bag should be hanging and not be touching the floor for infection control issues. A review of Resident 52's care plan, date initiated [DATE], titled, Foley/Urinary Care/ CAUTI [catheter associated urinary tract infection] Prevention Care Bundle to prevent detection of UTI and prevention of urinary complications, the Interventions/Tasks indicated, . Keep urinary bag below level of bladder, but off the floor . A review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, date revised [DATE], the P&P indicated, .This facility established and maintains of infection prevention .to provide a safe sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent development and transmission of communicable disease and infections .
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their Antibiotic Stewardship Program when six of 18 residents (Residents 89, 68, 108, 23, 47, and 373) who received ant...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their Antibiotic Stewardship Program when six of 18 residents (Residents 89, 68, 108, 23, 47, and 373) who received antibiotics (medications that kill or inhibit the growth of bacteria) did not meet the Loeb's criteria [a set of minimum clinical guidelines used in long-term care facilities (LTCFs) to help healthcare providers decide when to initiate antibiotic treatment for suspected infections in residents]. These failures had the potential to increase the prevalence of multi-drug resistance organism (MDRO - these are microorganisms, mostly bacteria, that have become resistant to multiple types of antibiotics) or bacteria. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 89's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on 6/12/2025, it indicated Resident 89 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses includes Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and mental functions) and urinary tract infection (UTI, an infection that can occur in any part of the urinary system, including the kidneys, bladder, or urethra). Review of Resident 89's clinical record titled, Order Listing Report, indicated the following order of Levaquin (levofloxacin, a powerful antibiotic that belongs to a class of drugs called fluoroquinolones) dated 6/10/2025, to give one tablet of 500 milligrams (mg - unit of measurement) by mouth one time a day for suspected UTI for 3 days and another order dated 6/13/2025, to give one tablet of 500 mg one time a day for suspected UTI until 6/15/2025. During a concurrent interview with IP and record review on 6/12/2025 at 1:23 p.m., IP reviewed Resident 89's clinical records and the Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log and confirmed Resident 89's used of antibiotic in June did not meet the Loeb's criteria. Further review of the change in condition documentation, IP confirmed Resident 89's symptoms were only knee pain and increased confusion. Resident 89 had no fever, no dysuria (painful, uncomfortable, or burning sensations during urination), and no complaint of urgency in urination. IP stated she was aware that Resident 89 did not meet the Loeb's criteria, but she would wait for the doctor to respond to her. IP further stated, they were waiting for the urine culture (a laboratory test used to detect bacteria or other microorganisms in a urine sample, which can indicate a UTI) result. During a concurrent interview with IP and record review on 6/13/2025 at 11:30 a.m., IP reviewed Resident 89's nursing progress notes and confirmed Resident 89's urine culture result indicated that the bacteria was resistant to levofloxacin (meaning this antibiotic did not work to stop the growth or kill the bacteria causing the infection). 2. Review of Resident 68's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated Resident 68 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including paralysis of vocal cords and larynx (a condition where one or both vocal cords [or vocal folds] in the larynx [voice box] can't move properly), localized swelling, mass, and lump, neck, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM, a condition which affects the way the body processes blood sugar) and muscle weakness. During a concurrent interview with IP and record review on 6/12/2025 at 1:30 p.m., IP reviewed Resident 68's clinical records and confirmed Resident 68 had a fever of 103.5 and complained of sore throat on 6/8/2025. IP further confirmed, the physician ordered Levaquin on 6/8/2025 500 mg one tablet one time a day for Pharyngitis (inflammation of the pharynx, the area at the back of the throat). IP stated Resident 68 had no other symptoms documented in the progress notes and the physician had no documented assessment on Resident 68 prior to prescription of the antibiotics. During an interview with IP on 6/13/2025 at 11:13 a.m., IP stated, I haven't spoken to the medical director (MD) for a while now regarding the increased use of antibiotics. I should probably talk to the MD again. IP further stated, Antibiotic Stewardship program was important to prevent MDROs. 3. Review of Resident 108's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated Resident 108 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (a brain dysfunction caused by a systemic illness or condition that disrupts normal metabolic processes), UTI, retention of urine (inability to completely empty the bladder of urine) and dementia (decline in mental capacity affecting daily function). During a concurrent interview with IP and record review on 6/13/2025 at 11:30 a.m., IP reviewed Resident 108's clinical records and the Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log, IP confirmed Resident 108 was prescribed with Nitrofurantoin (an antibiotic) on 6/2/2025 for UTI for 7 days. IP further confirmed Resident 108 only had confusion with behaviors, no fever or documented symptoms of UTI. IP stated Resident 108 received antibiotics and did not meet the Loeb's criteria. 4. Review of Resident 23's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated 6/13/2025, indicated Resident 23 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including breakdown of internal fixation device (a surgical implement, like plates, screws, or rods, used to stabilize and align fractured bones, allowing them to heal properly) of vertebrae (the individual bones that stack on top of each other to form the spine, or vertebral column), age-related osteoporosis (a condition characterized by weakened and brittle bones, as a natural consequence of aging), and osteoarthritis (a common joint disease that causes the breakdown of cartilage, the smooth tissue that cushions and protects the ends of bone). Review of Resident 23's June 2025 MAR, indicated an order dated 6/2/2025 at 2:00 a.m., Levaquin Tablet 500 MG (Levofloxacin) Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for infection for 5 days. Further review indicated, Resident 23 received a total of four doses of Levaquin without documented monitoring of BBW related to the use of Levaquin in the MAR. During a concurrent interview with IP and record review on 6/13/2025 at 11:32 a.m., IP reviewed Resident 23's clinical records and the Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log, IP confirmed Resident 23 was prescribed with Levaquin for abdominal pain and no other documented symptoms like fever, dysuria or urgency in urination. IP further confirmed Resident 23's symptoms did not meet the Loeb's criteria and had received antibiotics. Review of Resident 23's urine culture result dated 6/4/2025, it indicated the microorganism was resistant to Levofloxacin. 5. Review of Resident 47's clinical record titled, admission Record, dated on 6/13/2025, it indicated Resident 47 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including diverticulosis (a condition where small, bulging pouches [diverticula] form in the lining of the colon) of large intestine, type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), acidosis (a condition where there is too much acid in the body fluids), unspecified, pain in right hip and muscle weakness. Review of Resident 47's clinical record titled, Order Listing Report, it revealed a STAT (means immediately or without delay) order of Levaquin on 6/3/2025, 500 milligrams (mg - unit of measurement) by mouth for urinary tract infection (UTI - a bacterial infection that affects any part of the urinary system, including the kidneys, ureters, bladder, and urethra). Further review indicated another order on the same day to continue the Levaquin 500 mg by mouth once a day for UTI for 4 days. During a concurrent interview with IP and record review on 6/13/2025 at 11:34 a.m., IP reviewed Resident 47's clinical records and the Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log, IP confirmed Resident 47 received Levaquin for Asymptomatic UTI [a condition where bacteria are present in the urine but without any of the typical symptoms of UTI]. 6. Review of Resident 373's clinical record titled, admission Record, indicated Resident 373 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including aftercare following surgery for neoplasm (cancer), type 2 DM, and secondary malignant neoplasm of bone. Review of Resident 373's order listing report indicated an order dated 6/3/2025 of Amoxicillin-Pot Clavulanate (antibiotic) Tablet 875-125 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth every 12 hours for bacterial infection for 10 days. During a concurrent interview with IP and record review on 6/13/2025 at 11:36 a.m., IP reviewed Resident 373's clinical records and the Infection Prevention and Control Surveillance Log, IP confirmed Resident 373 received the antibiotic prescribed without symptoms of infection except the licensed nurse only documented Resident 373 had a deep tissue injury (DTI, a type of tissue damage that occurs beneath the skin's surface, often resulting from pressure or shear forces) in the sacrum (a triangular bone located at the base of the spine, connecting the spine to the pelvis), a blister (a small, raised area on the skin filled with fluid, often clear or bloody, caused by friction, burns, or other injuries) to the penile area and a slough (a type of dead tissue, often yellow or white in color, that can accumulate on the wound surface) in the spinal surgical incision. IP confirmed Resident 373 received antibiotic and did not meet the Loeb's criteria. During a concurrent interview and observation with IP, in the presence of the director of nursing (DON) on 6/17/2025 at 2:44 p.m., inside the conference room, IP stated they held the antibiotic stewardship program monthly. Before IP's statement, she looked at the DON and stated the Antibiotic (ATB) stewardship program meeting was being attended by, sometimes the pharmacist, sometimes the medical director and the IDT (Social Service, DON, nursing, MDS, myself and Executive Director) [interdisciplinary team - a group of health care professionals from diverse fields who work toward a common goal for residents]. IP stated their last ATB Stewardship Program meeting was in April 2025. IP further stated the frequent use of antibiotics was brought up in the last meeting, and she stated, but I have spoken to the doctors individually and according to them, it was better to start the residents with antibiotic before they became septic (related to or caused by sepsis, a life-threatening condition where the body's response to an infection damages its own tissues and organs). When asked if it was appropriate to prescribe an antibiotic resistant to the microorganism, IP looked at the DON and was not able to answer the question. During an interview with the medical director (MD) on 6/18/2025 at 9:45 a.m., MD stated she had read about the ATB Stewardship Program, and she would attend the meeting by phone. MD confirmed they prescribed antibiotics while waiting for the culture result because they wanted to be proactive and they would just adjust the ATB when the culture result was received. MD stated the prescribing physician should also review the previous culture result for possible ATB resistance to microorganisms. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Program, date revised 5/30/2023, indicated, The purpose of the program is to optimize the treatment of infections while reducing the adverse events associated with antibiotic use. The Medical Director, Director of Nursing, and Consultant Pharmacist serve as the leaders of the Antibiotic Stewardship Program and receives support from the Administrator and other governing officials of the facility. Infection Preventionist - utilizes expertise and data to inform strategies to improve antibiotic use to include tracking of antibiotic starts, monitoring adherence to evidence-based published criteria during the evaluation and management of treated infections, and reviewing antibiotic resistance patterns in the facility to understand which infections are caused by resistant organisms. The program includes antibiotic use protocols and a system to monitor antibiotic use. Antibiotic use protocols: Nursing staff shall assess residents who are suspected to have an infection and notify the physician. Laboratory testing shall be in accordance with current standards of practice .The Loeb Minimum Criteria may be used to determine whether to treat an infection with antibiotics. All prescriptions for antibiotics shall specify the dose, duration, and indication for use. Whenever possible, narrow-spectrum antibiotics that are appropriate for the condition being treated shall be utilized.
Mar 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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the responsible party (RP, a person designated to make decisions on behalf of a resident) of resident's change of condition for one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the responsible party (RP, a person designated to make decisions on behalf of a resident) of resident's change of condition for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to affect the ability of the RP to participate in the planning of resident's care and treatment plans. Findings: Review of Resident 1's admission record, indicated Resident 1 was readmitted to the facility with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure (a serious condition that makes it difficult to breathe), unspecified whether with hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in body tissues) or hypercapnia (when high levels of waste products such as carbon dioxide remain in the blood), pleural effusion (a buildup of fluid between the layers of tissue that line the lungs and chest cavity), disorders of diaphragm (the muscle that separates the chest cavity from the abdomen) and unspecified diastolic heart failure (a heart condition that can lead to decreased blood flow and other complications). The record also indicated Resident 1 had a family member who was her daughter listed as a contact person. Review of Resident 1's clinical record titled, SBAR [Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation] COC [Change of Condition] 911 Transfer, dated 10/31/2023, it indicated, Change of Condition Type: ALOC [altered level of consciousness - change in patient's state of awareness and alertness], increased lethargy [deep unresponsiveness], SOB [shortness of breath]. The record also indicated Resident 1 had increased confusion, decreased consciousness and weakness. Further review of the record indicated, Patient was found by staff laying in bed with the HOB (head of bed) at 45-degree angle. Patient was noted to be very lethargic, difficult to wake, and patient was noted with delayed verbal responses to questions from staff .Patient was responsive to painful stimuli such as sternal rub (a technique of rubbing the knuckles of a closed fist firmly and vigorously on the patient's sternum [a bone located in the middle part of the chest]). Labored shallow breaths noted upon assessment . The record indicated Resident 1 was transferred to the acute hospital through 911. It did not indicate Resident 1's daughter was notified about Resident 1's change of condition and transferred to the acute hospital During a phone interview with Resident 1's daughter on 11/20/2023 at 1:49 p.m., Resident 1's daughter stated, my mom was found unresponsive and was rushed to the emergency room. Resident 1's daughter further stated she was never been notified and she was never informed when resident was rushed to the acute hospital emergency room. During a concurrent interview and record review with nurse supervisor (NS) on 11/21/2023 at 12:45 p.m., NS confirmed the notification of the daughter was not documented. NS stated the notification of the RP or family member should have been documented in the SBAR COC form or progress notes. NS further stated the daughter wanted to be notified during the hospital transfer or change of condition. NS confirmed Resident 1 preferred her daughter to be notified for any new orders, or changes in resident's condition. During an interview with the assistant director of nursing (ADON) on 01/04/2024 at 2:15 p.m., ADON stated the responsible party or emergency contact should have been notified whenever a resident needed to be transferred out to the hospital. ADON further stated notification of the RP or contact person was important for them to be aware of the resident's condition and whereabouts. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Managing Change of Condition Within PCC [Point Click Care - facility's electronic medical record], dated January 2022, indicated, Practice Standards: For emergent life-threatening events: .6. Notify the responsible party. 7. Document assessment findings and communications . Further review indicated, SBAR-Change of Condition 911 Transfer .are used to document assessments, MD (medical doctor)/RP notifications, and initial COC progress notes .
Dec 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was accurately completed upon admission for 1 (Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure Level 1 Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) was accurately completed upon admission for 1 (Resident #36) of 3 sampled residents reviewed for PASARRs. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Resident Assessment- Coordination with PASARR Program, revised in 10/31/2023, revealed, This facility coordinates assessments with the preadmission screening and resident review (PASARR) program under Medicaid to ensure that individuals with a mental disorder, intellectual disability, or a related condition receives care and services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs. A review of Resident #36's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 03/16/2021. A review of Resident #36's hospital Discharge Referral, with a hospital admission date of 03/11/2021, revealed the resident had a diagnosis of unspecified psychosis with an onset date of 08/08/2019. A review of Resident #36's Preadmission Screening and Resident Review Level I Screening, dated 03/17/2021, indicated Resident #36 did not have a diagnosed mental disorder such as depression, anxiety, panic, schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder, psychotic, delusional, ad/or mood disorder. A review of Resident #36's care plan, initiated 03/26/2021, indicated Resident #36 had a behavior problem due to manic episodes as evidence by aggression, throwing objects, psychosis, hallucinations, hypervigilance, and verbal aggression. A review of Resident #36's quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/30/2023, revealed Resident #36 had an active diagnosis to include unspecified psychosis. A review of Resident #36's Order Summary Report with active orders as of 11/29/2023, revealed an order dated 03/23/2023 for haloperidol 5 milligrams, one tablet by mouth one time a day for unspecified psychosis, hallucinations, hyper vigilance, and verbal aggression. During an interview on 11/30/2023 at 3:18 PM, the Admissions Director (AD) revealed a PASARR was checked for accuracy by looking over the physician's orders and the history and physical. The AD added Resident #36's psychosis diagnosis should have absolutely been on the resident's PASARR. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Executive Director on 12/01/2023 at 9:51 AM, they revealed Resident #36's diagnosis of psychosis should have been on the resident's PASARR upon admission.
Oct 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy and procedure for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), when the facility failed to report an injury of unknown so...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy and procedure for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), when the facility failed to report an injury of unknown source with serious bodily injury (injury requiring medical intervention such as surgery) to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) within 2 hours after the facility known about the injury of Resident 1. This failure had the potential for Resident 1's injury of unknown source to not be investigated thoroughly and be at risk for continued injury. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's Facility admission Record, undated, admission Record indicated, Resident 1 had diagnoses of Metabolic Encephalopathy (disorder that affects brain function), Unspecified Dementia (mild memory disturbance due to known physiological condition), Psychotic Disturbance (Psychotic disorders that affect brain function by altering thoughts, beliefs or perceptions), Muscle Weakness, and Personal History of Other Mental and Behavioral Disorders. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set Section C (MDS-assessment tool used to determine care needed for residents), dated 8/29/23, the MDS Section C indicated, Resident ' s Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS-tool used to screen mental cognitive status) was scored of 4, indicating severe cognitive impairment. During a review of Resident 1's MDS Section G, dated 9/26/23, the MDS indicated Resident 1 required a for staff total dependence with transfer, locomotion on unit, locomotion off unit-how resident moves to and returns from off-unit, and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's Facility's Progress Note, dated 9/26/23, Progress Note indicated, Resident 1 was transferred on a gurney via ambulance to acute care hospital. It was also indicated the reason for transfer: Abnormal Pulse Oximetry [method of measuring oxygen in the blood]. During a review of Resident 1's Acute Hospital Record titled Operation Note, dated 9/28/23, the Operation Note indicated, Workup with CT [computerized tomography-series of x-rays] to scan with rectal contrast revealed a colovaginal fistula [an abnormal hole between the vagina and colon-large intestine] . At surgery on vaginal vault [expanded region of vaginal canal at the end of the vagina] there was also a palpated [felt] a foreign material, which was able to be removed. This appeared to be partially through the fistula and once removed, this foreign object wa a plastic fork with one tine missing. It had penetrated into the superficial posterior [rear side of body] wall of the vagina and was being held in place due to the scar tissue around the tines. During an interview on 10/17/23 at 1:40 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated she was aware Resident 1 had a foreign body removed from rectal area via surgical procedure at the local hospital. DON stated she was informed by the acute hospital staff and Resident 1 was unable to state how the foreign body got there. DON stated the acute hospital staff believed it was in there for months. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/23/23, at 12:59 p.m., with DON, the DON reviewed the facility s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Abuse Prevention, Intervention, Investigation & Crime Reporting Policy dated November 2016. The DON stated the P&P indicated in response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, the facility would ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation or mistreatment, including injuries of unknown source and misappropriation of resident property, are reported immediately but not later than 2 hours after the allegation was made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury; or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury; to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including State Survey Agency) and adult protective services. It was also indicated the injury of unknown source was an injury that was not observed by any person, or the source of the injury could not be explained, and the injury was suspicious. DON stated, the facility did not observe the injury, the source of the injury could not identified, and it was a suspicious injury. DON stated, the facility did not report the incident to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH State Survey Agency). During an interview with Administrator (abuse coordinator) on 10/23/23 at 1:05 p.m., Administrator stated, Resident 1's injury was not reported to CDPH.
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
Apr 2023 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance and supervision for one of three sampled reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide assistance and supervision for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). The facility failed to implement the self- care deficit care plan when certified nursing assistant C (CNA C) did not assist Resident 1 during toileting and left Resident 1 unsupervised inside the resident restroom. This failure resulted to Resident 1's fall with right intertrochanteric (hip) fracture and a decline in toilet use. Findings: Review of Resident 1's face sheet (a document that gives a resident's information) indicated, Resident 1 was admitted on 7/2022 with diagnoses including fracture (broken) of right pubis (pubic bone, one of the three sections of the hipbone, together these two bones form the front of the pelvis), syncope (fainting or passing out) and collapse (fall down), paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm that can lead to blood clots in the heart), and history of falling. Review of Resident 1's fall risk assessment, dated 7/16/2022, score of 80 (High Risk score 45 and higher), indicating Resident 1 was a high risk for falling. The fall risk assessment indicated Resident 1 had history of falling, and she exhibited a weak gait (a manner of walking). Review of Resident 1's Self-Care Deficit care plan, dated 7/17/2022, indicated, Toilet use - One person physical assist required. Review of Resident 1's admission minimum data set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated 7/19/2022, indicated brief interview for mental status (BIMS, cognition [includes memory, problem solving, and thinking skills] level) score was 14 (14 score means cognitively intact). Resident 1 required staff extensive assistance (staff provide weight-bearing support) with two-person physical assist for bed mobility, transfer, and toileting. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had a fracture related to a fall prior to entry at the facility. Review of Resident 1's Occupational therapist's notes, dated 8/24/2022, indicated, Toilet transfers = Supervision (oversight, encouragement, or cueing was provided) or touching assistance (touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity); Toileting hygiene = Supervision or touching assistance; Toileting = Supervision or touching assistance. Review of Resident 1's significant change in status assessment MDS dated [DATE], it indicated Resident 1 required extensive (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) assistance with one person. Review of Resident 1's fall report of incident dated 8/29/2022, indicated, resident was found by CNA on the floor of the restroom on 8/29/2022 at 8:15 a.m. The fall report of incident indicated, Resident 1 had an unwitnessed fall in the bathroom. The fall report of incident indicated Resident 1 needs assistance prior to the incident and the possible contributing factor of falling was Resident 1 reaching to clean off toilet. Review of Resident 1's Post Fall Note 1, dated 8/29/2022 indicated, Resident 1 complained of right hip pain with shooting pain to right knee, and with limited range of motion (ROM- full movement of a joint, range of flexion and extension) to right lower leg. The Post fall Note 1 indicated, X-ray to the right hip was performed resulting to a broken hip bone. The doctor was notified about the X-ray result and ordered to send Resident 1 to the emergency department (ED). Review of Resident 1's Interdisciplinary Team's (IDT, team composed of members from different departments involved in resident's care) Fall Follow up dated 8/31/2022, indicated, Resident was left in restroom by herself due to resident request for privacy. Resident was overconfident and got up without assist and lost balance and fell. The IDT Fall Follow up indicated, .IDT recommendation CNA will give privacy, and will stand outside the door of restroom with frequent checks. Review of Resident 1's clinical records from the hospital titled, emergency room Report, dated 8/29/2022, indicated, Stated Complaint: FALL, RIGHT HIP PAIN .X-ray of hip bones Acute (present or experienced in a severe degree) right intertrochanteric (hip bone) fracture. During a phone interview with CNA C on 3/1/2023 at 9:30 a.m., CNA C confirmed she was assigned to assist Resident 1 to the resident's bathroom for toileting on 8/29/2022. CNA C stated Resident 1 required stand by assist (staff needs to be close by for safety in case the resident will lose balance or need help to maintain safety) with walking to the bathroom and limited assistance (staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight bearing assistance) with toileting. CNA C further stated Resident 1 asked her to go outside the resident's bathroom door. CNA C confirmed she stayed outside the resident's bathroom, but CNA C decided to leave the resident in the bathroom to get some towels outside Resident 1's room and then, she heard a loud sound from the resident's bathroom and found Resident 1 sitting on the floor. CNA C stated Resident 1 should not be left alone in the resident bathroom. CNA C further stated, I just went out to get towels. During a phone interview with the RN D on 3/1/2023 at 10:49 a.m., RN D recalled Resident 1 fell inside the bathroom. RN D stated resident who was at risk of falling should have not been left alone in the bathroom. RN D further stated if resident requested for some privacy, staff should just stay by the bathroom door and never leave the resident. During a phone interview with the occupational therapist E (OT E) on 3/13/2023 at 3:15 p.m., OT E stated Resident 1 required a supervision (oversight, encouragement, or cueing) and touching assistance during toileting. OT E further stated Resident 1's touching assistance or stand by assist means a staff was needed to stand by during toileting to provide supervision to prevent (her) from falling over. During a follow up phone interview with OT F on 3/13/2023 at 3:25 p.m., OT F stated Resident 1 required minimum (resident did 75 percent of activity and staff provided 25 percent assistance) to moderate (resident did 50 percent of activity and staff provided 50 percent assistance) assistance with unsupported (no use of assistive device like walker) standing balance. OT F further stated Resident 1 required supervision to stand by assistance with toileting prior to the fall. OT F stated stand by assistance was required, to have somebody with Resident 1 when she needed help. OT F stated Resident 1's fall could have been prevented if someone stayed with her inside the bathroom. During an interview with the restorative nursing assistant (RNA, healthcare professionals who are responsible for providing restorative and rehabilitation care for residents to maintain or regain physical, mental, and emotional well-being) on 1/12/2023 at 12:20 p.m., the RNA stated she would get report from their supervisor if a resident was at risk of falling. RNA further stated she should never leave a resident alone in the bathroom if they were at risk of falling. During an interview with the director of staff development (DSD - a licensed nurse that provides in-service orientation for all nursing and facility personnel to include federal and state mandated education) on 1/12/2023 at 1:00 p.m., the DSD stated staff should not leave a resident alone in the bathroom if they were at risk of falling. During an interview with the licensed vocational nurse A (LVN A) on 1/12/2023 at 1:32 p.m., LVN A stated nurses did the fall risk assessment to determine if a resident was at risk of falling. LVN A further stated nurses would check for resident's history of falling, diagnoses and balance while walking. LVN A stated CNA's should not leave a resident alone in the bathroom especially with history of falling and injury from a fall. LVN A confirmed she helped the staff when they found Resident 1 on the floor inside the bathroom. LVN A stated she was aware Resident 1 had history of falling with previous fracture. During an interview with CNA B on 1/12/2023 at 2:00 p.m., CNA B stated she would stay with a resident at risk of falling inside the bathroom to prevent from falling by providing assistance or supervision. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Falls Management, dated October 2010, indicated, PURPOSE * To evaluate risk factors and provide interventions to minimize risk, injury, and occurrences.
Jan 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on the interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the responsible party (RP, decision maker) in advance and the right to participate in the care planning process for scheduled i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on the interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the responsible party (RP, decision maker) in advance and the right to participate in the care planning process for scheduled interdisciplinary team (IDT, a group of health care professionals with various areas of expertise who work together toward the goals to their residents) quarterly care plan meetings for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential for the RP's right to participate in the development and implement of person-centered plan of care decisions for Resident 1. Findings: Review of Resident 1's clinical record review indicated she was admitted with diagnosis which included dementia (group of symptoms including loss of memory, attention, logical reasoning, and communication), psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality), depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), and subdural hemorrhage (collection of blood between the covering of the brain, and the surface of the brain). Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated on 1/1/2023, indicated Resident 1's BIMS (a screen used to assist with identifying resident's cognition) score of 9 (a score of 9 means moderately impaired). Resident 1's RP was the decision maker for Resident 1. During an interview, and record review with the MDS A on 1/18/23 at 3:35 p.m., the MDS A stated social service department (SSD) was responsible to notify in advance the Resident 1's RP for IDT care plan meeting schedule. She also stated the SSD did not notified Resident 1's RP to attend the IDT quarterly care plan meeting on 10/6/2022, and 1/2/2023. During an interview, and record review with social service director (SSD) on 1/18/23 at 3:45 p.m., the SSD stated Resident 1's RP was not informed in advance for both scheduled quarterly IDT care plan meeting on 10/6/2022, and 1/2/2023. She also stated IDT conducted both care plan meetings without RP present on 10/16/2022, and 1/2/2023. SSD further stated social service department should have notified Resident 1's RP in advance for IDT care plan meeting schedule and should have participate for Resident 1's care planning process for Resident 1. During an interview and record review with director of nursing (DON) on 1/18/23 at 4:00 p.m., the DON stated SSD should have notified Resident 1's RP in advance for quarterly IDT care plan meetings schedule and should have participate for Resident 1's care planning process to develop and implement of person-centered plan of care decisions for Resident 1. DON also stated the IDT care plan meetings should have the Resident 1's RP involvement related to Resident 1 impaired cognition. Review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Operating Standard Guideline Interdisciplinary Walking Rounds, quarterly (Scheduled Care Conference conducted during the assessment reference period) required meeting attendees dated 2017, indicated To meet with the resident or resident representative to perform an IDT assessment of functional & clinical status, progress towards goals, and maintenance plans. To participate, collaboration on care plan revisions, and completion of quarter/annual assessment. Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to notify the responsible party (RP, decision maker) in advance and the right to participate in the care planning process for scheduled interdisciplinary team (IDT, a group of health care professionals with various areas of expertise who work together toward the goals to their residents) quarterly care plan meetings for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential for the RP's right to participate in the development and implement of person-centered plan of care decisions for Resident 1. Findings: Review of Resident 1's clinical record review indicated she was admitted with diagnosis which included dementia (group of symptoms including loss of memory, attention, logical reasoning, and communication), psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality), depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), and subdural hemorrhage (collection of blood between the covering of the brain, and the surface of the brain). Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated on 1/1/2023, indicated Resident 1's BIMS (a screen used to assist with identifying resident's cognition) score of 9 (a score of 9 means moderately impaired). Resident 1's RP was the decision maker for Resident 1. During an interview, and record review with the MDS A on 1/18/23 at 3:35 p.m., the MDS A stated social service department (SSD) was responsible to notify in advance the Resident 1's RP for IDT care plan meeting schedule. She also stated the SSD did not notified Resident 1's RP to attend the IDT quarterly care plan meeting on 10/6/2022, and 1/2/2023. During an interview, and record review with social service director (SSD) on 1/18/23 at 3:45 p.m., the SSD stated Resident 1's RP was not informed in advance for both scheduled quarterly IDT care plan meeting on 10/6/2022, and 1/2/2023. She also stated IDT conducted both care plan meetings without RP present on 10/16/2022, and 1/2/2023. SSD further stated social service department should have notified Resident 1's RP in advance for IDT care plan meeting schedule and should have participate for Resident 1's care planning process for Resident 1. During an interview and record review with director of nursing (DON) on 1/18/23 at 4:00 p.m., the DON stated SSD should have notified Resident 1's RP in advance for quarterly IDT care plan meetings schedule and should have participate for Resident 1's care planning process to develop and implement of person-centered plan of care decisions for Resident 1. DON also stated the IDT care plan meetings should have the Resident 1's RP involvement related to Resident 1 impaired cognition. Review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Operating Standard Guideline Interdisciplinary Walking Rounds, quarterly (Scheduled Care Conference conducted during the assessment reference period) required meeting attendees dated 2017, indicated To meet with the resident or resident representative to perform an IDT assessment of functional & clinical status, progress towards goals, and maintenance plans. To participate, collaboration on care plan revisions, and completion of quarter/annual assessment.
Apr 2021 12 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to respond to residents' call lights in a timely manner for three of 23 sampled residents (Residents 49, 62, and 70), when: 1. Resident 62 waite...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to respond to residents' call lights in a timely manner for three of 23 sampled residents (Residents 49, 62, and 70), when: 1. Resident 62 waited 25 minutes in the bathroom to get transfer assistance from wheelchair to toilet to urinate. 2. Resident 70 waited ten minutes for her to be turned and repositioned in bed, and 3. Resident 49 waited ten minutes to get a drink. This failure resulted in the delayed response to residents' needs and could potentially cause resident emotional distress. Findings: 1. During an observation on 04/20/21 at 3:25 p.m., Resident 62 was in the bathroom and her call light was on. She stated she needed help to transfer from the wheelchair to toilet to urinate. The certified nursing assistant (CNA) came in the bathroom at 3:50 pm. Resident 62 waited for 25 minutes to get help. 2. During an observation on 04/20/21 at 3:40 p.m., Resident 70's call light was on and was answered at 3:50 p.m. Resident 70 waited 10 minutes for her call light to be answered. During an interview with Resident 70 on 4/20/21 at 3:42 p.m., Resident 70 stated she pressed her call light because she wanted to be turned and repositioned. The CNA responded and turned off the call light and she stated she would be back. The CNA did not return for a long while. Resident 70 also stated this happened all the time, on all shifts when they had to wait longer times for them to get help. During an interview with licensed vocational nurse O (LVN O) on 04/23/21 at 11:15 a.m., she stated residents should not have to wait longer than five minutes at the most to get their call light answered. 3. During an observation on 04/23/21 at 4:10 p.m., Resident 49's call light was on. CNA came in the room at 4:20 p.m. Resident 49 waited ten minutes for her call light to be answered. During an interview with Resident 49 on 04/23/21 at 4:15 p.m., she stated she was thirsty and wanted to ask for something to drink. She claimed she waited for more than five minutes. During an interview with Resident 49's roommate on 04/23/21 at 4:16 p.m., the roommate stated the nursing staff do not come reasonably on time on all shifts. The roommate also stated the facility needed to hire more CNAs to help them. During review of the facility's policy, Call light, Use of dated 2006 indicated, 2. Answer ALL call lights promptly whether or not you are assigned to the resident .
CONCERN (D)

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

Abuse Prevention Policies (Tag F0607)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy for three of three sampled residents (Residents 16,18, and 56) when, 1. Residents 16, 18, and 56...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement their abuse policy for three of three sampled residents (Residents 16,18, and 56) when, 1. Residents 16, 18, and 56 were not protected from physical and verbal abuse by certified nursing assistant M (CNA M) and, 2. Residents' 18 and 56 allegations of abuse were not reported. These failures put the residents at risk for further abuse. Findings: 1. Resident 16 had diagnoses including dementia (memory loss) and altered mental status. Resident 16 was non-verbal and had severe cognitive impairment. During the initial tour on 4/19/21 at 12:53 p.m., Resident 94 (co-resident) stated, Resident 16's hands were slapped by CNA M. During an observation on 4/19/21 at 12:53 p.m., Resident 16's right hand was discolored (dark brown) while no discoloration on his left hand was noted. Review of Resident 16's interdisciplinary team (IDT) notes dated 4/14/21 indicated that Resident 94 (co-resident) had reported that CNA M had slapped Resident 16's hand on several occasions when Resident 16 was not cooperating with care. 2. During an interview with Resident 56 on 4/23/21 at 9:44 a.m., Resident 56 stated CNA M had cursed at him twice, which made him feel so bad. Resident 56 also stated, he did not feel safe with CNA M and was afraid that CNA M would be more aggressive. During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 18 on 4/23/21 at 9:54 a.m., Resident 18 stated CNA M had pulled both of her arms and had yelled at her to shut up. Resident 18's left arm and up to half of the forearm was dark purple in color. During an interview with Resident 59 (co-resident) on 4/23/21 at 9:54 a.m., Resident 59 stated she witnessed CNA M yell and hurt Resident 18 by pulling on her arms. During an interview on 4/23/21 at 10:56 a.m. with the administrator (ADM), he affirmed that he had spoken with Resident 56 regarding his allegations. During an interview on 4/23/21 at 11:39 a.m. with the ADM, he stated he reported the allegation concerning Resident 16 to the state agency but did not report the allegations concerning Residents 18 and 56. During an interview with the DSD on 4/23/21 at 11:57 a.m., she stated Resident 56 told her that CNA M was frequently frustrated when Resident 56 asked for help. The Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated CNA M called Resident 56 dirty and disgusting. The DSD also stated Resident 18 had told her that CNA M was always in a hurry and would get upset when Resident 18 needed to be repositioned. Resident 18 also told the DSD that CNA M was always rough when helping Resident 18 with toileting and would grab Resident 18's wrists tightly. A review of the Grievance/Complaint Resolution Report that was filled out for Resident 18 dated 4/14/21 indicated CNA M became upset when help was requested. CNA M was rough when assisting with activities of daily living (ADL) and would cause discomfort to Resident 18's arms. The form also indicated Resident 18 did not feel comfortable telling CNA M of discomfort during care in the past. Review of the Grievance/Complaint Resolution Report that was filled out for Resident 56 dated 4/14/21 indicated CNA M was frequently frustrated while providing care and would call Resident 56 names. Review of the Verification of Incident Investigation/Administrative Summary for Resident 16 dated 4/22/21 indicated Resident 94 (co-resident) had witnessed CNA M slap the hands of Resident 16 multiple times over the past few weeks. Residents 18 and 56 had expressed that CNA M had been rude. A review of the facility's Abuse Prevention, Intervention, Investigation, & Crime Reporting policy revised 11/2016, indicated the resident has the right to be free from abuse. The facility is responsible for assuring resident safety by prohibiting verbal, mental, sexual, or physical abuse . In response to allegations of abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment, the facility will: Ensure that all alleged violations involving abuse, neglect, exploitation, or mistreatment . are reported immediately; but not later than 2 hours after the allegation is made, if the events that cause the allegation involve abuse or result in serious bodily injury; or not later than 24 hours if the events that cause the allegation do not involve abuse and do not result in serious bodily injury; to the administrator of the facility and to other officials (including to the State Survey Agency and adult protective services where state law provides for jurisdiction in long-term care facilities) in accordance with State Law.
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 accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) for two of 23 sampled residents (Residents 27 and 230) when the MDS did not reflect the current status of the residents. This failure had the potential to affect inappropriate care planning and intervention. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 27's situation background assessment and recommendation (SBAR, a form of communication tool for healthcare providers) dated 1/7/31 indicated the resident had a fall. The SBAR did not indicate Resident 27 sustained a major injury. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/23/21 at 08:26 a.m., with the minimum data set coordinator (MDSC), the MDSC reviewed Resident 27's SBAR dated 1/7/21 and the MDS Quarterly review dated 1/27/21 and confirmed Resident 27 did not sustain a major injury during a fall on 1/7/21. The MDSC acknowledged she coded Resident 27's fall with major injury and confirmed the MDS was coded incorrectly. Review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS, a federal agency) Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI, a standardized assessment tool for resident) RAI 3.0 Version 1.17.1 Manual Section J, indicated to code none if the resident had no injurious fall . 2. During an initial tour on 4/1921at 10:05 a.m., in Station 1's yellow zone (residents on observation for any signs and symptoms of COVID), Resident 230 was in his room lying on his bed while both wheelchair and walker were at his bedside. During an observation on 4/1921at 12:54 a.m. in resident's room, he was sitting on his wheelchair eating his lunch without staff assistance. During an observation and concurrent interview with Resident 230 on 4/2121at 1:13 p.m., he was seen walking back to his bed from the bathroom using his walker. Resident 230 stated he was independent with almost everything. He can ambulate with walker or use the wheelchair independently. Resident 230 also stated he did not need assistance with bathing, toileting and self-grooming. During an interview with certified nursing assistant Q (CNA Q) on 4/2221at 9:19 a.m., she stated Resident 230 can ambulate safely using his walker going to the bathroom and in the hallway. He was independent with bathing and toileting. Resident 230 can also do his activities of daily living (ADL) with minimal assistance. Review of Resident 230's clinical record indicated he had the diagnoses of muscle weakness, edema, contusion of right thigh and hepatic failure. Review of Resident 230's MDS dated [DATE], indicated he had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 13 (a score of 13 to 15 indicates the resident is cognitively intact). Review of Resident 230's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 230's bathing was total dependence and no use of mobility device was needed, i.e., walker and wheelchair. During an interview and record review with the MDSC on 4/2321at 4:01 p.m., she confirmed the discrepancies of the assessment. She stated she did not do the actual assessment but will see to it to correct the inaccuracy. The MDSC acknowledged the importance of reliable assessment in resident's care. Review of the 10/2019 Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual (RAI manual, MDS coding instructions) indicated clinical competence, observational, interviewing and critical thinking skills, and assessment expertise from all disciplines are required to develop individualized care plans.
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 ensure services were provided to meet the professional standard of practice for three of 23 sampled residents when: 1. Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure services were provided to meet the professional standard of practice for three of 23 sampled residents when: 1. Resident 12's input and output was not measured and documented appropriately; 2. Resident 70 and Resident 117's physician orders for the use of oxygen was not followed. These failures had the potential to affect the residents' health condition and care. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 12's clinical record indicated, he had diagnoses of unspecified calorie malnutrition (an imbalances of a person's intake of nutrients) and urinary infection (UTI, an infections in any part of the urinary system). During an observation on 4/20/21 at 9:30 a.m., Resident 12 had a urinary catheter (a sterile flexible tube that collects urine in the bladder that is connected to a urine bag). Review of Resident 12's medication administration record (MAR) for March 2021 indicated, monitor intake and output every shift for signs and symptoms of dehydration (loss of too much fluid in the body)/fluid volume over load (too much fluid in the blood) and total intake and output for the day. Further review of Resident 12's MAR for March 2021 did not indicate the resident's output in volume on the following dates and shifts: Day shift: 3/2; 3/5, 3/11 to 3/13. 3/18, 3/20, 3/25, 3/26, 3/27, 3/28 Evening shift: 3/1, 3/2, 3/5 to 3/9, 3/11 to 3/14, 3/17, 3/18, 3/24, 3/25, 3/26 Night shift: 3/8 Additional review of Resident 12's MAR for March 2021 did not indicate the resident's 24 hour total output on 3/1, 3/2, 3/5 to 3/9, 3/11 to 3/21 and 3/24 to 3/26. Review of Resident 12's April 2021 MAR indicated, monitor intake and output every shift for signs and symptoms of dehydration volume over load and total intake and output for the day. Further review of the April 2021 MAR did not indicate Resident 12's output in volume on the following dates and shift: Day shift: 4/1, 4/4, 4/9, 4/18, 4/20 Evening shift: 4/1, 4/4, 4/12, 4/13, 4/19 Resident 12's April 2021 MAR did not indicate the resident's 24 hour total output on April 1, 4. 12, 13 and 19. During a concurrent interview and record review with the assistant director of nursing (ADON), she reviewed the MAR and confirmed the above record. The ADON further stated the volume of Resident 12's output should have been recorded. Review of the facility's policy Intake and Output (I/O) dated August 2014 indicated intake and output should be monitored and accurately documented in order to assess and manage fluid needs. 2a. Review of Resident 70's clinical record indicated she had diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, idiopathic fibrosis, acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia. Review of Resident 70's physician order dated 1/26/21 indicated oxygen at two liters per minute (lpm, measurement of the velocity at which air flows into the sample probe) via nasal cannula (flexible tubing that is inserted into the nostrils and attached to an oxygen source) continuous. During a concurrent observation and interview on 4/20/21 at 10:42 a.m., Resident 70 was lying in bed with an oxygen concentrator (a device that delivers oxygen) set at 2.5 lpm via nasal cannula, LN F confirmed the observation. 2b. During an observation and concurrent interview with licensed nurse B (LN B) on 4/20/2021 at 9:30 a.m., Resident 117 was lying in bed with an oxygen concentrator (device that delivers oxygen) set at 4 liters per minute (LPM, a measurement of the velocity at which air flows into the sample probe) by means of nasal cannula (flexible tubing that is inserted into the nostrils and attached to an oxygen source). LN B confirmed the observation and stated she knew Resident 117 was not supposed to be on 4 LPM. She also stated she would normally check the oxygen setting twice during her shift but did not check the setting earlier. Review of Resident 117's April 2021 physician's order with LN B indicated an oxygen order of 2 LPM via nasal cannula continuous every shift. She acknowledged the physician's order was not followed. Review of Resident 117's clinical record indicated he had diagnoses of dependence on supplemental oxygen and type 2 diabetes. Review of Resident 117's latest minimum data set (MDS, an assessment tool), indicated he had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS) score of 9 (a score of 8 to 12 indicates resident's cognition was moderately intact). During an interview with the assistant director of nursing (ADON) on 4/22/2021 at 2:15 p.m., she stated the charge nurse should check the oxygen setting during their rounds to prevent breathing problems. A review of the facility's undated policy, Oxygen Administration, indicated to check physician's order for liter flow and method of administration.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 23 sampled residents (Resident 117) was free from unnecessary medications when the nursing staff did not monitor for signs an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 23 sampled residents (Resident 117) was free from unnecessary medications when the nursing staff did not monitor for signs and symptoms of adverse effects related to the use of blood thinning medications. Resident 117 was receiving Lovenox (generic name enoxaparin, an anti-coagulant, or blood thinning medication) and Plavix (anti-platelet agent to prevent heart attacks or strokes). This had the potential for side effects of these medications (such as bleeding, excessive bruising, etc.) to go undetected or recognized for timely intervention. Findings: On 4/23/21, a review of Resident 117's clinical record indicated he was an elderly resident admitted to the facility with diagnoses including the presence of a pacemaker (a medical device that sends electrical pulses to help your heart beat at a normal rate and rhythm) and deep vein thrombosis (DVT, a blood clot forms in a vein located deep inside your body). A review of the clinical record indicated two physician's orders, as follows: a. Lovenox 100 milligrams (mg) twice daily for DVT, dated 4/12/21; and b. Plavix 75 mg 1 tablet daily, dated 3/28/21. To date, the Prescribing Information for Lovenox indicates to monitor signs and symptoms of bleeding such as bruising that is not normal, nosebleeds, red/black tarry stools, bleeding from the gums, etc. According to Lexi-comp, a nationally recognized drug information resource, the combined use Lovenox and Plavix results in a drug-drug interaction (interaction between a drug and another substance that prevents the drug from performing as expected) risk-rating Level D (moderate severity, which means to avoid or consider therapy modification). It indicated, Antiplatelet agents and enoxaparin both increase the risk of bleeding . If concomitant administration is unavoidable, monitor closely for signs and symptoms of bleeding. A concurrent interview and record review of Resident 117's clinical record was conducted with licensed nurse B (LN B) on 04/23/21 at 11:20 a.m. LN B said the resident developed DVT on the left arm after it became swollen, and was prescribed Lovenox for DVT. LN B reviewed the resident's 4/2021 MAR and said there was no documented evidence the staff monitored for signs and symptoms of adverse effects of Lovenox and Plavix. This was confirmed with the assistant director of nursing (ADON) during a concurrent interview and review of Resident 117's clinical record on 4/23/21 at 2:28 p.m. She said there should be side effect monitoring the Lovenox and Plavix on the medication administration record. A review of the facility's Anticoagulant Therapy Procedure, dated September 2010, indicated Monitor for signs and symptoms of adverse drug effects, including, but not limited to, abnormal or prolonged bleeding, excessive bruising, petechiae [tiny round brown-purple spots due to bleeding under the skin], melena (blood in stool), hematuria [blood in urine], coffee ground emesis [vomit], bleeding from eyes, nose, or gums, etc.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility had a 7.14% error rate when two medication errors out of 28 opportunities were observed during the medication pass. Resident 10 did not...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility had a 7.14% error rate when two medication errors out of 28 opportunities were observed during the medication pass. Resident 10 did not receive an eye medication as scheduled; and the nursing staff administered eye medications not in accordance with the facility's medication administration guideline and accepted professional standards of practice. The failure resulted in medications not given as ordered and as per accepted professional standards of practice, which may negatively affect the resident's health. Findings: 1. During a medication pass observation on 04/19/21 at 04:20 p.m., licensed nurse A (LN A) was observed preparing and administering 7 medications, including two eye medications: prednisolone (to treat swelling and inflammation) 1% eye solution and brimonidine (for reduction of pressure in the eye) 0.2% eye solution, to Resident 10. At Resident 10's bedside, on 4/19/21 at 4:31 p.m., LN A administered 1 drop of the prednisolone eye solution to the resident's right eye. She then gave the resident's oral medications which the resident took all at once followed by a drink of water. One minute later from the first eyedrop administration, on 4/19/21 at 4:32 p.m., LN A instilled 1 drop of the brimonidine eye solution into the resident's right eye. Shortly after the medication pass, LN A said she would normally wait about 1 to 2 minutes between different eye medications for residents. She acknowledged she waited about 1 minute between Resident 10's two different eye medications. During an interview on 4/20/21 at 9:20 a.m., with the director of staff development (DSD), she said the nursing staff should wait 5 minutes between giving different eye medications. A review of the facility's Medication Administration Operating Standard Guideline, dated 12/2012, indicated, Wait 3-5 minutes between drops and different eye medications. In the Tips for Administering Eye Drops, the American Academy of Allergy Asthma and Immunology indicated, When administering multiple eye medications, wait 5 to 15 minutes before delivering second medication to same eye in order to prevent dilution. (www.aaaai.org; accessed 4/26/21). 2. On 4/19/21, a review of Resident 10's medical record revealed Resident 10 was to receive 3 different eye medications during the daily 5 p.m. medication pass: prednisolone, brimonidine, and Trusopt (treat high pressure inside the eye) 2% eye solutions. A review Resident 10's physician's order, dated 1/6/21, indicated: Trusopt Solution 2% Instill 1 drop in the right eye two times a day for Glaucoma indefinite. It was scheduled to be administered daily at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. There was no administration of Trusopt eye solution during the medication pass observation with LN A. During an interview on 4/19/21 at 5:10 p.m., with LN A, she said she did not give the Trusopt because it ran out and was not available to give. She said she documented in the resident's medical record: Medication not available. Nurse has ordered from pharmacy. Will follow up with pharmacy. A review of Resident 10's April 2021 medication administration record (MAR), under the 4/19/21 at 5 p.m. entry, it showed MN and LN A's initials. The chart codes on the MAR indicated MN to mean medication not available.
CONCERN (E)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the State Long Term Care Ombudsman (Ombudsman, an advocate for residents in the nursing homes) was notified in writing in a timely m...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the State Long Term Care Ombudsman (Ombudsman, an advocate for residents in the nursing homes) was notified in writing in a timely manner for 16 out of 16 discharged residents (Residents 133, 130, 135, 128, 175, 136, 176,138, 65, 132, 125, 127, 126 and 131). This failure had the potential of not providing the resident and/or their responsible party (RP, a person who is accountable in making decision in behalf of the resident) with an access to an advocate who could inform them of their rights. Findings: Review of the facility's discharges/transfer out form for March 2021 indicated the following: Resident 133 was discharged home on 3/20/21. Resident 130 was discharged home on 3/11/21. Resident 135 was discharged home on 3/24/21. Resident 128 was discharged home on 3/11/21. Resident 175 was discharged home on 3/4/21. Resident 136 was discharged home on 3/27/21. Resident 176 was discharged home on 3/6/21. Resident 65 was discharged home on 3/2/21. Resident 132 was discharged home on 3/19/21. Resident 125 was discharged home on 3/6/21. Resident 127 was discharged home on 3/7/21. Resident 126 was discharged home on 3/6/21. Resident 131 was discharged home on 3/18/21 and Resident 138 was discharged to a shelter on 3/30/21. Review of the facility's facsimile cover sheet dated 4/10/2021 indicated March Discharges was sent to the ombudsman. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/23/2021 at 2:52 p.m., with the Regional Discharge Planner (RDP); the RDP confirmed the above record and she stated they were notifying the ombudsman for all the facility's discharges at the end of the month. The RDP further stated, they were not aware they needed to notify the ombudsman prior to residents' discharge. Review of the facility's policy, Admission, Transfer, Discharge and bed-holds dated 12/2016, indicated a discharge notice will be completed and provided to the resident at the time of discharge or as soon as practicable, a copy of the notice will be sent to the ombudsman.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide routine and accurate administerstration of medications for one of 23 sampled residents (Resident 10), and accurate ac...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide routine and accurate administerstration of medications for one of 23 sampled residents (Resident 10), and accurate accountability of controlled substance (CS, drugs with high potential for abuse or addiction) medications for three of four random record reviews (Residents 80, 112, and 229), when: 1. Resident 10, who had recent eye surgery, did not routinely receive two of her eye medications as ordered on 4/19 and 4/20/21. This had the potential for delay in treatment for the resident; 2. The nursing staff did not document medication administration and did not give routine medications to Resident 10 in a timely manner for two days in April 2021; and, 3. CS medications were signed out from the Controlled Drug Record (CDR, an inventory sheet) but not documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) to indicate they were given to Residents 80, 112, and 229. This failure had the potential for CS drug abuse or diversion. Findings: 1. On 4/19/21, a review of Resident 10's clinical record indicated she was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including unspecified glaucoma (condition of increased pressure within the eyeball, causing gradual loss of sight), diabetes, and high blood pressure (BP). Review of the quarterly Minimum Data Set (a care area assessment and screening tool), dated 4/12/21, indicated Resident 1 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status score of 14 (BIMS score, a test given by medical professionals that helps determine a patient's cognitive understanding, scored from 1 to 15), indicating she had intact cognition. A review of Resident 10's clinical record indicated she had a recent eye surgery called vitrectomy (type of eye surgery used to treat problems of the eye's retina and vitreous, gel-like fluid that fills the eye), on 3/29/21. Her medication orders included: a. Trusopt (treats increased eye pressure caused by glaucoma) Solution 2%, instill 1 drop in the right eye two times a day for Glaucoma, dated 1/6/21. It was scheduled to be administered daily at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. b. Prednisolone (for swelling and inflammation) suspension 1%, instilled 1 drop in right eye four times a day for post vitrectomy while awake, dated 4/14/21. The facility scheduled to give it daily at 9 a.m., 1 p.m., 5 p.m., and 9 p.m. c. Brimonidine (for reduction of pressure in the eye) solution 0.2%, instill 1 dose in the right eye two times daily for glaucoma, dated 1/6/21. The facility scheduled to give it daily at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. During a medication pass observation on 4/19/21 at 4:20 p.m., licensed nurse (LN) A was observed giving 7 medications, including brimonidine and prednisolone eye medications, to Resident 10. There was no administration of Trusopt eye solution during this medication pass. During an interview on 4/19/21 at 5:10 p.m., with LN A, she said the Trusopt eye medication was also due at 5 p.m. but she did not give it because it ran out and was not available to give. She said she documented in the resident's medical record: Medication not available. Nurse has ordered from pharmacy. Will follow up with pharmacy. A review of Resident 10's April 2021 MAR, under the 4/19/21 at 5 p.m. entry, it showed MN and LN A's initials. The chart codes on the MAR indicated MN to mean medication not available. During an interview the next morning, on 4/20/21 at 9:05 a.m., with LN F, she said she could not locate the Trusopt for Resident 10 in the medication cart. She also could not find the prednisolone eyedrop, both of which were due for administration that morning. During a follow-up interview on 4/20/21 at 11:29 a.m., LN F said she called the pharmacy which informed her the Trusopt and prednisolone eyedrops would be delivered later that afternoon. LN F said she did not give the Trusopt and Prednisolone to Resident 10 that morning. This was verified on the MAR entry on 4/20/21 at 9 a.m. During an interview on 4/20/21 at 2:35 p.m., with Resident 10, she said she was informed by the facility about two missing eyedrops. She said she was not happy but she was okay with it as she was not experiencing any pain in her right eye at the moment. 2. On 4/19/21, a review of Resident 10's April 2021 MAR indicated her routine medications were not given during the morning medication pass at 9 a.m. on 4/14 and 4/15/21. The MAR entries were left blank on these days. The medications included aspirin, furosemide (for high BP), metoprolol (for high BP), amlodipine (for high BP), clonidine (for high BP), Humulin 70/30 (insulin for diabetes), Trusopt eyedrop, brimonidine eyedrop, gabapentin (for pain), hydralazine (for high BP), isosorbide dinitrate (for chest pain), acetazolamide (for glaucoma), Cipro eye solution (antibiotic to treat infections), and prednisolone eye solution. On 4/22/21, a review of Resident 10's nursing progress notes, documented on 4/14/21 at 8:17 a.m., indicated the resident out of facility at this time @ follow up Vitrectomy appt with [Dr's name] at Retinal Diagnostic Center and Resident back from follow-up Vitrectomy appointment with [Dr's name] with new orders . on 4/14/21 at 9:30 a.m. During an interview on 04/23/21 at 8:25 a.m., with the assistant director of nursing (ADON), she said she reviewed Resident 10's clinical record and confirmed the resident was in the facility on 4/14 and 4/15/21, except she was out for an appointment from 8:17 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. on 4/14/21. The ADON said she could any find any documentation why the medications were not administered. She said medication administration should have been documented on the MAR as given to the resident. The ADON said LN G was the resident's morning nurse on those days. During an interview on 4/23/21 at 8:50 a.m., with Resident 10, she said she believed she got her medications on the daily basis, with the exception of missing her eyedrops on certain days. She said there were days her medications were not given timely such as insulin given after meals instead of before meals, but she believed she received her medications every day. During an interview on 4/23/21 at 1:20 p.m., with LN G, she said she remembered giving Resident 10 her medications on 4/14 and 4/15/21, but they were given late on both days, due to the resident coming back from the appointment, and due to her other responsibility as a treatment nurse. She said she forgot to chart on the MAR, and said she should have been documented to indicate the medications were administered. A review of the facility's 12/2012 Medication Administration Operating Standard Guideline indicated: Routine . medications will be administered as ordered within the timeframes indicated per facility practice . Medications must be given within one hour of the time stated on the MAR. 3. On 4/19/21, four random Controlled Drug Records (CDR, an inventory sheet) for four residents were requested for review. a. Resident 112 had a physician's order for Norco (a potent narcotic for pain) 5/325 milligrams (mg) 1 tablet every 4 hours as needed for pain, dated 3/25/21. On 4/20/21, a review of the CDR for Resident 112's Norco indicated the nursing staff signed out 4 tablets on: 4/6/21 at 8:30 a.m. and 12:30 p.m.; and on 4/7/21 at 8:20 a.m. and 12:20 p.m. However, none was documented on the MAR to indicate they were given to the resident. This was confirmed with the ADON during a concurrent interview and review of Resident 112's clinical record on 4/20/21 at 11:47 a.m. She reviewed the CDR, MAR, and nursing progress notes but could not find any documentation the Norco was given at the date and time in question. She said any time the nursing staff signed out a CS medication from the CDR, they needed to document on the MAR to indicate the medication was given to the resident. The ADON verified 4 Norco tablets for Resident 112 were not accounted for. b. Similarly, Resident 229 had a physician's order for Norco 5/325 mg 1 tablet every 4 hours as needed for pain, dated 3/28/21. On 4/20/21, a review of the CDR for Resident 229's Norco indicated the nursing staff signed out 6 tablets, as follows, but they were not documented on the MAR as given to the resident: - 4/4/21 at 6:53 p.m. - 4/6/21 no time documented - 4/7/21 at 3 p.m. - 4/8/21 at 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. - 4/12/21 at 9:56 p.m. During a concurrent interview and review of Resident 229's clinical record on 4/20/21 at 11:52 a.m., with ADON, she said she could not find any documentation they were given. She acknowledged 6 Norco tablets for Resident 229 were unaccounted for. c. Resident 80 had a physician's order for Norco 10/325 mg 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain, dated 4/5/21. On 4/20/21, a review of the CDR for Resident 80's Norco indicated one tablet was signed out on 4/9/21 at 10:28 a.m. but it was not documented on the MAR to indicate it was given to the resident. This was confirmed with ADON during a concurrent interview and review of Resident 80's clinical record on 4/20/21 at 12:17 p.m. She verified one dose of Resident 80's Norco 10/325 mg was not accounted for. A review of the facility's Safeguarding Controlled Substances Operating Standard, dated 1/2009, indicated: Each facility will engage in safe and secure practices related to . reconciling . controlled substances and Following removal and administration, the nurses is to document on the residents MAR the date, time, and reasons (if PRN [as needed]) a controlled substance had been given.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's consultant pharmacist (CP) failed to identify and make recommendations to the facility regarding drug storage concerns and irregulari...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's consultant pharmacist (CP) failed to identify and make recommendations to the facility regarding drug storage concerns and irregularities related to the residents' drug regimen for four of 23 sampled residents (Residents 32, 47, 80, and 117). The failures resulted in inadequately monitored medications, which could lead to unsafe and ineffective medications for residents, and unnecessary medications for the residents, which had the potential to place them at risk for harm or adverse consequences. Findings: 1. During an inspection of the Medication Room in Station 3/4 conducted with the assistant director of nursing (ADON) on 4/19/21 at 10:50 a.m., an opened Novolin NPH (long acting insulin to treat high blood sugar) vial for Resident 28 was identified. Its label indicated it was opened on 12/1/20, and to discard after 1/1/21. An inspection of Medication Cart #4 on 4/19/21 at 3:36 p.m. with licensed nurse (LN) D and LN E identified 3 of 3 Xalatan (latanoprost, to treat high pressure inside the eye due to glaucoma) eye solution for 3 residents (Residents 31, 123, and 124) were opened without the open date. The manufacturer's label for the Xalatan solution indicated: Opened bottle may be stored at room temperature .for 6 weeks. The pharmacy label indicated they were dispensed on 9/25/20 (almost 7 months ago) for Resident 31; on 2/17/21 (2 months prior) for Resident 123; and on 4/2/21 for Resident 124. During a telephone interview on 4/23/21 beginning at 3:54 p.m., with CP, she said part of her duties during the monthly visit at the facility included inspection of the medications in the medication rooms and medication carts. When relayed about an insulin vial expiring in 1/2021 and multiple Xalatan eyedrops which may have been opened months ago without the open date, CP said she must have missed them during her monthly medication inspection at the facility. 2. During an inspection of the Medication Room in Station 1/2 with the ADON on 4/19/21 beginning at 11:19 a.m., the medication refrigerator (Ref #1) was identified. Ref #1 was observed to contain: 5 vials of multi-dose influenza vaccine, 5 vials of Pneumovax 23 (vaccine used to help prevent infections caused by certain types of germs or bacteria called pneumococcus); and 10 syringes of Prevnar 13 (vaccine helps protect against the 13 types of pneumococcal bacteria that most commonly cause serious infections). A review of the temperature logs for Ref #1 with ADON during the inspection indicated the nursing staff had been monitoring the temperature once daily for at least since August 2020 until the inspection day (9 months). She said the facility received the flu vaccine around October 2020. During an interview on 4/22/21 at 9:30 a.m., with the director of nursing (DON), she said if the medication refrigerator contained vaccines, it should be monitored twice daily. A review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, Syringes and Needles, revised 10/28/19, indicated: Facility Staff should monitor the temperature of vaccines twice a day. During a telephone interview on 4/23/21 beginning at 3:54 p.m., with CP, she said the nursing staff should monitor temperature in medication refrigerators once daily. When relayed about the facility P&P requiring twice daily monitoring for medication refrigerators, CP said she did not identify once daily monitoring as an irregularity in her monthly report to the facility, and added, We will fix that. 3. A review of the facility's 11/2017 Psychotropic Medication Management P&P indicated, When psychoactive medications [drugs affecting the mind] are prescribed, the clinical record should reflect the diagnosis and specific condition, or target behavior being treated. On 4/23/21, a review of Resident 47's clinical record indicated she had a physician's order, dated 1/19/21, for divalproex sodium (Depakote, a medication that can treat certain seizure disorders and mental/mood conditions) 125 milligrams (mg) two times daily for Alzheimer's dementia. The order did not indicate the target behavior(s) or mood problems for the staff to monitor. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/23/21 at 2:05 p.m., with the DON and ADON, the DON confirmed there were no specific target behaviors for staff to monitor and to assess the effectiveness related to the use of Depakote. On 4/23/21, a review of Resident 47's clinical record reflected no CP's recommendation related to the resident's Depakote. During a telephone interview on 4/23/21 at 4:30 p.m., with CP, when asked if she made a recommendation related to the lack of target behavior(s) for Resident 47's Depakote, CP said, No, I didn't do it. I thought the way we did is okay. 4. Similarly, on 4/22/21, a review of Resident 80's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated 3/2/21, for Prozac (fluoxetine, an antidepressant) 20 mg 1 cap daily for depression. There was no specific depression symptoms such as tearfulness, social isolation, insomnia, withdrawn, refusing care, etc. In other words, there was a diagnosis of depression, but there was no specific condition or target behaviors/symptoms for the staff to monitor. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/23/21 at 2:13 p.m., with DON and ADON, they both confirmed there were no specific depression symptoms, specific to Resident 80, for staff to monitor. On 4/23/21, a review of Resident 80's clinical record reflected no CP's recommendation for the resident's Prozac. During a telephone interview on 4/23/21 at 4:35 p.m., with CP, when asked if she made a recommendation related to the lack of target symptoms for the use of Resident 80's Prozac, CP said, No, I thought our system works. 5. On 4/22/21, a review of Resident 117's clinical record reflected he had a physician order, dated 1/28/21, for duloxetine (an antidepressant) 60 mg 1 capsule by mouth one time a day for depression. The order did not indicate what specific depression symptoms for staff to monitor. During an interview on 4/23/21 at 11:20 a.m. with LN B, she said she could not locate any specific behaviors except depression for the use of duloxetine. Also, she could not find documented evidence the staff was monitoring for its side effects. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/23/21 at 2:28 p.m., with the ADON, she confirmed there were no specific behaviors prescribed for the use of Prozac and nursing had not been monitoring for its side effects. On 4/23/21, a review of Resident 117's clinical record reflected no CP's recommendation for the resident's duloxetine. During a telephone interview on 4/23/21 at 4:40 p.m., with the CP, she said she did not make recommendations related to the lack of specific target symptoms and side effect monitoring for Resident 117's duloxetine. She said she thought the system works. 6. On 4/21/21, a review of Resident 32's clinical record indicated the resident had been receiving Seroquel (an antipsychotic), in various doses, since 12/2019 (more than 1 year ago). Her current physician order, dated 3/25/21, indicated Seroquel 12.5 mg by mouth in the evening for agitation. A review of Resident 32's clinical record indicated there was no evidence the facility conducted the Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS, a rating scale designed to measure involuntary movements, known side effects of long-term treatment of antipsychotic medications) assessment for Resident 32 since 12/2019. During the concurrent interview and review of Resident 32's clinical record on 4/23/21 at 2:43 p.m., with the ADON, she verified there had been no AIMS assessment done since 12/2019. She said it should have been done every 6 months for residents on antipsychotic medications. A review of the facility's 11/2017 Psychotropic Medication Management policy and procedures indicated: If antipsychotic medications are used, an AIMS assessment will be completed upon admission, at the onset of a new order, every six months, and if medication dose is increased. On 4/23/21, a review of Resident 32's clinical record indicated no CP's recommendations for AIMS assessment. During a telephone interview on 4/23/21 at 4:45 p.m., with the CP, she said she did not make recommendation for AIMS assessment related to Resident 32's Seroquel use because she thought it would be overwhelming for the nurses to do too many tests. On 4/23/21, the facility provided an undated document titled Scheduled 1-A Required Consultant Services. It indicated: 1. Consultant shall provide consultation regarding all material aspects of providing pharmaceutical services to Facility . 3. Consultant shall assist Facility in determining that residents' medication therapy is necessary and appropriate . 5. Consultant shall identify any irregularities as defined in the State Operations Manual . 9. Consultant shall assist Facility in determining that medications are labeled in accordance with federal and state labeling requirements and accepted standards of practice. 10. Consultant shall assist Facility in reviewing the safe . storage of medications .
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

6. Review of Resident 70's clinical record indicated, she had diagnoses including psychotic disorder (severe mental disorder) with delusions (fixed, false beliefs that conflict with reality). Review o...

Read full inspector narrative →
6. Review of Resident 70's clinical record indicated, she had diagnoses including psychotic disorder (severe mental disorder) with delusions (fixed, false beliefs that conflict with reality). Review of Resident 70's physician order dated 1/28/21 indicated, valproic acid (a medication that can treat certain seizure disorders and mental/mood conditions) capsule 250 mg two capsules by mouth BID (BID, two times a day) for psychosis with behaviors. The order did not indicate what was Resident 70's specific behavior. During an interview on 4/22/21 at 10:20 a.m. with licensed vocational nurse (LVN) N, she stated there was no certain behavior nurses were monitoring for Resident 70. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/22/21 at 4:32 p.m., with the DON, she reviewed Resident 70's care plan and confirmed there was no target or specific behavior for the use of Valproic acid. During an interview on 4/22/21 at 4:45 p.m., with the DON, she confirmed there was no specific behavior being monitored for Resident 70. Review of the facility's policy Psychotropic Medication Management dated November 2017 indicated, residents behaviors should be evaluated for psychotropic use. Care plans should be updated to reflect resident's behavior(s) causing functional, emotional, or safety impairment . Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure six of 23 sampled residents (Residents 9, 32, 47, 70, 80, and 117) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) when: 1. Resident 9 received five doses of as-needed lorazepam (a controlled medication to treat agitation and anxiety) when the nursing staff documented no behaviors observed, and there was no documented evidence the resident exhibited behaviors before receiving the lorazepam doses; 2. Resident 32 received Seroquel (an antipsychotic medications) with inadequate monitoring when there was no Abnormal Involuntary Movement Scale (AIMS; a rating scale designed to measure involuntary movements known as tardive dyskinesia, a disorder that sometimes develops as a side effect of long-term treatment with antipsychotic medications) assessment conducted since the start of Seroquel; 3. Resident 47 received divalproex sodium (Depakoke; a medication that can treat certain seizure disorders and mental/mood conditions) without appropriate monitoring for use. There was no specific target behavior(s) being monitored, and no care plan developed; 4. Resident 80 received Prozac (an antidepressant) without adequate monitoring for use. There was no specific depression symptom(s) being monitored for the use of Prozac; 5. Resident 117 received duloxetine (an antidepressant) without specific target symptom(s) and side effect monitoring; and 6. Resident 70 received valproic acid (a medication that can treat certain seizure disorders and mental/mood conditions) without target or specific behavior(s) being monitored. The failures resulted in lack of adequate monitoring and unnecessary medications for the residents, which had the potential for increased risks associated with the use of psychotropic medications that include but are not limited to sedation, respiratory depression, falls, constipation, anxiety, agitation, and memory loss. Findings: 1. On 4/21/21, a review of Resident 9's clinical record indicated she was an elderly resident admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), anxiety disorder, and unspecified dementia (a condition characterized by memory loss). During a concurrent observation and interview on 4/21/21 at 3:24 p.m., with Resident 9, she was in her bed, conversant, and in pleasant manner. No behaviors were observed. During an interview on 4/21/21 at 4:05 p.m., with licensed nurse (LN) M, she said Resident 9 had occasional behaviors of verbally aggressive and spitting at staff. A review of Resident 9's medical record indicated a physician's order for lorazepam 0.5 mg, half tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for anxiety, since 3/24/21. A review of Resident 9's care plan for anxiety, dated 4/14/19, indicated the resident had anxiety manifested by Aggressiveness or Agitated Behavior yelling/screaming/pinching/scratching/spitting. A review of Resident 9's 4/2021 medication administration record (MAR) showed, for the lorazepam administration, the staff was to document date and time of medication administration and a YES or NO on the Beh. O [behavior observed] entry. The MAR showed the nursing staff administered lorazepam doses on the following days and times: 4/4 at 6:08 p.m., 4/5 at 7:23 p.m., 4/7 at 6:49 p.m., 4/16 at 5:45 p.m., and 4/17/21 at 5:10 p.m. However, each of these administrations had a NO on the Beh. O entry. During a concurrent interview and record review on 04/23/21 at 11:46 a.m., with the assistant director of nursing (ADON), she verified the staff documented NO behaviors on the MAR but the lorazepam doses were given. Additionally, she could not find supporting evidence, such as in the nursing progress notes, that indicated the resident exhibited behaviors before receiving the lorazepam doses on the days mentioned above. A review of the facility's 12/2012 Medication Administration Operating Standard Guideline indicated, PRN [pro re nata, meaning as-needed] medications- Given upon request or administered per body language or behavior. Document reason and follow up . 2. On 4/21/21, a review of Resident 32's clinical record indicated she was an elderly resident admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease with late onset and unspecified psychosis (mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality). A review of Resident 32's clinical record revealed the resident had been on various doses of Seroquel since 12/2019. Her current physician order, dated 3/25/21, indicated Seroquel 12.5 mg by mouth in the evening for agitation. Lexi-comp, a nationally recognized drug information resource, indicated the side effects for Seroquel included abnormal involuntary muscle movements such as continuous muscle spasm and contractions, tremors, and tardive dyskinesia (or TD: irregular, jerky movements). It indicated to monitor abnormal involuntary movements and TD at baseline and every 6 months for high-risk patients. A review of Resident 32's clinical record indicated there was no evidence the facility conducted the AIMS assessment for Resident 32 since the start of Seroquel in 12/2019 (more than 1 year ago). During the concurrent interview and review of Resident 32's clinical record on 4/23/21 at 2:43 p.m., with ADON, she verified there had been no AIMS assessment done since 12/2019. She said it should have been done every 6 months for residents on antipsychotic medications. She added, I just did one today. A review of the facility's 11/2017 Psychotropic Medication Management policy and procedures indicated: If antipsychotic medications are used, an AIMS assessment will be completed upon admission, at the onset of a new order, every six months, and if medication dose is increased. 3. A review of the facility's 11/2017 Psychotropic Medication Management policy and procedures indicated: When psychoactive medications [drugs affecting the mind] are prescribed, the clinical record should reflect the diagnosis and specific condition, or target behavior being treated. On 4/23/21, a review of Resident 47's clinical record indicated she was an elderly resident admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease and dementia with Lewy body (a type of dementia). A review of a physician's order, dated 1/19/21, indicated: divalproex sodium (Depakote) 125 mg two times daily for Alzheimer's dementia. The order did not indicate specific target behavior(s) or mood problems for the staff to monitor. A concurrent interview and record review with LN M was conducted on 4/23/21 at 10:36 a.m. She reviewed Resident 47's clinical record and said, It's not specifically stated what behavior(s) the Depakote was used for except for the diagnosis of Alzheimer's Dementia. She confirmed there was no care plan developed that addressed the behavior(s), goals, and interventions related to the resident's mood/behavior condition. She said the nursing staff did not have specific target behaviors to monitor related to the use of Depakote. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/23/21 at 2:05 p.m., with the director of nursing (DON) and ADON, the DON confirmed there were no prescribed target behaviors for staff to monitor and to assess the effectiveness related to the use of Depakote. She said there should have been specific behaviors for its use, and it should be care planned. 4. On 4/22/21, a review of Resident 80's clinical record reflected she was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). A review of Resident 80's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated 3/2/21, for Prozac (fluoxetine) 20 mg 1 cap daily for depression. There was no specific depression symptoms such as tearfulness, social isolation, insomnia, withdrawn, refusing care, etc. In other words, there was a diagnosis of depression, but there was no specific condition or target behaviors/symptoms for the staff to monitor. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 4/23/21 at 10:47 a.m., with LN M, she said there were no specific target symptoms related to the use of Prozac for staff to monitor. When asked what mood or behaviors the staff had been monitoring, she said there was a generic template that consisted of forty plus different behaviors for staff to monitor, but they were not specific to the resident. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/23/21 at 2:13 p.m., with DON and ADON, they both confirmed there were no specific depression symptoms, specific to Resident 80, for the staff to monitor. The ADON said the staff just do general monitoring, not specific to the resident's symptoms. 5. On 4/23/21, a review of Resident 117's clinical record reflected he was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including major depressive disorder. A review of Resident 117's physician order, dated 1/28/21, indicated duloxetine 60 mg 1 capsule by mouth one time a day for depression. The order did not indicate what specific depression symptoms for the staff to monitor. During an interview on 4/23/21 at 11:20 a.m. with LN B, she said she could not locate any specific behaviors except depression for the use of duloxetine. Also, she could not find documented evidence the staff was monitoring for its side effects. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/23/21 at 2:28 p.m., with ADON, she said the order just says depression, and there had been no side effect monitoring for the use of duloxetine. She acknowledged there should have been specific target behaviors and side effect monitoring for the use of duloxetine. A review of the facility's 11/2017 Psychotropic Medication Management policy and procedures indicated: Observed or reported behaviors, effectiveness . and monitoring of medication side effects are to be documented in the EHR [electronic health record].
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and label medications in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and the facility policy and procedures when: 1...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and label medications in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions and the facility policy and procedures when: 1. One vial of insulin (medication to treat high blood sugar) and one vial of flu vaccine were found in active stock past their discard date; and 4 multi-dose vials (medication, usually in liquid, intended for more than one dose of medication), one oral inhaler, and 3 Xalatan (or lanatoprost, to treat high pressure inside the eye due to glaucoma) eye solution bottles were opened without an open date. Two of the Xalatan eye solutions for 2 residents were being used past the discard date. 2. A Lantus (long-acting insulin) vial was identified without patient-specific label; 3. The nursing staff had been monitoring the temperature in one of two medication refrigerators (Ref #1) once daily, a practice inconsistent with the facility's policy and procedures; and 4. Medication refrigerator temperature was not monitored on a daily basis for Ref #1. The deficient practices had a potential for residents to receive medications with unsafe and reduced potency from being used past their discard date; medication errors due to medications not being labeled; and inadequately monitored medications, which could lead to unsafe and ineffective medications for residents. Findings: 1a. An inspection of the medication room in Station 3/4 was conducted with the assistant director of nursing (ADON) on 4/19/21 at 10:50 a.m. The inspection of the medication refrigerator identified the following: 1) Two opened tuberculin (an agent indicated to aid diagnosis of tuberculosis infection) vials were without the open date. The manufacturer's label on the tuberculin carton box indicated, Discard opened product after 30 days. 2) An opened Novolog (rapid-acting insulin) vial for Resident 124 without the open date. The pharmacy label on the Novolog vial indicated to discard 28 days after opening. 3) An opened Novolin NPH (long acting insulin) vial for Resident 28 indicated the vial was opened on 12/1/20 and to discard after 1/1/21. During the inspection, the ADON verified the above findings. 1b. During an inspection of the medication room in Station 1/2 with the ADON on 4/19/21 beginning at 11:19 a.m., the medication refrigerator (Ref #1) was identified. The inspection revealed the following: 1) A Novolin 70/30 (combination insulin) vial for Resident 10 was without an open date. The pharmacy label indicated it was dispensed on 2/11/21 (2 months prior. The ADON verified the finding, looked up her drug information resource, and said it was good for 42 days after opening. 2) One 5-milliliter flu vaccine that had the open date of 3/5/21. The ADON said it was good for 28 days after opening. The vial should be discarded on 4/3/21. During the inspection, the ADON verified the above findings. 1c. During an inspection of medication cart #4 on 4/19/21 at 3:36 p.m., with licensed nurse (LN) D and LN E, identified: 1) a Breo Ellipta (Inhaler for asthma) for Resident 83 without an open date. The manufacturer label indicated: Discard the inhaler 6 weeks after opening the moisture-protective foil tray. There were two auxiliary labels from the pharmacy indicating to write in the Date Opened and Discard After but none was filled in by the facility staff. 2) Three of three Xalatan eye solution bottles for 3 residents (Residents 31, 123, and 124) were opened without the open date. The manufacturer label on the Xalatan bottle indicated: Opened bottle may be stored at room temperature .for 6 weeks. The pharmacy label indicated they were dispensed on 9/25/20 (almost 7 months ago) for Resident 31; on 2/17/21 (2 months ago) for Resident 123; and on 4/2/21 for Resident 124. LN E verified the findings and acknowledged the Xalatan solution bottles were used past the discard date (6 weeks after opening) for Residents 31 and 123. A review of the facility's Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, Syringes and Needles, revised 10/28/19, indicated: Once any medication or biological package is opened, Facility should follow manufacturer/supplier guidelines with respect to expiration dates for opened medications and If a multi-dose vial of an injectable medication has been opened or accessed . the vial should be dated and discarded within 28 days unless the manufacturer specifies a different (shorter or longer) date for that opened vial. 2. During an inspection of Medication Cart #1 on 4/19/21 at 3:15 p.m., with LN C, a Lantus vial was identified without a pharmacy label with the resident's name and other identifiers on it. The carton box containing the Lantus vial indicated it belonged to Resident 113. LN C said the label must have fallen off. LN C acknowledged this could potentially result in an error because the unlabeled Lantus vial could be mistakenly placed in another Lantus carton box that belonged to another resident. A review of the facility's policy and procedures, Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, Syringes and Needles, revised 10/28/19, indicated: Facility should destroy and reorder medications . with . missing labels or cautionary instructions. 3. During an inspection of the medication room in Station 1/2 with the ADON on 4/19/21 beginning at 11:19 a.m., a round analog thermometer was observed inside the medication refrigerator (Ref #1). This thermometer could only read real-time temperature reading, and had no capacity to record minimum (min) or maximum (max) temperature. During the inspection, Ref #1 was observed to contain: 5 vials of multi-dose influenza vaccine, 5 vials of Pneumovax 23 (vaccine used to help prevent infections caused by certain types of germs or bacteria called pneumococcus), and 10 syringes of Prevnar 13 (vaccine helps protect against the 13 types of pneumococcal bacteria that most commonly cause serious infections). A review of the Temperature Log for Ref #1 with the ADON during the inspection indicated the nursing staff had been monitoring the temperature once daily. The instructions on the Temperature Log indicated in part: 2. If using temperature monitoring divide (TMD; digital data logger recommended) that records min/max temps, document min/max once each workday . If using TMD that does not record min/max temps, document current temps twice, at the beginning and end of each workday. During the inspection above, the ADON reviewed the monthly temperature logs for Ref #1 and acknowledged the staff had been logging the temperature only once daily at least since August 2020 until present day (9 months). She said the facility got the flu vaccine in around October 2020. During an interview on 4/22/21 at 9:30 a.m., with the director of nursing (DON), she said if the medication refrigerator contained vaccines, it should be monitored twice daily. A review of the facility's policy and procedures, Storage and Expiration Dating of Medications, Biologicals, Syringes and Needles, revised 10/28/19, indicated Facility Staff should monitor the temperature of vaccines twice a day. 4. During an inspection of the medication room in Station 1/2 with the ADON on 4/19/21 beginning at 11:19 a.m., review of the monthly temperature logs, from August 2020 to April 2021, for Ref #1 with the ADON indicated the nursing staff was monitoring the temperature once daily. However, it was not monitored consistently on a daily basis. The following days were not logged: 9/4, 10/7, 10/8, 10/9, 10/27, 12/15, 12/16/2020; and 1/22, 1/27, 1/28, 1/29, 2/14, 2/19, 3/1, and 3/9/2021. The ADON verified the nursing staff was not monitoring the medication refrigerator temperature on a daily basis for Ref #1.
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

2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 4/19/21 at 4:25 p.m., LN H was not wearing his facemask while in the nursing station with another staff. When asked if he needed to wear his facemas...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 4/19/21 at 4:25 p.m., LN H was not wearing his facemask while in the nursing station with another staff. When asked if he needed to wear his facemask, he stated he could not answer the surveyor. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 4/19/21 at 4:43 p.m., she stated staff were expected to wear a face mask while in the facility. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/long-term-care.html, Health care provider (HCP) should wear well-fitting source control (e.g facemasks or respirators) at all times while they are in the healthcare facility. 3. During an observation 4/20/21 at 8:54 a.m., LN F wore gloves while preparing medications. LN F went to room (rm) X to talk with a resident without taking off her gloves. At 8:57 a.m., LN F came out from rm X and removed her gloves. During an interview on 4/20/21 at 9:00 a.m., with LN F, she confirmed the above observation and stated she did change her gloves in rm X. LN F further stated she should have removed her gloves prior to entering the resident's room. According to the World Health Organization (WHO) website https://www.who.int/gpsc/5may/Glove_Use_Information_Leaflet.pdf, When wearing gloves, change or remove gloves in the following situations: during patient care if moving from a contaminated body site to another body site including mucous membrane, non-intact skin or a medical device within the same patient or the environment) 4a. During an observation on 4/22/21 at 7:50 a.m., certified nursing assistant (CNA I) was in rm XX, left the room and went to get a chair in rm XXX. CNA I did not perform hand hygiene in between tasks. During an interview on 4/22/21 at 7:51 a.m., with CNA I, he confirmed the above observation and stated he should have performed hand hygiene. b. During an observation on 4/22/21 at 7:54 a.m., CNA J exited rm XXXX and went to rm X. CNA J exited rm X, preceded to the linen cart, and took a white cloth. During an interview on 4/22/21 at 7:55 a.m., with CNA J, she confirmed the above observation and then performed hand hygiene. c. During an observation on 4/22/21 at 7:59 a.m., the LS wheeled Resident 97 to his room. The LS exited the room and returned to the clean laundry cart without performing hand hygiene. During an interview on 4/22/21 at 8:02 a.m., with the LS, she confirmed the above observation. Review of the CDC website https://www.cdc.gov/handhygiene/providers/index.html indicated, Perform hand hygiene after touching a patient or the patient's immediate environment. 5. During an initial tour on 4/19/21 at 10:55 a.m., in Station 1's yellow zone (residents on observation for any signs and symptoms of COVID), the licensed physician (LP) was observed leaving room A and entering rooms B, C, D and E without changing his gown. During an interview on 4/19/21 at 11:20 a.m., the LP acknowledged the above observation and stated he was not aware of the facility policy on the use of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the yellow zone. He stated he knew the importance of following the facility's infection prevention protocol to prevent the spread of infection in the facility. During an interview with the assistant director of nursing (ADON) on 4/22/21 at 2 p.m., she stated everyone must follow the facility's guidelines on the donning and doffing of appropriate PPE. A posted sign by the wall near room B indicated Do change the gown and gloves between patients because some could be and others could be. A review of the facility's 9/16/2020 policy, COVID-19 Mitigation Plan, indicated to remove all PPE before exiting the patient room. 6. During an observation and concurrent interview on 4/22/21 at 8:45 a.m. with certified nursing assistant Q (CNA Q), Resident 117's urinal was hanging in the trash can next to the resident's bed. CNA Q stated the urinal should be cleaned and placed in the bathroom to prevent contamination. During an observation and concurrent interview on 4/23/21 at 1:45 p.m. with certified nursing assistant R (CNA R), Resident 117's urinal containing used gauze was hanging in the trash can. CNA Q acknowledged, the urinal should not be hanged in the trash can. During an interview with the ADON on 4/23/21 at 2:30 p.m., she stated the urinal should be emptied and cleaned immediately after each use and must be stored in a clean area. A review of the facility's undated policy, Administration of Bedpan/Urinal, indicated do not place urinal on floor or bedside stand and clean and store urinal per facility procedure. 7. During observation on 04/23/21 at 2:05 p.m., Resident 109 was self-propeling in a wheelchair in the hallway. Resident 109's urinary catheter tubing (long plastic cylinder that collects urine) from the drainage bag was touching the floor. During interview with LVN N on 04/23/21 at 2:15 p.m., LVN N acknowledged the finding and stated that should not be touching the floor. 8. During the initial tour on 4/19/21 at 11:48 a.m., the oxygen concentrator filter for Resident 89 was dusty. During an observation on 4/19/21 at 11:51 a.m. of the oxygen concentrator filter for Resident 54, the oxygen concentrator filter for Resident 54 was dusty. During an observation on 4/19/21 at 12:03 p.m., of the oxygen concentrator filter for Resident 43, it was observed that the oxygen concentrator filter for Resident 43 was very dusty. During an interview on 4/20/21 at 10:20 a.m. with certified nursing assistant L (CNA L), in Resident 43's room, CNA L stated the oxygen concentrator filter did not look like it had been cleaned. During an interview on 4/20/21 at 10:25 a.m. with licensed vocational nurse K (LVN K), in Residents 54 and 89's room, LVN K stated both oxygen concentrator filters looked dirty. During an interview on 4/20/21 at 10:35 a.m. with central supply staff (CS), CS stated the oxygen concentrator filters for Residents 43, 54, and 89 needed to be changed. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were implemented when: 1. Glucometer was not disinfected after a resident use; 2. Licensed nurse (LN) H did not wear his facemask while talking to another staff; 3. LN F did not remove gloves prior to entering a resident room; 4. Three staff did not perform hand hygiene in between tasks; 5. Physician did not change gown in between residents in the observation unit; 6. Urinal was observe hanging in a trash can; 7. Resident 109's urinary catheter tubing was touching the floor; 8. Three oxygen filters were dirty. These failures could result in the spread of infection and cross-contamination. Findings: 1. During a medication pass observation on 4/19/21 at 4:28 p.m., licensed nurse A (LN A) was observed giving medications to Resident 10 and obtaining the resident's blood sugar (BS) at the bedside. LN A pricked the resident's finger with the lancet (a cutting device), then collected a small blood sample on a testing strip that was connected to the glucometer. After completing reading the BS, LN A disposed of the testing strip, went back to the medication cart, and placed the glucometer in the medication cart without cleaning and disinfecting it. During an interview on 4/19/21 at 4:41 p.m., with LN A, she said she did not clean and disinfect the glucometer because she wore gloves during the blood sample collection, and it did not touch the resident. She said the glucometer was being used to collect blood samples from multiple residents. Then she added, You are right. I should wipe it down after each resident, and proceeded to wipe the glucometer with the disinfectant wipe. During an interview on 04/19/21 04:46 p.m., with the director of nursing (DON), she said the nurse should wipe down the glucometer after use on each resident. The facility provided the undated Cleaning and Disinfecting Guidelines from the maker of the glucometer. It indicated to clean and disinfect the meter between patient use with the appropriate cleaning and disinfectant wipe.
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
  • • 35% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $103,645 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 34 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $103,645 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in California. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (18/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 18/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Gilroy Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Gilroy Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Staffed?

CMS rates GILROY HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Gilroy Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?

State health inspectors documented 34 deficiencies at GILROY HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, and 32 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 Gilroy Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?

GILROY HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by COVENANT CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 134 certified beds and approximately 120 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in GILROY, California.

How Does Gilroy Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, GILROY HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (35%) 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 Gilroy Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center?

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 Gilroy Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, GILROY HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in California. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Gilroy Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Stick Around?

GILROY HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 35%, 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 Gilroy Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center Ever Fined?

GILROY HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER has been fined $103,645 across 1 penalty action. This is 3.0x the California average of $34,115. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Gilroy Healthcare And Rehabilitation Center on Any Federal Watch List?

GILROY HEALTHCARE AND REHABILITATION CENTER is not on any federal watch list. The most significant is the Special Focus Facility (SFF) program, which identifies the bottom 1% of nursing homes nationally based on persistent, serious quality problems. Not being on this list means the facility has avoided the pattern of deficiencies that triggers enhanced federal oversight. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review the facility's inspection history directly.