HAYWARD GARDENS POST ACUTE

1628 B STREET, HAYWARD, CA 94541 (510) 582-4636
For profit - Partnership 75 Beds PACS GROUP Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
63/100
#369 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Hayward Gardens Post Acute has a Trust Grade of C+, indicating it is slightly above average but not outstanding. It ranks #369 out of 1,155 nursing homes in California, placing it in the top half of facilities in the state, and #32 out of 69 in Alameda County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. The facility is improving, having reduced its number of issues from 19 in 2023 to just 5 in 2024. Staffing is rated at 3 out of 5 stars with a turnover rate of 43%, which is average for the state, and the facility has good RN coverage, exceeding that of 77% of California facilities, ensuring better oversight of resident care. However, some concerns remain, including a serious finding where a resident lost a significant amount of weight due to inadequate nutritional interventions, and issues with food service oversight that could lead to food safety risks for residents.

Trust Score
C+
63/100
In California
#369/1155
Top 31%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
19 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
43% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$18,325 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 38 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for California. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 19 issues
2024: 5 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (43%)

    5 points below California average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 43%

Near California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $18,325

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

Chain: PACS GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Dec 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct an accurate assessment of one resident's funct...

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 conduct an accurate assessment of one resident's functional capacity when Resident 42's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment instrument used to identify resident care problems to be addressed in an individualized care plan) was coded incorrectly for dental condition. This failure had the potential to cause health decline, and to inhibit or delay proper care planning and treatment. Findings: During a record review of admission Record, printed December 5, 2024, Resident 42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD, refers to a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems. It includes emphysema and chronic bronchitis), Aphasia (a brain disorder that affects how you speak and understand language) following Cerebral Infarction (death of an area of brain tissue when a blocked blood vessel prevents delivery of an adequate blood and oxygen supply to the brain), and Hemiplegia (paralysis or weakness of one side of the body). During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/2/24, at 2:57 p.m., Resident 42 began to talk but had to remove her upper and lower dentures from her mouth to speak effectively. Resident 42 stated her dentures were loose, and even after applying denture cream, the plates would stay in place for only five minutes or so. Resident 42 also stated she had to remove her teeth to eat meals effectively. Resident 42 stated this made her feel uncomfortable and she wished that something could be done to improve this situation. During a record review of Resident 42's MDS Section C (Assessment of Cognitive Status), dated 11/4/24, Resident 42's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, is a scoring system used to determine the resident's cognitive status in regard to attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall information) showed a score of 14, which indicated normal cognitive function. During a record review of MDS Section L (Assessment of Oral/Dental Status), dated 11/4/24, the coding indicated no oral/dental problems were present for Resident 42. During an interview on 12/5/24, at 1:30 p.m., with the Minimum Data Set Nurse Coordinator (MDSC), the MDSC stated if the MDS assessment is not completed correctly, the resident may not receive appropriate care planning and treatment. During an interview on 12/5/24, at 1:15 p.m., with the Social Services Director (SSD), the SSD stated Resident 42 had financial concerns affecting her dental care, but other arrangements for reduced-price dental care were possible to obtain for her. During a record review of policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Assessments, dated 2001, the P&P indicated, the resident assessment coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the interdisciplinary team conducts timely and appropriate resident assessments.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

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 refer one resident with a serious mental disorder for level II Prea...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to refer one resident with a serious mental disorder for level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR- a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals who have a mental disorder or intellectual disabilities are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care. PASARR requires that 1. all applicants to a Medicaid-certified nursing facility be evaluated for a serious mental disorder and/or intellectual disability; 2. be offered the most appropriate setting for their needs [in the community, a nursing facility, or acute care setting]; and 3. receive the services they need in those settings. Regulations governing PASARR are found at 42 CFR §483.100-138) screening when Resident 57's Level 1 PASARR did not accurately show the resident's diagnosed psychiatric condition. This failure had the potential for the resident to receive inappropriate or ineffective care, treatment, or services. Findings: During a record review of Resident 57's admission Record, printed 12/5/24, the admission Record indicated that Resident 57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including paraplegia (the loss of muscle function in the lower part of the body including both legs), generalized muscle weakness, bipolar disorder (a mental condition in which a person has wide or extreme swings in their mood. Periods of feeling sad and depressed may alternate with periods of intense excitement and activity or being cross or irritable), and personal history of other mental and behavioral issues. During a record review of Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment instrument used to identify resident care problems to be addressed in an individualized care plan.), Section C, dated 11/14/24, the MDS indicated that the resident Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, is a scoring system used to determine the resident's cognitive status in regard to attention, orientation, and ability to register and recall information. A BIMS score of thirteen to fifteen is an indication of intact cognitive status.) score was 15, indicating normal, intact cognitive function. During a record review of MDS, Section I, dated 11/14/24, the MDS was coded to indicate Resident 57 had bipolar disorder. During a record review of Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASSR) Level 1 Screening, dated 11/8/24, PASSR Level 1 indicated Resident 57 did not have a serious mental illness. During a record review of facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, admission Criteria, dated 2001, the P&P indicated, All new admissions and readmissions are screened for mental disorders (MD), intellectual disabilities (ID) or related disorders (RD) per the Medicaid Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASSAR) process .the disciplinary team determines whether the facility is capable of meeting the needs and services of the potential resident that are outlined in the evaluation. Regarding residents that receive a positive level I PASSAR, and a subsequent level II PASSAR screening, the facility would be provided with notification of any specialized or rehabilitative services available, and whether placement in the facility is appropriate. During an interview on 12/5/24, at 12:15 p.m., with the Administrator (ADM) and Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated if a newly admitted resident's Level 1 PASSAR did not correctly identify a diagnosed psychiatric condition, this information would be captured and corrected by the Minimum Data Set Nurse Coordinator(MDSC) during the initial 14 day MDS assessment. At that time, the PASSAR process would restart, leading to a positive level I and a subsequent level II. During an interview 12/5/24, at 1:30 p.m., with the MDSC, the MDSC stated an inaccurate PASSAR screening could result in the resident failing to receive all available services for psychiatric or developmental problems.
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of five sampled residents (Resident 38...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of five sampled residents (Resident 38) received the necessary services to maintain good grooming, and personal hygiene when Resident 38's shower schedule was not consistently followed and reason for refusals were not documented and acted upon. This failure resulted in Resident 38 having unmet physical, physiological, and psychological needs. Findings: A review of Resident 38's face sheet indicated Resident 38 was admitted with diagnoses that included end stage kidney disease, dependence on kidney dialysis, diabetes, and generalized muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool used to guide care), dated 10/24/24, the MDS indicated, a Brief Interview Mental Status (BIMS, a brief scanner to help detect cognitive impairment) score of 15 indicated no cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated, Resident 1 required partial/moderate assistance from staff for shower/bathe self. During a review of the shower schedule for Resident 38, the shower schedule indicated Resident 38 was to receive a shower every Monday and Friday. During a review of Resident 38's care plan, initiated 8/13/24, the care plan for activities of daily living (ADL)intervention/tasks indicated .Bathing assistance: Resident requires assistance of staff/others to wash and dry hair, trunk/extremities during scheduled bath days 2X/week and as needed . The care plan, initiated on 2/21/24 indicated, .Bathing/Showering: Avoid scrubbing & pat dry sensitive skin . During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/3/24, at 8:55 a.m., with Resident 38 in the lobby, Resident 38 sat in a wheelchair, waiting for transportation to an appointment. Resident had her head covered with a shawl. Resident 38 stated the facility had scheduled her showers on Monday and Friday, which were on her dialysis days. Resident 38 stated her dialysis days were Monday, Wednesday, and Friday - 10 a.m. was dialysis, breakfast was 7:30 a.m. and she was picked up at 9 a.m. She came back at 4 p.m. from dialysis. Resident 38 stated she had not had a shower for several weeks and no bed baths were given. During an interview on 12/4/24, at 12:30 p.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated showers were scheduled to be given to residents twice a week. CNA 1 showed the showers/bath daily schedule in a binder in the front station desk. CNA 1 stated staff currently charted on the shower and bed bath sheet noted as 'weekly body checklist' and placed the sheet in the Acting Director of Nursing (ADON) box on ADON's door. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/4/24, at 2:15 p.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) 1 and Medical Records Director (MRD), RNS 1 stated the CNAs documented on the weekly body checklist sheets and the checklist would indicate if a Resident had a bed bath or a shower. She stated the CNAs gave the checklists to the ADON who reviewed the sheets and gave them to the MRD to upload into the computer. The MRD provided four 'weekly body checklist' sheets each for October and November, for Resident 38. MRD stated she could not find any more checklists in the computer. A review of two of the four sheets for October, dated 10/18/24, indicated, Resident refused shower before dialysis, and dated 10/ 21/24, indicated, Resident refused. The checklists did not include reasons documented for Resident 38's refusals. A review of the November sheets indicated for dates 11/9/24, 11/22/24, 11/25/24, and 11/29/24, Resident 38 received bed baths, and there was no documentation for showers provided. RNS 1 stated Resident 38 left the facility for dialysis on Monday, Wednesday, and Friday. RNS 1 stated Resident 38 was usually very tired in the evening upon return from dialysis and refused showers then. RNS 1 stated if a resident refused a shower, the CNA should inform the charge nurse or supervisor, and then document the refusal in the progress note and inform the family. During an interview on 12/4/24, at 4:05 p.m., CNA 1 stated when a Resident refused a shower or bed bath, the CNA should notify the nurse. During an observation and interview on 12/5/24, at 9:35 a.m., with Resident 38, Resident was lying in her bed, alert, and waiting for assistance for bed bath. There was a cup of mouth rinse for brushed teeth on her overhead table. Resident stated she asked the receptionist a few weeks ago if they could change her showers to days that are not dialysis days. Resident 38 stated the receptionist reported it to RNS 2, but RNS 2 stated the days cannot be changed because they are always set. During an interview on 12/5/24, at 10:58 a.m., with the ADON, the ADON stated showers were scheduled for 2 times a week, and residents could ask for more if needed. The ADON stated there was no schedule for bed baths. The ADON stated refusals were documented in the shower sheet, and she stated Resident 38 had refusals of showers but was unable to state the reason for Resident 38's refusals of showers/bed baths. The ADON stated shower schedules should be able to be changed to accommodate the residents' preferences. The ADON stated the resident had the right to have showers and could get showers whenever they needed it. During a review of the bathing record, Task: Bathing 30 days look back for November, presented by the ADON on 12/5/24, at 11:30 a.m., the record from 11/6/24 through 12/1/24 indicated Resident 38 refused showers on 11/8/24 (scheduled shower day as well as dialysis day), 11/11/24 (scheduled shower day as well as dialysis day), and 11/16/24 (non-scheduled day for shower) without documented reasons for the shower refusals. The bathing record indicated no documentation of Resident 38 receiving a bed bath on 11/8/24 or 11/11/24 when Resident 38 refused a shower. The bathing record, Task: Bathing for the month of October 2024 was not provided. The documentation for Resident 38's refusal for showers/bed bath was not provided. During an interview on 12/5/24, at 12:38 p.m., with RNS 2, RNS 2 stated Resident 38 refused showers because Resident 38 did not want to be in a hurry to get ready for dialysis after breakfast. RNS 2 stated residents could reschedule the shower, but it would be difficult to switch the scheduled shower days as RNS 2 would have to switch the shower days with another resident. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Bath, Shower/Tub dated [DATE], and P&P titled Bath, Bed dated March 2021 indicated, The purpose of this procedure is to promote cleanliness, provide comfort and to observe the condition of the resident's skin . If the resident refused the shower/bed bath, document the reason(s) why and the intervention taken . Report other information in accordance with facility policy and professional standards of practice. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADL), Supporting, dated March 2018, the P&P indicated, interventions .in accordance with the resident's needs, preferences, stated goals .response to interventions will be monitored, evaluated and revised as appropriate.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
Nov 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Director of Nursing (DON) was a registered nurse (RN) for seven months. This failure resulted in an unqualified nur...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Director of Nursing (DON) was a registered nurse (RN) for seven months. This failure resulted in an unqualified nurse being designated the DON and had the potential for inadequate supervision and management of the facility residents and nursing staff. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/25/24, at 10:04 a.m., with the DON, the DON was wearing a badge indicating they were the Director of Nursing. The DON stated they had been the DON since 3/2024 as the acting DON. The DON stated they had just finished school to be a RN and was waiting to take the National Clinical Licensure Examination (NCLEX, an examination to become a RN) to be a RN. During a concurrent phone interview and record review on 11/25/24, at 11:15 a.m., with the Administrator (Admin), the facility ' s job description for the DON was reviewed. The Admin stated the job description indicated the DON is a registered nurse who oversees and supervises the care of all residents .minimum requirements to perform this position include: .must be in good standing with the State Board of Nursing and maintain all required continuing education/licensing requirements at all times. The Admin stated the DON had been in the position for more than six months and was an Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN). The Admin stated the DON working as acting DON would have to meet the same requirements but was required to delegate RN duties to RNs on staff. During a concurrent interview and record review on 11/25/24, at 11:40 a.m., with the DON, the DON ' s licensed vocational nurse credentials titled, Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians, dated 11/25/24, was reviewed. The DON stated they were an LVN and that was their current license. During a record review of the facility staff roster, dated 11/20/24, the staff roster indicated the DON as the DON. The staff roster did not indicate an acting DON position. During a record review of the facility daily staffing sheet titled, Estimated daily NHPPD, dated 11/21/24, the staffing sheet indicated there was one DON on duty. The daily staffing sheet did not indicate an acting DON position.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled resident ' s (Resident 1) brief was changed with two people helping to turn Resident 1 in the bed....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled resident ' s (Resident 1) brief was changed with two people helping to turn Resident 1 in the bed. This failure resulted in Resident 1 falling off the bed and suffering a right femur fracture (broken right upper leg bone). Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool used to plan care for the resident), dated, 1/4/2022, MDS indicated two people were required to move Resident 1 to and from lying position, to turn side to side, and to position body in the bed. During a concurrent observation and interview on 4/12/2023, at 10:37 a.m. in Resident 1 ' s room with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated, CNA 1 was changing Resident 1 ' s brief on 3/21/2022, when Resident 1 fell off the bed. CNA 1 stated, Resident 1 was in her bed with side rails up at the head of the bed only. CNA 1 stated, CNA 1 was standing on one side of the bed. CNA 1 stated, she assisted Resident 1 to roll up on her side, while Resident 1 was holding the side rail with her hand, resulting in Resident 1 facing the siderail with her back facing CNA 1. CNA 1 stated, Resident 1 let go of the side rail, slid off the bed on the side opposite where CNA 1 was standing, and fell onto the floor. CNA 1 stated, CNA 1 was changing Resident 1 ' s brief by herself 1 demonstrated how CNA 1 stood on one side of the bed and turned Resident 1 up onto her side, while Resident 1 held the side rail. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 ' s legs started sliding off the bed when Resident 1 let go of the side rail. CNA 1 stated, CNA 1 grabbed Resident 1, but was unable to prevent her sliding off the bed onto the floor. CNA 1 stated, CNA 1 was regularly assigned to Resident 1 and had always changed Resident 1 ' s brief by herself. CNA 1 stated, Resident 1 was sleepier than usual that day. CNA 1 stated, CNA 1 told the charge nurse Resident 1 was sleepier than usual that day. During an interview on 4/12/2023, at 10:55 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated, RN 1 assessed Resident 1 after she fell on 3/21/2022, and found Resident 1 to be alert, oriented and in no pain. RN 1 stated, RN 1 worked day shift the day Resident 1 fell. RN 1 stated, RN 1 told the evening shift staff that Resident 1 had fallen. During an interview by telephone on 4/25/2023, at 2:27 p.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated, she cared for Resident1 on the evening shift on 3/12/2022. LVN 1 stated, LVN 1 had been informed by the day shift nurse that Resident 1 had fallen out of bed earlier that day. LVN 1 stated, LVN 1 observed Resident 1 ' s level of alertness was down. LVN 1 stated, 911 was called and Resident 1 was sent out to the acute care hospital. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes (NP), dated 3/21/22, at 9:45 p.m., the PN indicated, Resident 1 was unable to answer simple questions and therefore, was transferred to the acute care hospital. During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H & P) from the acute care hospital, dated 3/22/2022, the H & P indicated, Resident 1 came from skilled nursing facility after a witnessed fall on 3/21/2022, at 2:00 p.m. H & P indicated, Resident 1 was in septic shock, had an abnormal urinalysis (test of urine), and was very sleepy. H & P indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the hospital. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Orthopaedic Consultation Note, from the acute care hospital, undated, indicated Resident 1 had a fall on 3/21/2023, at Resident 1 ' s care facility, complained of right hip pain two days later and was found to have a right proximal femur fracture. During an interview on 5/15/2023, at 3:14 p.m., with RN 1, RN 1 stated, CNA 1 had been regularly assigned to Resident 1. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/15/2023, at 2:58 p.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON stated, ADON reviewed the MDS, dated , 1/4/2022. ADON stated, the MDS indicated, Resident 1 required a two person assist when being moved in the bed, such as when Resident 1 was turned. ADON stated, Resident 1 required a two person assist when staff changed Resident 1 ' s brief, because Resident 1 had to be turned up on her side to change the brief.
Jun 2023 18 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to comprehensively assess and implement nutritional i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, document review, and interviews, the facility failed to comprehensively assess and implement nutritional interventions for one resident (Resident 59), who lost a total of 39.6 pounds over a period of 28 weeks. The facility failed to follow the weight loss policy and procedure including providing recommended nutritional interventions, having interdisciplinary committee meetings to provide an analysis of identified weight loss, and calculating adequate estimated nutritional needs by the registered dietitian. This failure had the potential to result in unintended weight loss which is strongly correlated with increased morbidity (the condition of suffering from a disease or medical condition) and mortality (death) in the older adult for one resident (Resident 59) out of a facility census of 65. Findings: Review of a Practice Paper published by the American Dietetic Association, dated 2010, indicated In older adults, a 5% or more unplanned weight loss in 30 days often results in protein-energy undernutrition as critical lean body mass is lost.that may trigger sarcopenia [a condition characterized by loss of skeletal muscle mass and function] and functional decline [a loss of independence in self-care capabilities and deterioration in mobility and in activities of daily living]. (American Dietetic Association: Individualized Nutrition Approaches for Older Adults in Health Care Communities, October 2010 Journal of the American Dietetic Association). Involuntary weight loss can lead to muscle wasting depression and an increased rate of disease complications. Various studies demonstrated a strong correlation between weight loss and morbidity and mortality. (February 15, 2002/Volume 65, Number 4 www.aafp.org/afp American Family Physician) A publication titled Nutrition Care of the Older Adult from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics, dated 2016, indicated the goal of Medical Nutrition Therapy is to maintain or restore the individual's usual body weight. During a review of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence Analysis Library regarding Unintended Weight Loss for Older Adults Evidence-Based Nutrition Practice Guidelines (2007-2009), indicated the Registered Dietitian (RD) should monitor and evaluate weekly body weights of older adults with unintended weight loss, until body weight has stabilized, to determine effectiveness of medical nutrition therapy (MNT). According to international research the prevalence of malnutrition (lack of proper nutrition) is higher in older adults with PI. Decreased intake of calories (a unit of energy), protein, vitamins, and minerals is commonly seen in individuals with malnutrition, which is often associated with undernutrition. This results in unplanned and undesired weight loss, protein-calorie malnutrition, decreased BMI (Body Mass Index, a weight to height ratio), reduced muscle mass, and dehydration, all of which are linked to PIs (Pressure Injuries, injury to skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure on the skin. Pressure injuries which are classified as unstageable when the wound is covered by a layer of dead tissue referred to as slough or eschar. Unstageable PIs are a stage 3 or 4 when revealed because slough/eschar does not form on stage 1 and 2 ulcers. The term PI and pressure ulcer are often used interchangeably). Unplanned or involuntary weight loss is considered a major risk factor for both malnutrition and PI development. The EPUAP (European Pressure Ulcer Advisory Panel)/NPIAP (National Pressure Injury Advisory Panel)/PPPIA CPG (Prevention and Treatment of Pressure Ulcers/Injuries: Clinical Practice Guidelines) recommendation is to provide 30-35 kcal per kg (kilocalorie and kilogram - metric units of measure) of body weight per day for adults with PI who are malnourished or at risk for malnutrition. The recommendation for protein is 1.25 to 1.5 g (gram a metric unit of weight) per kg or body weight per day (Munoz N, Posthauer M E, Cereda E, Schols J, Haesler E. (2020). The Role of Nutrition for Pressure Injury Prevention and Healing: The 2019 International Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations. Advances in Skin and Wound Care Journal, March 2020, 123-136.) The Centers for Medicare-Medicaid Services, State Operations Manual (SOM) revised 2/3/23 provides these parameters for significant/severe weight loss: Interval Significant Loss Severe Loss 1 month 5% Greater than 5% 3 months 7.5% Greater than 7.5% 6 months 10% Greater than 10% Review of facility the Policy and Procedure titled Weight Assessment and Intervention dated 2001 and revised March 2022, showed residents weights are monitored for undesirable or unintended weight loss. Residents are weighed at intervals established by the interdisciplinary team (IDT) and recorded in the individual's medical record. If the weight change is desirable, this is documented. For the evaluation, undesirable weight change is evaluated by the treatment team to assess if the criteria for significant weight change is met. This evaluation includes: an evaluation of the resident's target weight range, and evaluation of the resident's calorie, protein, and other nutrient needs which are compared with the resident's current intake, an evaluation of the relationship between the resident's current medical condition and recent weight change, and an evaluation of whether and to what extent weight stabilization or improvement can be anticipated. The evaluation also includes the physician and IDT to identify conditions and medications that may be causing weight loss or increasing the risk of weight loss. Review of the facility protocol titled Nutrition (Impaired)/Unplanned Weight Loss - Clinical Protocol dated 2001 and revised September 2017, showed staff will report to the physician significant weight gains or losses. Review of the facility Policy and Procedure titled Nutrition Assessment dated 2001 and revised October 2017, showed the dietitian, in conjunction with the nursing staff and healthcare practitioners, will conduct a nutritional assessment for each resident upon admission and as indicated by a change in condition that places the resident at risk for impaired nutrition. The nutrition assessment will be conducted by IDT and shall identify things including but not limited to, usual body weight, fluid and nutrient loss that may increase nutritional requirements. The dietitian is to complete an estimate of calorie, protein, nutrient and fluid needs, whether the resident's current intake is adequate to meet his/her nutritional needs. Review of the facility policy and procedure titled Food and Nutrition Services dated 2001, showed each resident is provided with a nourishing, well-balanced diet that meets his or her daily nutritional and special dietary needs. The multidisciplinary team staff, including nursing staff, the attending physician, and the dietitian will assess each resident's nutritional needs. Resident 59 is a [AGE] year-old female admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnoses including but not limited to unspecified protein-calorie malnutrition, an unstageable pressure ulcer of the left heel, a non-pressure chronic ulcer of the other part of left foot with unspecified severity, and congestive heart failure (CHF, a chronic condition in which the heart does not pump blood as well as it should). admission diet order was a cardiac (low-fat low cholesterol), 2-gram, pureed diet. Review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS) - Version 3.0 Resident Assessment and Care Screening Nursing Home Quarterly (NQ) Item Set dated 2/20/23 and 5/19/23 showed Resident 59 had a BIMS score (Brief Interview for Mental Status, a structured evaluation aimed at evaluating aspects of the cognition in elderly patients. A BIMS of 0-7 indicates severe cognitive impact) of 1 and 4 respectively. The MDS dated [DATE] showed Resident 59 currently had one unstageable pressure ulcer which was present since admission. The MDS dated [DATE] showed Resident 59 currently had state 4 pressure ulcer present since admission. Review of the document titled Weights and Vitals Summary from 11/19/2022 to 6/1/2023 for Resident 59, showed the following: 11/19/2022 165.6 pounds (lbs); 12/3/2022 154 lbs - a decrease of 11.6 lbs or 7% in 2 weeks; 1/3/2023 137.6 lbs - a decrease of an additional 16.4 lbs or 10.6% in one month and a total loss of 28 lbs or 16% in 2 months both of which are considered severe. 2/1/2023 130.4 lbs - a further decrease of 7 lbs or 5% in 1 month; a total loss of 23.6 lbs in 2 months or 15%; a total loss of 35 lbs or 21.5% in 3 months - all of which are considered severe. 5/1/23 129.2 lbs - a decrease of 24.8 lbs or 16% in 5 months which is considered severe. 6/1/23 126 lbs - a decrease of 28 lbs in 6 months or 18%, and overall weight loss of 39 lbs or 23% in 6-1/2 both of which are considered severe. Review of the document titled Nutritional Breakdown dated Spring 2023 and provided by the facility as the nutitional analyisis of the current menu, showed the combination Lowfat/Cholesterol, 2-gram sodium diet provided between 1850-2100 kcals per day. Percentage of intake calculations of the Lowfat/Cholesterol, 2-gram sodium diet show this diet would provide the following kcals on a daily basis: 0%-25% = 0-525 kcals 26%-50% = [PHONE NUMBER] kcals 51%-75% = [PHONE NUMBER] kcals 76%-100% = 1406-2100 kcals The facility's Documentation Survey Report v2 from 11/20/22-3/31/23 for Resident 59 were reviewed. Calculation of the facility's documented meal intakes show: The average meal intake for 30 documented meals (one refusal was not included) from 11/20/22-11/30/22 was 18%, this equates to an average daily intake of 333-378 kcals. The average meal intake for 86 documented meals from 12/1/22 -12/31/22 was 15% (this calculation does not include 3 meal refusals), this equates to an average daily intake of 278-315 kcals. The average meal intake for 82 documented meals from 1/1-1/31/23 was 14% this equates to an average daily intake of 259-294 kcals. The average meal intake for 77 documented meals from 2/1/23 - 2/28/23, was 35% which equates to an average daily caloric intake of 648-735 kcals. There was no documentation of meal intake on this form from 3/1/23-3/26/23. The average meal intake for 15 documented meals from 3/27-3/3 was 71%, this equates to an average daily intake of 1314-1491 kcals. A Nutrition admission Note completed by Registered Dietitian (RD) 3 on 12/6/22 (2-1/2 weeks after admission) showed Resident 59 was on a low fat, low cholesterol, 2-gram sodium, pureed diet. RD3 noted current body weight as 154 lbs and admission weight as 165.6 lbs. She showed this was an 11.6 lb weight loss which was a 7% decrease since admission. RD3 documented there was an unstageable pressure injury at left heel and wounds present since admission. RD 3 estimated Resident 59's energy needs as 1400 - 1750 kcal (kilocalories). Additionally, RD3 noted Resident 59's meal intake was documented as 0-75% (the time frame was not included in the note). RD3 noted the weight loss was likely due to poor intake, Lasix (a medication that can reduce fluid retention which is known as a diuretic), and wounds. RD3 recommend Sugar Free Health Shake three times a day (TID) and Pro-Stat (a protein supplement) 30 ml twice a day (BID) for weight stabilization and wound healing (In an interview on 6/9/23 at 2:14 p.m., DSD stated no nutrition supplements except for Pros-tat/Proheal (a protein supplement) were ordered for Resident 59 while Resident 59 was at the facility.) The Nutrition admission Noted written by RD3 on 12/6/22 shows she did not use current standard recommendations for calculating estimated energy needs and protein needs for wound healing. RD3 showed she used 20-25 kcals/kg (kilogram) for energy needs and 1.0 - 1.2 gm/kg for protein needs in her Nutrition admission Note dated 12/26/22. Using the current recommended standards of 30-35 kcals/kg (energy needs for PI), Resident 59's energy needs are estimated as 2100-2450 kcals per day. A calculation of Resident 59's documented meal intake using the facility's Documentation Survey Report v2 from 11/20/22-12/5/22 includes 42 documented meals (did not include 2 refusals) and reveals Resident 59's had an average intake was 15% which equates to an intake of 278-315 kcals per day. The Pro-Stat adds an additional 200 calories per day. The calculation of estimated needs using the current recommended standard energy needs (30-35 kcals/kg/day for PI), compared to Resident 59's calculated estimated intake shows Resident 59's intake was significantly less than estimated needs. In addition, the comparison of RD3's estimation of needs for resident 59 (calculated in her 12/26/22 Nutrition admission Note as 1400-1750 kcals/kg/day), also shows Resident 59's intake was significantly less than the needs calculated by RD3. A follow up RD progress note titled Weight Change Note dated 2/3/2023 (2 months after the last RD note tiled Nutrition admission Note dated 12/6/22), completed by RD2 showed Resident 59 was on a low-fat low cholesterol, 2-gram sodium, pureed diet. RD2 documented resident 59 was not receiving supplements at this time. The assessment showed Resident 59 had a significant weight loss. RD2 failed to recognize the weight loss since admission as severe and noted Resident 59 had significant weight loss related to poor intake. RD2 maintained Resident 59's energy needs as 1400-1750 using 20 -25 kcal/kg/day. RD 2 recommended health shakes TID, (In an interview on 6/9/23 at 2:14 p.m., DSD stated no nutrition supplements except for Pros-tat/Proheal were ordered for Resident 59 while the Resident was at the facility). RD2 also recommended a swallow evaluation and one to one feeding assistance. There were no other nutrition interventions to support increased caloric intake. A follow up RD progress note titled RD note re: need RD eval dated 2/17/2023 completed by RD2 showed resident current intake by mouth is about 68% average in the past week. RD2 recommended to add a health shake (sugar free) TID with meals for weight maintenance and to prevent further weight loss. A calculation of Resident 59's documented meal intake using the facility's Documentation Survey Report v2 from 2/10/23-2/16/23 (the 7 days prior to RD2's note on 2/17/23) includes 18 documented meals and reveals Resident 59 had an average intake of 42% which equates to an intake of 777-882 kcals per day. An average intake of 68% (which RD2 showed for Resident 59 in her note on 2/17/23), equates to an intake of 1258-1428 kcals per day. A calorie intake of 1258-1428 barely meets the low end of RD3's estimated needs for Resident 59 of 1400-1750 kcals per day based on 20-25 kcal/kg/day (from RD2's note on 2/3/23). There was no follow up or assessment by an RD until 5/26/23 (over 3 months after the last RD note). Review of the Nutritional Risk Review (Quarterly) dated 5/26/23 and signed by RD1, showed Resident 59 was on a low-fat low cholesterol, 2-gram sodium diet, soft and bite size texture. The document also showed, Resident 59 was not receiving nutritional supplements/nourishment. RD 1 showed the percent meal intake was 75-100% (no time frame indicated). RD1 documented Resident 59 had a Stage 4 pressure injury on the left heel. RD1 documented Resident 59 had increased nutrition needs related to wound healing and had significant weight loss of 24.8 lbs in six months. Caloric interventions recommended by RD1 included diet liberalization and adding health shakes TID. There was no documentation of estimated nutritional needs. Resident 59's Nutrition Care Plan initiated on 12/1/2022 and last updated on 5/26/23 showed two significant rather than severe, weight losses of 16.1% on 5/1 and 20.3% on 4/1. Also mentioned was a Stage 4 pressure injury on left heel and significant weight loss. The Interventions which supported increased caloric intake included Recommend adding health shakes TID which was added to the care plant on 5/26/23. Review of the Order Summary Report dated 6/9/23, showed a physician order for Soft and Bite Sized texture, No added salt diet was ordered for Resident 59 on 6/6/23. A dining observation and interview with Certified Nursing Aide (CNA) 2 on 6/8/23 at 12:03 p.m., showed a lunch tray was delivered to Resident 59 in her room. The tray tag showed Resident 59 was on a Soft and Bite-Sized NAS (no added salt) diet. According to the menu, gravy was missing on the rice, there was no pureed bread with margarine, and no milk. CNA 2 stated resident 59 ate solid foods okay and really liked her fluids. Resident 59 sat upright in bed and fed herself. She consumed 100% of the fluids on her tray and approximately 80% of her solid food. The menu spreadsheet titled Noon Meal Therapeutic Spreadsheets dated Week 2 Thursday Cycle 2 2023, showed a soft bite-sized diet included but not limited to rice with gravy, pureed bread with margarine, and 8 ounces of whole milk. In an interview on 6/8/23 at 10:44 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 1 indicated RD recommendations were placed in a binder for nursing staff to act upon. In a phone interview on 6/8/23 at 3:25 p.m., RD 1 said if milk or a comparable substitute was not provided on a regular basis, then residents would not receive enough protein or calories according to the planned menu. RD1 stated she typed recommendations and handed a copy to nursing staff. She said these typed recommendations went into a binder kept by nursing staff. RD1 stated nursing staff called the Medical Doctor to approve or not approve a recommendation. In an interview on 6/9/23 at 9:02 a.m., RD1 stated she was aware that Resident 59 was losing weight and had a recent significant weight loss over three months RD 1 stated she wanted to focus on Resident 59's wound before addressing the weight loss. RD 1 stated she did not use severe weight loss parameters and still documented significant weight loss even if the weight loss was severe. She said she was aware Resident 59 was not receiving health shakes and would check her next monthly weight before recommending a supplement to address the Resident's weight loss. RD1 stated she did not calculate Resident 59's calorie or protein needs on her quarterly assessment because calculating needs for a quarterly assessment was not required. RD1 stated Resident 59 should have been weighed weekly. RD1 confirmed it was not appropriate for Resident 59 to only be weighed one time per month when Resident 59 exhibited continual weight losses. RD1 confirmed Resident 59 was continuing to lose weight and stated, but not as much. When RD 1 was asked if weight loss was beneficial when a wound was healing, RD 1 stated no. In an interview on 6/9/23 at 9:02 a.m., RD1 stated she did not talk to the resident's doctor about weight loss for Resident 59. RD1 said she was responsible for the nutrition care plan for the residents at the facility. She stated there was not a care plan for planned weight loss for Resident 59. RD1 stated when assessing resident weight loss, she assessed if the resident met nutritional needs. She stated interventions included therapeutic diets and additional snacks. She stated if the snacks she recommended did not help, then she changed the intervention. RD1 said she should have recommended weekly weights to assess Resident 59's weight on June 6, 2023. RD1 stated IDT meetings were conducted every Tuesday and the team included herself and the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). She said in the meetings she talked about resident weight loss and her recommendations. RD1 stated there was not an IDT meeting done for Resident 59. Review of the undated, untitled document RD1 provided as a reference to show estimated nutritional needs for a variety of medical diagnoses, showed for pressure ulcers at stages 2-5, the estimated energy needs were 30-35 kcals/kg/day. In an interview on 6/9/23 at 12:07 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 6 (LVN 6) stated she started treating Resident 59's Stage 4 pressure ulcer wound about 2 months ago LVN 6 stated she has not seen any signs of edema or fluid retention. In an interview on 6/9/23 at 12:58 p.m., the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated she was also the acting Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) since there was not a current ADON or DON (Director of Nursing). She stated when a resident had a significant weight loss, the weight assessment and intervention policy should be followed. She stated this included notification to the physician and family member, and a meeting with IDT to come up with a plan of treatment to promote weight stabilization or weight gain. In a phone interview on 6/9/23 at 1:50 p.m., Nurse Practitioner 1 (NP1) stated she was familiar with Resident 59. She stated Resident 59 was ordered diuretics for CHF. She stated Resident 59's CHF was stable and did not see any problems. NP1 stated there would be initial fluid loss with a diuretic, however she would not expect to see continuous severe weight loss over months. She stated weight stabilization and wound healing was desired. NP1 stated the resident needed enough protein and calories to heal the wound and stabilize weight. She stated with severe weight loss, the resident would benefit from calorie supplements. In an interview on 6/9/23 at 2:14 p.m., the DSD stated the weight assessment and intervention policy would be followed if a resident had a severe weight loss. She stated this would require a nutritional assessment by the RD to calculate the resident's nutritional needs. DSD stated no nutrition supplements except for Pros-tat/Proheal were ordered for Resident 59 while Resident 59 was at the facility. The DSD also said the physician and family were not notified for Resident 59's severe weight loss and there were no documentation of IDT meetings for Resident 59 while the resident was at the facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide resident's monthly Resident Council Meeting (RCM-a scheduled meeting where residents voice concerns and grievances to the facility,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide resident's monthly Resident Council Meeting (RCM-a scheduled meeting where residents voice concerns and grievances to the facility, to improve residents' quality of life). This failure had the potential for residents to not be able to exercise their rights to have a monthly resident council meeting and for the facility to address the residents' concerns Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review with the Social Services Director (SS) on 6/5/23, at 10:30 AM, the SS stated, she was the previous activities director of the facility, and just recently hired to be the social services director. The SS reviewed the Resident Council Minutes (RCM) and acknowledged that RCM was not done for the month of April and May 2023. The SS confirmed the RCM should be done monthly. She stated, the facility department related to any issues or concerns were the responsible for addressing the resident's concerns. The SS acknowledged some of the issues in RCM in March 2023 were not resolved. The SS was not able to provide resident's concern resolution documentations for the month of January, February, and March 2023. She stated, there was no documented communications with the department in addressing the resident's concerns or issues of the residents. During an interview with Resident 19 on 6/6/23 at 11 AM, Resident 19 stated, he attended the RCM in February and March 2023. Resident 19 verbalized one of his concerns was the long wait period for the staff to answer his call lights, Resident 19 stated, it took more than an hour at times before his call light were answered by staff. When asked if the facility had addressed the concern regarding answering the call lights, Resident 19 stated, there were no changes. During an interview on 6/6/23 at 2:22 PM with the Administrator (Admin), The Admin confirmed and acknowledged there were no RCM done in the month of April and May 2023 and not all concerns in RCM were addressed. The Admin stated It slipped through the cracks and it would be included on their next quality assurance & performance improvement (QAPI- is a data driven approached to improving the quality of all services offered by a facility). During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Resident Council with revised date 4/2017, the P&P indicated, The facility supports residents' rights to organize and participate in the Resident Council .The purpose of the Resident Council is to provide a forum for .Discussion of concerns and suggestions for improvement .Council meetings scheduled monthly or more frequently if requested by residents .A Resident Council Response Form will be utilized to track issues and their resolution. The facility department related to any issues will be responsible for addressing the item(s) of concern.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a baseline and/ or comprehensive care plan 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 develop and implement a baseline and/ or comprehensive care plan for two of two sampled resident (Resident 82, and 81) to include resident-centered plan of care within 48 hours of their admission to the facility. This failure resulted in Resident 82, and 81 to not have a baseline and/or a comprehensive plan of care during her stay at the facility. Findings: 1. During a record review of Resident 82's admission Record dated 06/06/23, the record indicated, Resident 82 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. During a review of Resident 82's Physician Discharge Summary dated 04/07/23, the record indicated, Resident 82 course of treatment was skilled nursing and rehabilitation and that she expired in the facility on 04/07/23. During a concurrent interview and record review with Director of Staff Development (DSD) on 06/09/23, at 8:16 a.m., Resident 82's Electronic Medical Record (EMR) including Care plans, Miscellaneous/Scanned documents were reviewed. DSD stated, she could not locate Resident 82's baseline and/ or comprehensive care plan in the EMR. The DSD stated, a baseline plan of care should be developed within 48 hours of resident's admission to include goals and plan of care such as dietary preferences and therapy services based on admission orders, and discussion with resident/family. The DSD stated, a baseline care plan was important to describe the resident's plan of care to the nursing team and to promote the best possible resident's outcome in preparation for discharge. During a review of admission records of Resident 81, the record indicated, Resident 81 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included fracture of left femur, use of anticoagulant (blood thinner) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing foods and liquids). During a review of Resident 81's medication list, the medication list indicated, the physician prescribed Warfarin (anticoagulant) 2 mg by mouth on Sunday 4MG on Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday, 6MG on Tuesday and Thursday. During a review of the baseline care plan dated 3/7/23, the baseline care plan indicated, Resident 81's use of warfarin was not addressed, facility did not complete, review and discuss baseline care plan instructions with Resident 81 and their representatives. During a review of discharge summary of Resident 81, the discharge summary indicated, discharged home with home health on 3/21/23. During an interview 6/7/23 at 9:25 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN1), RN1 stated, she received resident and did their admission into the facility. RN1 stated, she thought the admission assessment was the baseline that will populate into the MDS system and the MDS coordinator will do the care plan. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 10:47 a.m., with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated, baseline care plan is an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) process expected to be completed within 72 hours of admission and presented to residents and their responsible parties. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedures (P&P) titled Care Plans - Baseline dated December 2022, the P&P showed, A baseline plan of care should be developed for each resident within forty-eight (48) hours of admission .1. The baseline care plan should include instructions needed to provide effective, person-centered care of the resident .a. Initial goals based on admission orders and discussions with the resident/representative; b. Physician's orders; c. Dietary orders; d. Therapy services; e. Social services .2. The baseline care plan should be used until an interdisciplinary person-centered comprehensive care plan can be developed .4. The resident and/or representative should be provided a written summary of the baseline care plan .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure one (Resident 63) of three sampled resident a non English speaker was provided functional system consistent to meet com...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews and record review the facility failed to ensure one (Resident 63) of three sampled resident a non English speaker was provided functional system consistent to meet communication needs when; staff did not consistently used a qualified interpreter or translator to help Resident 63 communicate better. This failure had the potential to cause Resident 63 emotional distress. Findings: During a concurrent interview and observation on 6/5/23 at 11:19 a.m., Resident 63 was seating up in bed in her room awake, pleasant unable to communicate in English. Resident 63's husband was present at bedside. Resident 63's husband stated, they do not speak English. Resident 63's husband called daughter-in-law by phone to translate for surveyor. Daughter in-law stated, she is Resident 63's responsible party and will translate conversation between Resident 63 and surveyor during this interview process. Resident 63 stated, staff did not understand what she needed most of the time because staff used gestures to communicate with her. Resident 63 stated, nursing staff will say no,no when she asked for care. Resident 63 stated, one time she wanted to be turned but instead they changed her incontinence pad only. Resident 63 stated, she felt staff did not treat her with respect. Resident 63 stated, facility did not use communication board with her. During a review of Resident 63's Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment and care screening tool used to guide care), dated 5/27/23, the MDS indicated, Resident 63 had a clear speech, able to express her ideas and wants, makes self understood and understand others. Resident 63's diagnoses included diagnosis included Cirrhosis of Liver (liver damage). During a review of communication care plan dated 4/13/23, the communication care plan indicated, Resident 63 has a communication problem related to language barrier interventions included to provide translator as necessary to communicate with the resident. Translator is the daughter-in-law. During an interview on 6/5/23 at 11:50 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN1), LVN 1 stated, he used gestures to communicate with Resident 63. LVN1 stated, sometimes Resident 63's daughter-in-law was called to translate. During an interview on 6/5/23 at 11:54 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 3), CNA 3 stated, she used gestures when communicating with Resident 63. CNA2 stated, when staff did not understand what Resident 63 said sometimes the daughter-in-law was called to translate. CNA 3 stated, Resident 63 had no communication board at her bedside. During an interview on 6/5/23 at 12:02 p.m., with Social Services Director (SSD), SSD stated, facility used Resident 63's son as interpreter. SSD stated, staff could communicate with Resident 63 using Google translate. SSD said Resident 63 had no communication board. During a review of facility's policy and procedure, titled, Accommodation of Needs, revised March 2021, the policy and procedure indicated; In order to accommodate individual needs and preferences, staff attitudes and behaviors are directed towards assisting the residents in maintaining independence, dignity and well-being to the extent possible and in accordance with the residents' wishes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

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 one of four sampled resident ( Resident 49) rec...

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 one of four sampled resident ( Resident 49) received treatment services to address decline in range of motion to lower extremities. This failure had the potential to cause Resident 49 pain, injury, difficulty with transfers, turning and repositioning. Findings: During an observation on 6/6/23 at 9:14 a.m., Resident 49 laid in bed, awake non communicative. Resident 49 observed to have contractures (shortening of the muscles, tendons or other tissue often leading to deformed and stiff joints) of lower extremities. During a review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment screening tool used to guide care) dated 12/26/21,the MDS indicated, Resident 49 had limited range of motion and impairment on one side lower extremity, hip, knee, ankle and foot. Resident 49 had diagnoses that included Traumatic Brain Injury. During a review of the Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 49 had limited range of motion and impairment to both lower extremities hip, knee, ankle and foot. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 8:02 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA3), CNA 3 stated, Resident 49 had contractures on both legs. CNA3 stated, it was difficult to transfer Resident 49 from bed to wheelchair. CNA3 further stated, Resident 49 laid in bed most of the time. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 8:27 a.m., with the Director of Rehab (DOR), DOR stated, Resident 49 was bedbound and could not be evaluated for treatment because he had problems with his insurance. DOR further stated, Resident 49 did not receive treatment because he had no insurance.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

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 one of one sampled resident (Resident 17) recei...

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 one of one sampled resident (Resident 17) received treatment and services when; - Resident 9's Tube Feeding (TF) was not administered as ordered by the physician. - Dietician recommendation to increase Resident 17's tube feeding was not acted upon. - The facility's policy and procedure titled, Food and Nutrition Services, revised October 2017 did not addressed who, when and how should nursing staff follow up with dietician recommendations. These failures had the potential to result in residents decline and weight loss. Findings: During a review of the Minimal Data Set (MDS - an assessment screening tool used to guide care), dated 3/31/23, the MDS indicated, Resident 17's diagnosis included Dysphagia Oropharyngeal phase (swallowing problems occurring in the mouth and or the throat) and Gastrostomy status (a surgical procedure used to insert a tube, often referred to as a G-tube, through the abdomen and into the stomach. During an observation on 6/5/23 at 11:35 a.m., Resident 17 was non interviewable, observed awake in bed with head of bed slightly up. Observed the TF pump ran Resident 17's Isosource 1.2 at 40 ml per hour. During an observation on 6/6/23 at 12:18 p.m., accompanied by the Dietician (RD1) and Director of staff Development (DSD), Resident 17 laid in bed with TF pump ran isosource 1.2 at 40 ml per hour. During a review of order summary report dated 4/19/23 indicated the physician prescribed Resident 17 to receive enteral feed every shift Isosource 1.2 at 45 ml per hour for 24 hours. During a concurrent interview and observation on 6/6/23 at 12:27 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 2), LVN 2 stated, TF pump was not at the correct dose. LVN 2 stated he did not know why the TF dose was not accurate. During a review of Resident 17's nutritional risk assessment dated [DATE], the nutritional assessment indicated, Dietician (RD1) recommend changing TF Isosource HN to infuse at 55ml per hour for 20 hours. During an interview on 6/6/23 at 12:56 p.m., with RD1, RD 1 stated, she assessed Resident 17's TF on 5/30/23 and recommend changing TF Isosource to infuse at 55ml per hour for 20 hours. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 12:24 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN)/Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON stated, the facility's process was that Dietician recommendations are provided to the PM shift (3 PM to 11 PM) supervisor. ADON further stated, PM supervisor was responsible for the follow up. ADON stated, recommendations are expected to be completed within 72 hours. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 3:20 p.m., with LVN 4 PM- shift supervisor, LVN 4 stated, she started work at the facility in April 2023 and had not followed up with dietician recommendations. LVN 4 stated she did not follow up with Resident 17's dietician recommendation. During a review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Food and Nutrition Services, revised October 2017 indicated; A resident-centered diet and nutrition plan will be based on this assessment. The facility's policy and procedure did not addressed who, when and how should follow up with dietician recommendations.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record review, for one (Resident 9) of four sampled residents the facility failed to ensure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interviews and record review, for one (Resident 9) of four sampled residents the facility failed to ensure pain assessment was completed before the administration of as needed (PRN) pain medication according to professional standard of practice when; Licensed Nurses did not assess and document Resident 9's pain characteristics that included location, severity, duration and timing of pain before the administration of PRN hydromorphone pain medications. Licensed Nurses did not document the adverse side effects of hydromorphone pain medication administered to Resident 9. According to manufacturer Hydromorphone belongs to a class of drugs called opioids, it has a rapid onset of action. Unless using for severe acute pain, opioids are not considered a drug of choice in older patients. The elderly may be particularly susceptible to respiratory and CNS depression, as well as the constipating effects of opioids {Reference: [NAME].com}. These failure had the potential to cause residents unrelieved pain, unnecessary medication and adverse side effects. Findings: During an observation and concurrent interview on 6/5/23 at 11:30 a.m., Resident 9 laid in bed in his room. Resident 9 stated he had continuous penile pain especially during urination. Resident 9 stated he received pain medications with minimal relief. Resident 9 said he had large prostrate and had a surgical procedure done. During a review of the Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), Resident Assessment and Care guide tool, dated 3/1/23, the MDS indicated, Resident 9 had clear speech able to make self understood and understand others. Resident 9's Brief Interview for Mental Status score was 14 (cognitively intact). Resident 9's diagnoses included Benign Prostatic Hyperplasia (prostrate gland enlargement that can cause urination difficulty) and chronic pain syndrome (persistent pain that lasts weeks to years). During a review of Resident 9's chronic pain care plan revised 3/5/20, the care plan indicated, Resident 9 had prostatism (obstruction at the bladder outlet), penile pain and history of back injury. Resident 9 continually stated he was in pain despite multiple narcotic pain medications. Care Plan interventions included : -Monitor and document pain characteristics with PRN to include quality (e.g. sharp, burning), severity (1 - 10 scale), anatomical location, onset, duration (e.g., continuous, intermittent), aggravating factors and relieving factors. -Monitor and document for side effects of pain medication observed for constipation, new onset or increased agitation, restlessness, confusion, hallucinations, dysphoria, nausea, vomiting, dizziness and falls report occurrences to physician. During a review of order summary report dated 4/14/23, the order summary report indicated, physician prescribed Resident 9 to received the following PRN pain medications: - Acetaminophen tablet 500mg one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for moderate pain. - Hyromorphone HCL oral tablet 2 mg give one tablet by mouth every 4 hours as needed for pain. During a review of Resident 9's Medication Administration Records (MARs) dated 5/1/23 - 5/31/23, the MARs indicated, Resident 9 was administered PRN Hydromorphone HCL 2mg tablet by mouth every four hours as needed for pain 80 times in the month of May 2023. During a review of Resident 9's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 6/1/23 - 6/30/23 MAR indicated, Resident 9 was administered PRN Hydromorphone HCL 2 mg tablet by mouth every four hours as needed for pain 6 times from 6/1/23 to 6/6/23. Further review of Resident 9's MARs for May and June 2023, MAR indicated, pain location, severity, duration and timing of pain before the administration of PRN pain medications was not assessed, monitored and documented. During an interview on 6/5/23 at 1:18 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1), LVN 1 stated, Resident 9 was administered PRN pain medication and pain level was recorded with relief. Further review of Resident 9's MARs for May and June 2023, MAR indicated, adverse side effects of hydromorphone pain medication was not monitored. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 12:36 p.m., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON stated, the expectation was for licensed nurses to check residents pain level before administration of PRN pain medication. ADON stated the expectation was for licensed nurses monitor side effects of pain medication in order to make sure there was no adverse effect. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Pain Assessment and Management revised October 2022, the policy and procedure indicated, Assess the resident whenever there is a suspicion of new pain or worsening of existing pain. During the pain assessment gather the following information as indicated for the resident. Characteristics of pain: 1. Location of pain; 2. Intensity of pain 3. Characteristic of pain; 4. Pattern of pain and 5. Frequency, timing and duration of pain.
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 interviews and record review, the facility failed to act upon the Consultant Pharmacist's (CP) Medication Regimen Review (MRR) report for two (Resident 23 and 63) of five sampled residents wh...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews and record review, the facility failed to act upon the Consultant Pharmacist's (CP) Medication Regimen Review (MRR) report for two (Resident 23 and 63) of five sampled residents when; - Resident 23 CP recommendation for the physician to consider initiating ACE inhibitor such as Lisinopril 2.5 mg daily as first-line therapy for individuals with hypertension (high blood pressure) and Diabetes Mellitus (high blood sugar) was not acted upon. - Resident 63's CP recommendation to clarify erythromycin eye ointment (an antibiotic medication) to include a stop date was not acted upon. - The facility policy and procedure titled, Medication Regimen Review, revised May 2019 did not addressed who, when and how to follow up with CP medication regimen reviews and recommendations. These failure had the potential for residents to receive unnecessary drugs and suffer adverse medication side effects. Findings: During a review of the Minimal Data Set (MDS-an assessment screening tool used to guide care), dated 4/20/23, the MDS indicated, Resident 23's diagnosis included hypertension and diabetes mellitus . During a review of CP note to physician dated 3/21/23, CP note indicated, for Resident 23's physician to consider initiating Lisinopril 2.5 mg every day as first line therapy in individuals with diabetes and hypertension. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 12:24 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN)/Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), ADON stated, the facility's process was that residents' CP monthly MRR reports are provided to the PM shift (3 PM to 11 PM) supervisor. ADON stated ,PM supervisor was responsible for the follow up. ADON stated, CP recommendations are expected to be sent to physicians and completed within 72 hours. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 3:20 p.m., with LVN 4 PM supervisor, LVN 4 stated, she started work at the facility in April 2023 and had not followed up with any residents' CP recommendations. LVN 4 stated she did not follow up with Resident 23's CP recommendation. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 12:02 p.m., with CP, CP stated, she started to provide consultation at the facility in April 2023. CP stated, April and May 2023 MRR recommendations were sent within 24 hours of completion by electronic mail (email) to the Director of Nursing (DON) and copy the Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS). During an interview on 6/7/23 at 10:12 a.m., with RDCS, RDCS stated, the facility's expectation was to address CP's medication regimen reviews as soon as received. RDCS stated, recently facility did not have a Director Of Nursing (DON) and ADON was currently in school on clinical rotation. RDCS said the CP recommendations for March 2023 was sent to the email of the DON that no longer worked at the facility so the recommendations were not followed up. During a review of the physician order dated 5/22/23, the physician order indicated, Resident 63 was to receive Erythromycin Ophthalmic Ointment 5 mg/gm instill 0.5 inch in right eye three times a day for eye infection. During a review of the Medication Administration Record (MRR) for the month of June 2023, the MRR indicated, Resident 63 was administered Erythromycin eye ointment in right eye three times a day for eye infection. During a review of the Consultant Pharmacist's (CP) Medication Regimen Review (MRR), dated 5/1/23 and 5/27/23, the MRR indicated, Resident 63 had an order for erythromycin ointment that was subject to stop order policy. CP indicated, Resident 63's erythromycin order need to be clarify to include stop date. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 12:24 p.m., with ADON, ADON stated, Resident 63's CP recommendation was provided to the PM supervisor who was responsible to follow up. During a concurrent interview and review of CP recommendations on 6/7/23 at 3:20 p.m., with LVN 4 PM supervisor, LVN 4 stated, she started work at the facility in April 2023 and had not followed up with any residents' pharmacist recommendations. During an interview on 6/8/23 at 12:43 p.m., with Administrator (Admin), Admin stated, the facility was acquired on March 1st 2023. Admin stated the DON resigned the same day. Admin stated facility was in the process to hire DON. During a review of facility's policy and procedure, titled, Medication Regimen Reviews, revised May 2019; the policy and procedure did not addressed who, when and how should followed up resident's CP medication regimen review (MRR)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and secure storage and accurate labeling of drugs when multiple loose medication pills was observed inside drawer...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and secure storage and accurate labeling of drugs when multiple loose medication pills was observed inside drawers for one of three medication carts inspected. This failure had the potential for loss or misuse of medications and the potential to jeopardize the residents' health and safety and could cause delay in the delivery of treatment services. Findings: During an inspection and concurrent interview on 6/8/23, at 9:54 a.m., of back wing medication cart with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, multiple loose medication was observed scattered inside drawer 2 and drawer 3. LVN 2 then removed the loose pills from the drawers and placed in medication cups for destruction. LVN 2 stated, this was not acceptable practice. LVN 2 also stated, there was a potential risk if residents got a hold of the medications if it falls out of the drawer during medication pass. LVN 2 further added, residents can can also run out of medications before they are due for refills. During an interview on 6/8/23, at 10:25 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated, it was LVN 2's responsibility to ensure medication carts did not have loose pills. RN 1 also stated, it was not acceptable standard of practice to have loose pills in the medication drawers because of potential for drug diversion. RN 1 further added, residents can run out of medications and can delay medication refills. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Disposal of Medications, dated 2007, policy and procedure indicated, 8. Outdated medications, contaminated, or deteriorated medications and the contents of containers with no label shall be destroyed according to the above policy. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Storage of Medication, dated 2007, policy and procedure indicated, 14. Outdated, contaminated, discontinued or deteriorated medications and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from stocks, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Discarding and Destroying Medications, dated 2001, the policy and procedure indicated, 7. For unused, non-hazardous controlled substances that are not disposed of by an authorized collector, the EPA recommends destruction and disposal of the substance with other solid waste following the steps below: .b. Mix medication, either liquid or solid with an undesirable substance . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, General Guidelines, dated 2007, te policy and procedure indicated, 6. Once removed from the package/container, unused medication doses shall be disposed of according to the nursing care center policy. (Refer to Section 5.5 - Disposal of Medications).
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate use of antibiotic (medication for infection) for one of two sampled residents (Resident 63) when facility did not monito...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate use of antibiotic (medication for infection) for one of two sampled residents (Resident 63) when facility did not monitor and reviewed antibiotic eye ointment for a stop date. This failure had the potential for Resident 63 to take unnecessary antibiotics which could lead to antibiotic resistance. Findings: During a review of the order summary report dated 5/22/23, the order summary report indicated, physician prescribed Resident 63 to receive Erythromycin Ophthalmic Ointment 5mg/gm instill 0.5 inch in right eye three times a day for eye infection. During a review of the Medication Administration Records (MRRs) for the month of May and June 2023, MRRs indicated, Resident 63 was administered Erythromycin eye ointment in right eye three times a day for eye infection from 5/22/23 through 6/7/23. During a review of the Consultant Pharmacist's (CP) Medication Regimen Review (MRR), dated 5/1/23 and 5/27/23, MRR indicated, Resident 63 had an order for erythromycin ointment that was subject to stop order policy. CP indicated, Resident 63's erythromycin order need to be clarify to include stop date. During a concurrent interview and review of surveillance log and MRR on 6/8/23 at 10:21a.m., with the Infection Preventionist (IP), IP stated, Resident 63 was admitted from the hospital with an order for erythromycin eye ointment for right eye infection. IP stated, Resident 63's MRR dated 5/1/23 and 5/27/23 was not reviewed and followed up. IP stated, she did not clarify Resident 63's order for erythromycin eye ointment to include a stop date. IP stated, she was hired in February 2023 and did not get an orientation to her role as IP. During a review of facility's policy and procedure, titled, Antibiotic Stewardship - Orders for Antibiotics, revised December 2016, policy and procedure indicated, If an antibiotic is indicated, prescribers will provide complete antibiotic orders including the following elements: a. Drug name; b. Dose; c. Frequency of administration; d. Duration of treatment; (1) start and stop date, or (2) number of days of therapy; e. route of administration; and f. indication for use.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, for ten (Resident 19, 20, 23, 28, 53, 59, 60, 64 and 65) of twelve sampled residents that...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, for ten (Resident 19, 20, 23, 28, 53, 59, 60, 64 and 65) of twelve sampled residents that were reviewed for resident assessments, the facility failed to complete quarterly Minimum Data Set assessments (MDS) in a timely manner. (MDS is a resident assessment tool used to guide care). These failure had the potential to result in the delay of assessment of residents' needs, goals of care and inability to monitor each residents' decline and progress over time. Findings: During a record review of the following Residents' Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and screening tool), Resident 15's MDS indicated the last quarterly MDS with assessment reference date (ARD) 4/25/23 was completed 6/2/23 (37 days after ARD). {ARD is the last day of the observation period that the assessment covers for the resident, the ARD is the date of the assessment}. During a record review record review of Resident 19' Quarterly MDS, the MDS indicated, the last quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] was completed 6/2/23 (38 days after ARD). During a review of Resident 20's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and screening tool) indicated an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) observation end date 3/23/23 was completed late. A further review of the record indicated, MDS assessment was more than 14 days. A record review of Resident 23 indicated the last quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] was completed 6/2/23 (42 days after ARD). A record review of Resident 28 indicated the last quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] was completed 6/2/23 (50 days after ARD). A record review of Resident 53 indicated the last annual MDS assessment was completed on 1/13/23. The quarterly MDS was not completed as yet. A record review of Resident 59 indicated the admission MDS assessment was completed 2/20/23. The quarterly MDS was not completed as yet. A record review of Resident 60 indicated the last quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] was completed 6/2/23 (42 days after ARD). A record review of Resident 64 indicated the last quarterly MDS assessment dated [DATE] was completed 6/2/23 (41 days after ARD). A record review of Resident 65 indicated the last quarterly MDS assessment was completed 1/26/23. The updated quarterly MDS assessment was not completed as yet. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 6/7/23, at 10:41 a.m., with the Minimum Data Set Consultant (MDSC), MDSC stated, Resident 20's Quarterly MDS assessments was late; the expectation was to follow 14 day to transmit it to Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to be in compliance with the regulation. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 8:45 a.m., MDS Consultant (MDSC) stated some of the residents' MDS assessments were late and some were not completed. MDSC stated, facility was aware that some residents' MDS assessments were not completed. MDSC stated facility did not have a full time MDS coordinator. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 2:55 p.m., with the Administrator (Admin) and Regional Director of Clinical Services (RDCS), Admin, stated facility was acquired on March 1st 2023. Admin stated, the MDS coordinator resigned the same day. Admin said facility had no MDS coordinator as yet and was in the process to hire. Review of the Long -Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.17.1 dated October 2019, indicated ; The quarterly assessment should be completed not later than 14 days after ARD. The Quarterly assessment is used to track a resident's status to ensure critical indicators of gradual change in a residen's status are monitored. The quarterly assessment is an OBRA non-comprehensive assessment for a resident that must be completed at least every 92 days following the previous OBRA assessment of any type. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Quarterly Review Assessment, dated November 28, 2017, indicated, A Quarterly assessment is considered timely if: .The MDS completion date (Item Z0500B) must be no later than 14 days after the ARD .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0801 (Tag F0801)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of facility documents, the facility failed to comply with Federal regulations related to the oversight of food service operations when the facility d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interviews, and review of facility documents, the facility failed to comply with Federal regulations related to the oversight of food service operations when the facility did not have a full-time dietitian and the requirements were not met as specified in established standards (California Code, Health and Safety Code - HSC § 1265.4) for food service managers which required, employment of a full-time, qualified dietetic supervisor when the dietitian was not full time. The lack of a qualified, competent, full-time supervisor resulted in staff not having adequate supervision, training, and knowledge to carry out Food and Nutrition Services in a safe and sanitary manner. The lack of full-time, competent oversight of food and nutrition staff placed 61 residents who received food from the kitchen at risk for food borne illness (illness caused by food contaminated with bacteria, viruses, parasites, or toxins) and/or decreased nutrient intake which had the potential to result in death and/or nutritional related medical complications. Findings: 1. There was no full-time, qualified oversight of the Food and Nutrition Services Department. According to the California Code, Health, and Safety Code - HSC § 1265.4: A licensed health facility shall employ a full-time, part-time, or consulting dietitian. A health facility that employs a registered dietitian less than full time, shall also employ a full-time dietetic services supervisor who meets the requirements of subdivision (b) to supervise dietetic service operations. Subdivision (b) includes the following: The dietetic services supervisor shall have completed at least one of the following educational requirements: (1) A baccalaureate degree with major studies in food and nutrition, dietetics, or food management and has one year of experience in the dietetic service of a licensed health facility. (2) A graduate of a dietetic technician training program approved by the American Dietetic Association, accredited by the Commission on Accreditation for Dietetics Education, or currently registered by the Commission on Dietetic Registration. (3) A graduate of a dietetic assistant training program approved by the American Dietetic Association. (4) Is a graduate of a dietetic services training program approved by the Dietary Managers Association and is a certified dietary manager credentialed by the Certifying Board of the Dietary Managers Association, maintains this certification, and has received at least six hours of in-service training on the specific California dietary service requirements contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations prior to assuming full-time duties as a dietetic services supervisor at the health facility. (5) Is a graduate of a college degree program with major studies in food and nutrition, dietetics, food management, culinary arts, or hotel and restaurant management and is a certified dietary manager credentialed by the Certifying Board of the Dietary Managers Association, maintains this certification, and has received at least six hours of in-service training on the specific California dietary service requirements contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations prior to assuming full-time duties as a dietetic services supervisor at the health facility. (6) A graduate of a state approved program that provides 90 or more hours of classroom instruction in dietetic service supervision, or 90 hours or more of combined classroom instruction and instructor led interactive Web-based instruction in dietetic service supervision. (7) Received training experience in food service supervision and management in the military equivalent in content to paragraph (2), (3), or (6). Review of the job description titled Dietary Services Director signed by the Dietary Manager (DM) on 2/1/23, showed a qualification required was to possess a valid and current certification as required by state law. Review of the document titled Certificate of Completion with an issue date of 5/12/23, showed DM completed a training course for the Food Manager Certification (a certified food manager has successfully passed and accredited food safety exam that does not require classroom hours or necessarily involve a training program . In an interview on 6/5/23 at 9:50 a.m., DM stated she was the fulltime Dietary Manager. She stated she used to be the Social Worker and she was asked to be the Dietary Manager. In an interview on 6/5/23 at 11:58 a.m., Registered Dietitian 1 (RD1) stated she worked at the facility part time. RD1 stated she was usually at the facility one day a week. In an interview on 6/7/23 at 9:44 a.m., the Administrator (Admin) confirmed DM was not qualified for the Dietary Services Director position per the California Code, Health, and Safety Code - HSC § 1265.4 and the certificate provided for DM did not qualify her. He stated he did not look into the certificate to make sure it qualified DM for the position. 2. There was no full-time, competent oversight of the Food and Nutrition Services Department. Review of the job description titled Dietary Services Director signed by DM on 2/1/23, showed duties and responsibilities of a Dietary Services Director for Food and Nutrition Services, included but were not limited to: ensures adequate stock is always on hand and purchases or oversees the purchase of food, supplies and equipment as required to meet needs; develops and utilizes comprehensive inventory control procedures; assures menus are served and filled in accordance with established policies and procedures; assists with developing methods for determining quality and quantity of food served; monitors food temperatures and quality at point of service on the dining room and resident rooms; checks food production and food service to assure proper safety and sanitation procedures and precautions are maintained at all times; training competent department personnel. The job description also showed the knowledge and qualifications required included but were not limited to: knowledge of dietary procedures, regulations and guidelines pertaining to long term care. Review of the job description titled Registered Dietitian signed by RD1 on 3/27/23, showed RD1 was responsible for monitoring food services operations to ensure conformance to nutritional, safety, sanitation and quality standards and regulations; and monitor food control systems such as food temperatures, portion control, preparation methods, and presentation of food in order to ensure food is prepared and presented in an acceptable manner. A. Review of the policy and procedure titled Food Preparation and Service dated 2001, showed potentially hazardous foods (also referred to as Time/Temperature Control for Safety foods, which are foods that can grow harmful bacteria or toxins when they are not stored at safe temperatures) include meat products. Potentially hazardous foods are cooled rapidly. This is defined as cooling from 135 degrees Fahrenheit (F) to 70 degrees F within two hours and then to a temperature of 41 degrees F or below within the next four hours. The total cooling time between 135 degrees F and 41 degrees F is not to exceed 6 hours. According to the 2022 Federal Food Code, the person in charge is to ensure that employees are using proper methods to rapidly cool Time Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) foods that are not held hot or are not for consumption within 4 hours, through daily oversight of the employees routine monitoring of food temperatures during cooling. An observation during the initial kitchen tour on 6/5/23, at 10:40 a.m., showed a reach-in refrigerator number 1 that stored food. Inside the refrigerator was sliced beef in a metal container covered with foil with a handwritten label showing prepared 6/4/23, use by 6/7/23; cooked green beans in a metal container covered with foil with a handwritten label showing prepared 6/4/23, use by 6/7/23; and sliced/diced chicken in a metal container covered with foil with a handwritten label showing prepared 6/4/23, use by 6/7/23. During an interview on 6/5/23, at 12:18 p.m., with the [NAME] 1, (C1) stated the food stored in refrigerator 1, including the beef dated 6/4/23, use-by 6/7/23, diced/sliced chicken dated 6/4/23 use-by 6/7/23, and green beans dated 6/4/23 use-by 6/7/23 were leftovers from the last night's meal. C1 stated these leftovers would be served as substitute for the residents' dinner tonight. C1 said there were residents who did not like fish, so these leftover items can be used as an alternate for their dinner tonight. During an interview on 6/6/23, at 10:05 a.m., DM stated she was not sure if there was a cooldown log. DM stated staff typically do not save leftovers. She said if leftovers were used, then there would need to be documentation for cooldown. She stated she did not know the cooldown process off the top of her head since the kitchen staff did not do cooldown and she would have to look it up. During an interview on 6/6/23, at 10:30 a.m., [NAME] 2 (C2) stated the kitchen had no food cooldown documentation. During an interview on 6/8/23, at 3:25 p.m., RD 1 stated DM told her the kitchen did not save leftovers from previous night to use for the following day. RD1 stated the kitchen was not supposed to provide leftover food. B. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Substitutions dated 2007, showed the Food Service Manager, in conjunction with the Dietitian, may make food substitutions as appropriate or necessary. The Food Services Shift Supervisor on duty will make food substitutions only when unavoidable. In addition, substitutions are noted on the menu and filed. Notations of substitutions must include the reason for the substitution. Review of the policy and procedure titled Menus dated 2001, showed menus are developed and prepared following established national guidelines for nutritional adequacy. Deviations from the posted menu are recorded. On 6/5/23 at 11:53 a.m., observation and interviews showed garlic bread was not served when it was on the menu for lunch that day, a resident who had gluten allergy documented on his tray card did not receive pasta on his lunch tray, and milk was not provided to the majority of residents when it was on the menu. A substitute was not provided for any of these items (Cross-reference F803, F806). Another observation of trayline on 6/5/23 at 12:19 p.m., showed a fruit tart was served instead of strawberry chiffon. C1 stated strawberry chiffon did not come in the food delivery. Review of the Therapeutic Spreadsheets dated Monday Cycle 2 2023 showed for lunch on 6/5/23, strawberry chiffon was on the menu for all diets except liquid, vegan, and vegetarian diets. During an interview on 6/5/23, at 12:20 p.m., DM stated she did not know there was no garlic bread to serve for lunch. She stated normally something similar was substituted but there was only regular bread and that bread had to be to be rationed for sandwiches. She stated she ordered pre-made garlic bread. In addition, DM confirmed she was aware that residents were not getting milk for lunch. RD1 stated she was not aware residents did not receive milk for lunch and stated they should get milk because it was on the menu. In an interview on 6/6/23 at 9:35 a.m., DM confirmed a substitute was not provided for milk on the lunch trays and she did not really communicate with RD1 about substitutions. During an interview and document review on 6/7/23, at 10:39 a.m., food delivery invoices were reviewed with DM. DM confirmed she was responsible for ordering food for the menu. DM said if garlic bread was ordered, it would be on the June 2 invoice. DM confirmed garlic bread and strawberry chiffon were not ordered to serve for lunch on 6/5/23. She stated fruit pie was ordered instead of strawberry chiffon the vendor did not have pre-made strawberry chiffon. DM stated technically the cooks should follow recipes but sometimes making food from scratch was not within the facility's budget and she ordered a substitute pre-made item. DM said did not consult the RD1 when she ordered a pre-made item as a substitute for a recipe made item. A dining observation and review of the Therapeutic Spreadsheets dated week 2 Friday Cycle 2 2023, on 6/9/23 at 12:43 p.m., showed chicken with gravy was the entrée served on Resident 59's lunch tray. The tray tag for resident 59 indicated she was on a soft and bite sized, no added salt diet. The spreadsheet showed the entrée for the soft/bite size diet was a baked fish fillet with sauce. In an interview on 6/9/23 at 12:56 p.m., C1 and C2 stated chicken was served because there was no fish available to prepare. In an interview on 6/9/23 at 1:10 p.m., DM stated she was not aware there was no fish available. C. According to the 2022 Federal Food Code Annex, cleaning of the physical facilities is an important measure in ensuring the protection and sanitary preparation of food. A regular cleaning schedule should be established and followed to maintain the facility in a clean and sanitary manner. During the initial tour of the kitchen which started on 6/5/23 at 9:21 a.m., observations showed there were multiple areas in the kitchen that were not clean including equipment, utensil, and food storage areas, and the floor and ceiling around a reach-in freezer (Cross-reference F812). It was also determined through interviews from 6/5/23 to 6/9/23 with the DM and the House Keeping Account Manager (HAC), that DM expected kitchen staff to clean their own areas and all kitchen staff were responsible for cleaning shared areas. However, there was not a cleaning schedule for staff to follow. In addition, even though the DM stated housekeeping staff deep cleaned the kitchen on a monthly basis, it was determined that housekeeping staff did not deep clean the kitchen on a regular basis and did not have a schedule for deep cleaning the kitchen. (Cross-reference F812). D. During the recertification survey from 6/5/23 to 6/9/23 it was determined that there was a shortage of serving utensils to serve the appropriate serving sizes indicated on the menu (Cross-reference F803) and equipment such as cutting boards and pans were not being replaced when they were in poor condition (Cross-reference F812). In an interview on 6/6/23 at 9:35 a.m., DM stated she was responsible for ordering serving utensils such as scoops for trayline and cutting boards. She stated she was not aware there was a shortage of serving equipment for trayline. E. According to the 2022 Federal Food Code, the person in charge shall demonstrate knowledge by explaining correct procedures for cleaning and sanitizing utensils and food-contact surfaces of equipment. The person in charge is to ensure employees are properly sanitizing cleaned multiuse equipment and utensils before they are reused, through routine monitoring of solution chemical concentration. During the recertification survey from 6/5/23-6/9/23, it was determined that kitchen staff were not competent regarding using test strips to test the sanitizer strength of the sanitizing solution used to sanitize food contact surfaces (Cross-reference F802). In addition, DM was not competent regarding the procedures for ensuring adequate sanitizer strength when she provided the incorrect test strips to staff to test the sanitizer (Cross-reference F802). On 6/6/23 at 10:48 a.m., an observation and interview DM dipped the quaternary ammonium (quat) test strip into a quat sanitizer solution to test the strength of the solution. She dipped the test strip in and out of the solution quickly. The test strip turned a very dark green. DM stated the solution was too strong when she compared the test strip color to the color chart inside the test strip container. DM stated dark green showed the solution strength was about 500 parts per million (ppm) and thought it should be 150-200 ppm. When DM was asked how long the test strip should be held in the solution, she stated the last consultant told her to dip the test strip in and out. The surveyor showed DM the manufacturer's instructions located inside the test strip container and DM confirmed the instructions to hold the test strip in the solution for 10 seconds. DM stated when solution was too strong, staff had to dump sanitizer out and refill the solution. When DM was asked how how changing the solution decreased the strength of the solution, she stated she had to ask the diet aide since the diet aide normally filled the sanitizing buckets. During an observation and interview on 06/06/23, at 12:58 p.m., DM tested a sanitizer solution again after it was determined Dietary Aide 1 (DA1) was not competent testing the sanitizer solution. Again, the test strip turned a very dark green. DM stated more water needed to be added to the sanitizer solution. The sanitizer solution came out of a tube connected to a box attached to the wall. The box was connected to the water supply and a container containing quat sanitizer. DM was asked if the solution should be mixed automatically without the need to manually add water. DM stated she did not know. F. According to the Federal Food Code 2022, the person in charge shall demonstrate knowledge by explaining correct procedures for cleaning and sanitizing utensils and food-contact surfaces of equipment. The person in charge shall ensure that employees are properly sanitizing cleaned multiuse equipment and utensils before they are reused, through routine monitoring of exposure time for chemical sanitizing. During the recertification survey from 6/5/23-6/9/23, it was determined that kitchen staff were not competent regarding manual warewashing (Cross-reference F802). Additionally, in an observation and concurrent interview with C2 and DM on 6/6/23 10:30 a.m., when C2 described the manual dishwashing process, she did not know how long to immerse items in the sanitizer solution. DM also did not know how long items had to be immersed in the sanitizer solution using the manual warewashing process. It was noted there were no directions posted in the manual dishwashing area for staff to refer to in the case they had to revert to manual warewashing. G. According to the 2022 Federal Food Code, the person in charge shall ensure that persons unnecessary to the food establishment operation are not allowed in the food preparation, food storage, or warewashing areas. Brief visits and tours may be authorized by the person in charge if steps are taken to ensure that exposed food, clean equipment, utensils, and linens, and unwrapped single-service and single-use articles are protected from contamination. A concurrent observation and interview, on 06/06/23 at 9:35 a.m., showed Activity Assistant (AS) inside kitchen unattended and walking out of the dry food storeroom. She stated she was getting drinks and snacks for a resident coffee social. AS stated she entered the kitchen regularly to get drinks and coffee for resident activities. During an interview on 6/6/23 at 1:07 p.m., with DM, she stated it was ok for AS to go inside the kitchen to get what she needed for the resident coffee social. H. During the initial tour on 6/5/23 at 10:50 a.m., an observation showed an opened milk container stored in reach-in refrigerator number 2. There was no date on the milk to show when it was opened. During an interview on 6/8/23 at 12:03 p.m., DM stated all food had to be dated to use-by or discard within three days after opening. She stated milk was different, after milk was opened the expiration date on the milk was used as the use-by or discard date. DM stated there was not a list to show long food can be stored after opening the food package or container. Review of the document titled Use by Dates - Refrigerator Items dated 3/2/2020 and provided by DM after she stated there was no list, Items in their original container that has been opened need a Use By Date. showed milk should be used by 7 days after opening or by the expiration date of the milk, whichever comes first.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the competency of staff when: 1. a staff did not know how to read a freezer thermometer correctly; 2. staff...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the competency of staff when: 1. a staff did not know how to read a freezer thermometer correctly; 2. staff did not know how to test the food-contact surface sanitizer correctly; 3. staff did not know how to sanitize juice machine according to posted cleaning instructions; and 4. a staff did not label a chemical containing container. These failures had the potential to result in the kitchen not being maintained in a safe and sanitary manner leading contamination of food and utensils, and/or reduced quality of food for 61 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/6/23, at 9:55 a.m., [NAME] 2 (C2) stated she was responsible for documenting freezer temperatures when she arrived for her shift in the morning. She stated she used the internal thermometer in the reach-in freezer to determine the temperature. Stated the freezer temperature had to be at least negative one. C2 demonstrated how she read the thermometer and showed she looked at the bottom line which had a C at the beginning of the line. She said the thermometer had to read one line less than zero which she said was negative one. On the same thermometer was a line of numbers with an F at the beginning of the line. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/6/23, at 9:56 a.m., the Dietary Manager (DM) looked at same thermometer and stated the bottom line with a C showed degrees Celsius (°C) and the top line with an F showed degrees Fahrenheit (°F). She stated the line C2 looked at was the Celsius line. DM stated what C2 referred to as negative 1 on the Celsius line was 26 °F. DM stated C2 did not read the thermometer correctly. Review of the Freezer Temperature Log dated 5/23 and June 2023 and a concurrent interview with DM on 6/6/23 at 9:55 a.m., showed the temperature was logged twice a day. There were 67 temperatures recorded for May and June combined and every temperature recorded was negative one. DM confirmed C2 was one of the staff documenting freezer temperatures in the logbook. Review of the job description titled Cook and signed by C2 on 5/2/22, showed one duty and responsibility was to document freezer/refrigerator temperatures. Review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Receiving and Storage dated 2022, showed functioning of the refrigeration and food temperatures are monitored daily and at designated intervals throughout the day by the food nutrition services manager or designee. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview 6/6/23 at 10:48 a.m., C2 described how to wash dishes manually using the 2-compartment sink. C2 stated the first sink was for washing the dishes, the second sink was for rinsing the dishes, and the sanitizing step was done in a refuse container designated for the purpose of sanitizing dishes. C2 stated she did not know how long to immerse the dishes in the sanitizer. DM stated all staff would wash dishes manually if the dish machine was broken. She stated the cook would wash her dishes and the diet aides would wash their dishes. In an interview on 6/6/23 at 1:35 p.m., with Dietary Aide (DA) 1 and DA2, DA1 stood by the 2-compartment sink and described how to wash dishes using the sink. DA1 stated sink one was for washing with soap, sink 2 for rinsing with water and a little bleach, and the designated refuse container was for sanitizing with the sanitizer that came out of tube at the sink (which was quaternary ammonia sanitizer). She confirmed she would use bleach and water for rinsing in the second sink and stated she would test the bleach/water solution with a chlorine test strip test strip to make sure it had the right strength. DA2 stated he agreed with the steps DA1 described for manual dishwashing. Review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Sanitation dated 2022, manual washing and sanitizing is a three-step process for washing, rinsing and sanitizing. The procedures showed the first sink is for washing, the second sink is for rinsing with hot water to remove soap residue, and the third sink is for sanitizing with hot water or a chemical sanitizing solution such as a quat (quaternary ammonium) solution. According to the 2022 Federal Food Code, when manually warewashing, contact times shall be consistent with those on EPA registered label use instructions. For sanitizers other than chlorine, the contact time is at least 30 seconds. 5. During concurrent observation and interview on 6/6/23 at 10:48 a.m., C2 stated she tested red buckets filled with a sanitizer solution, used to clean food contact surfaces, every morning and 2-3 hours later throughout the day. She demonstrated how she tested the sanitizer solution. C2 used a chlorine test strip from a container labeled [brand name] Chlorine Test Paper to test the solution a red bucket. C2 stated she filled the red bucket with the solution about an hour ago. She dipped the test strip in and out quickly and the test strip did not change color. C2 stated the result was too light and did the test with second chlorine test strip, then a third chlorine test strip. C2 then stated she was using the wrong type of test strips. C2 went to DM and DM gave C2 a container of chlorine test strips. C2 tested the sanitizer again and the strip color did not change. The surveyor asked C2 what type of sanitizer she used to fill the red bucket. C2 showed she filled the bucket with a solution from a tube that was connected to a container of quat sanitizer and water. The surveyor asked C2 if there were any other type of test strips to test quat sanitizer. C2 showed where the test strips were located on a shelf near the dish machine. She picked out a container of test strips labeled QT-40 [brand name] (used to test quat sanitizer solution), and stated she never used the quat strips to test the sanitizer in the red buckets. During a concurrent observation and interview with DA1 and DM on 06/06/23, at 12:53 p.m., DA1 stated she was responsible for filling and checking the sanitizer in the red buckets in the dish machine area. She tested the solution in a red bucket with a quat test strip and the strip did not change color. DA1 stated it was not strong enough and probably mixed too much water into the solution because the test strip was too light. DA1 said the quat test strip should show 200 ppm (parts per million). In comparison to the color chart inside the test strip container, the test strip would turn yellow if at 200 ppm. DA1 refilled the red bucket with sanitizer from a tube above the two compartment sink then added water to the bucket. The solution became very foamy with at least 4 inches of foam on top of the solution. DA1 dipped a test strip into the foam and the strip did not reach the solution. The test strip turned a very dark green color. DA1 stated the result was 400 ppm when she compared the color to the chart inside the test strip container. She said the solution was too strong. DA1 tested again and dipped the strip into the foam for 5 seconds. Result was colored dark green again. DM confirmed DA1 dipped the test strip into the foam and not into the solution. Review of the manufacturer's directions located inside the test strip container used by DA1, titled QT-40[name brand] showed to dip paper in quat solution NOT FOAM SURFACE for 10 seconds . Review of the policy and procedure titled Sanitization dated 2001, showed all equipment, food contact surfaces and utensils are cleaned and sanitized using heat or chemical sanitizing solutions. Service area wiping cloths are placed in a chemical sanitizing solution of appropriate concentration. 6. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/7/23 at 10:58 a.m., DA1 stated she was responsible for cleaning the juice machine every day and demonstrated how. She removed the nozzle from the juice gun and placed it in a container of hot water. Then she ran the tray though the dish machine. She then put it all back together. She stated that was all she did when she cleaned the juice machine in the morning. DA1 said the evening person cleaned the juice machine too and soaked the juice gun and nozzle overnight. During an interview and observation on 6/7/23 at 1:40 p.m., with DA1 and DA2, DA2 stated he cleaned the juice machine every evening. He explained how he cleaned the machine and stated he took apart the juice gun by removing nozzle. Then he filled a container with hot water and soaked the nozzle and the gun in the water overnight. He stated morning dietary staff put the juice gun back together. DM1 stated she soaked the nozzle again in hot water before she put it back together each morning. She stated she did not use sanitizer on the gun or the nozzle. She stated she only used sanitizer to wipe the juice machine hoses and the outside surface of the juice machine. Review of the undated beverage equipment cleaning instructions attached to the front of the juice machine indicated, Daily care and cleaning: 1. Detach the black nozzle from the dispensing gun. Twist counterclockwise and gently pull down. 2a. Soak the nozzle and dispensing gun in lukewarm water for 10 to 15 minutes. Do not use bleach or abrasive cleaners. 2b. Refill container with cleaner water, add sanitizer and soak for an additional 10 minutes. 3. Dry and reconnect nozzle to bar gun. 4. Wipe clean dispensing gun hose and drip tray with warm soapy cloth. During an interview on 6/7/23 at 1:50 p.m., DM acknowledged staff were not following cleaning instructions posted on the juice machine. 4. During an observation and interview on 6/7/23 at 1:40 p.m., with DA1, stated she used water and bleach to clean the outside of the juice machine. She provided a spray bottle container half filled with a clear liquid. The container had a label showing [name brand] multi-surface cleaner degreaser. DA1 stated spray bottle did not contain degreaser. She stated she mixed water and a little bleach and put it in the degreaser spray bottle. Review of the policy and procedure titled Hazard Labeling dated 2001, showed workplace labeling for hazardous chemicals not shipped directly from a manufacturer for distributor shall include either the product identifier, signal work, hazard statement, pictogram, precautionary statements, and information about the chemical manufacturer; or the product identifier, a method for conveying general information about the hazards of the chemical, and other information available to employees that provides specific information about the physical or health hazards of the chemical.
CONCERN (F)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the planned menu was followed when: 1. Milk was not provided as shown on the lunch menu for 55; 2. ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to ensure the planned menu was followed when: 1. Milk was not provided as shown on the lunch menu for 55; 2. Incorrect servings of food were served to10 residents who received a pureed, minced and moist, or a mechanical soft diet. These failures had the potential to result in not meeting the nutritional needs of the residents and compromising the nutritional status of the residents. Findings: Review of the policy and procedure titled Menus dated 2001, showed menus are developed following established national guidelines for nutritional adequacy. Menus meet the nutritional needs of residents in accordance with the recommended dietary allowances. Menus provide a variety of foods from the basic daily food groups and indicate standard portions at each meal. If a food group is missing from a resident's daily diet, the resident is provided an alternate means of meeting his or her nutritional needs. 1. Review of the Week 2 Therapeutic Spreadsheets dated Monday Cycle 2 2023, showed milk was listed for all diets on the lunch menu for all diets except clear liquid and renal diets. On 6/5/23 in an interview with Diet Aide 1 (DA1), the Dietary Manager (DM), and Registered Dietitian 1 (RD1) and an observation of trayline food service that started at 11:53 a.m., showed milk was not placed on the lunch trays. DA1 stated only two residents received milk on their tray because they requested it for their coffee, but no other residents received milk. DM confirmed residents did not receive milk on their tray. She stated all of the residents except for a couple did not want milk at lunch. She confirmed it was not shown residents did not like milk for lunch on the tray tickets. RD1 stated residents should receive milk for lunch because it was on the menu. She stated if a resident did not want milk for lunch, it should be stated on the meal ticket. The tray tickets showed 55 residents were on diets that allowed milk for lunch that day and did not show preferences for no milk. In an interview on 6/6/23 at 9:35 a.m., DM stated when milk was on the menu for lunch and was not provided to the residents. She also stated a substitute for milk was not provided. DM stated she did not have documentation to show residents did not like milk for lunch. On 6/8/23 starting at 12:54 p.m., three residents who were able to recall if they received milk for lunch were interviewed about their milk preferences. Resident 19 stated he did not receive milk for lunch, and he liked milk for lunch. Review of the tray tag for Resident 19, showed he was on an easy to chew, no added salt diet. There was no indication on his tray ticket that he could not have milk or disliked milk for lunch. Review of the MDS 3.0 Nursing Home Comprehensive (NC) Version 1.17.2 dated 4/24/2023, showed Resident 19 had a BIMS score (Brief Interview for Mental Status, a structured evaluation aimed at evaluating aspects of the cognition in elderly patients. A BIMS of 0-7 indicates severe cognitive impact) of 15. In an interview on 6/8/23 at 12:56 p.m., Resident 287 stated she did not receive milk for lunch, and she liked milk for lunch. Review of the tray tag for Resident 287 showed she was on a Regular diet. There was no indication on his tray ticket that he could not have milk or disliked milk for lunch. Review of the MDS 3.0 Nursing Home Comprehensive (NC) Version 1.17.2 dated 4/24/2023, showed Resident 287 did not have a BIMS score calculated yet because the MDS was not complete. On 6/8/23 at 1 p.m., an observation and interview with Resident 12, showed Resident 12 sat in the dining room eating his lunch. Resident 12 did not have milk on his tray. When Resident 12 was asked if he liked milk, he stated yes and he would love milk for lunch. Review of the tray tag for Resident 12 showed he was on a no added salt, regular diet. There was no indication on his tray ticket that he could not have milk or disliked milk for lunch. Review of the MDS 3.0 Nursing Home Comprehensive (NC) Version 1.17.2 dated 3/10/2023, showed Resident 12 had a BIMS score of 13. In an interview on 6/8/23 at 3:30 p.m., RD1 stated if residents did not want milk when it was on the menu, the residents should be provided with an appropriate substitute such as another dairy product. If a resident did not want dairy, a non-dairy substitute would be recommended. She stated if residents did not get what was listed on the menu on a regular basis, they residents would not receive enough protein and/or calories. 2. Review of the Therapeutic Spreadsheets dated Monday Cycle 2 2023, showed pureed diets received a number 6 scoop (4.5 ounces) of pureed chicken parmesan, and a number 8 scoop (3.7 ounces) of angel hair pasta. Mechanical soft diets received 4 ounces of ground parmesan chicken. On 6/5/23 an observation of trayline food service that started at 11: 53 a.m., and concurrent interviews with [NAME] 1 (C1) and RD1, C2 used a number 10 scoop (2.75 ounces) to serve one scoop of pureed chicken, a number 10 scoop to serve one scoop of pureed pasta, a number 10 scoop to serve one scoop of mechanical soft chicken. C2 stated there was only number 8 scoop available to use in the kitchen. RD 1 verified the portions served were incorrect. She stated pureed pasta should be served with a number 8 scoop, pureed chicken should be served with a number 6 scoop, and the serving for mechanical soft chicken should be 4 ounces, or a number 8 scoop.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were served palatable food when food was bland and at a low temperature. This deficient practice placed the r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure residents were served palatable food when food was bland and at a low temperature. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk of decreased nutrient intake leading to weight loss and/or nutritional medical complications for 61 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings: During observation on 6/5/23 at 1:10 p.m., a meal delivery cart holding resident trays and two test trays left the kitchen. During an observation and interview with Dietary Manager (DM) on 6/5/23 at 1:16 p.m., a regular and puree texture meal was sampled immediately following the delivery of the last resident tray. The regular tray contained chicken parmesan with marinara sauce and pasta. The puree tray contained pureed chicken parmesan and pureed zucchini. Temperatures of the food were measured with the surveyor's calibrated thermometer. The pureed chicken was 113 Fahrenheit (°F), and the pureed zucchini was 104.9 °F. The regular chicken parmesan was dry and regular pasta was very bland and dry. The pureed chicken felt barely warm in the mouth and the pureed zucchini felt barely warm in the mouth and tasted bland. DM stated pureed food was just warm and not hot enough to serve to the residents. DM also stated the pureed zucchini and regular pasta tasted bland and chicken parmesan patty was dry. Review of the policy and procedure titled Food and Nutrition Services dated 2001, showed each resident is provided with a palatable diet.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide: 1. an alternate for gluten (a protein found i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide: 1. an alternate for gluten (a protein found in wheat, barley, and rye) containing food for one resident (Resident 288) who had a documented gluten allergy and a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis (a condition in which the lining of the large intestine (colon) and rectum become inflamed). 2. an alternate for garlic bread at a lunch meal for 61 residents who received food from the kitchen. This deficient practice had the potential to result in decreased nutrient intake leading to weight loss and/or nutrient related medical complications. Findings: Review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Menus, dated October 2017, showed if a food group is missing from a resident's daily diet, the resident is provided an alternate means of meeting his or her nutritional needs. 1. Review of the admission Record showed Resident 288 was admitted on [DATE] with a primary diagnosis of ulcerative colitis. On 6/5/23 in an interview with [NAME] 1 (C1) and [NAME] 2 (C2) and concurrent observation of trayline food service that started at 11:53 a.m., C2 prepared a lunch tray for Resident 288. The tray ticket on the tray showed Resident 288 had a gluten allergy. C2 eliminated the pasta from Resident 288's tray and did not provide a substitute for the pasta. C1 stated the resident could not have starch. A review of the facility's Week 2 Therapeutic Spreadsheets, dated Monday Cycle 2 2023, indicated gluten-free was not on the therapeutic diet spreadsheet to show what to provide to a resident with a gluten allergy. During an interview on 6/6/23, at 10:48 a.m., with the Dietary Manager (DM), the DM stated she was aware that one resident was had a gluten allergy. DM acknowledged the facility did not have a menu for gluten free diet. During an interview on 6/8/23, at 3:25 p.m., with the Registered Dietitian (RD) 1, RD1 stated, Resident 288 had a diagnosis of ulcerative colitis so the resident's need for gluten-free food was therapeutic and should have a gluten-free diet. RD1 stated there should be an alternative list (a substitute from the same food group) but did not know if there was an alternate list for gluten-free foods. During an interview on 6/8/23, at 5:05 p.m., with the [NAME] 1 (C1), C1 stated there was no alternative list for gluten free diet. 2. Review of the facility's Week 2 Therapeutic Spreadsheets, dated Monday Cycle 2 2023, showed garlic bread was on the menu for every diet (except for clear and full liquid) on the spreadsheet On 6/5/23 an observation of trayline food service that started at 11:53 a.m., showed garlic bread was not served to any resident. During an interview on 6/5/23, at 12:19 a.m., with the C2, C2 stated garlic bread was not available and there no substitute is provided. During an interview on 6/5/23, at 12:20 p.m., DM the facility used pre-made garlic bread and if garlic bread was not available, they could substitute regular bread, but they had to ration the bread for sandwiches.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for safety when: 1. Stored equipment in the kitchen w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, staff interview, and record review, the facility failed to store and prepare food in accordance with professional standards for safety when: 1. Stored equipment in the kitchen was dirty and ready for use; 2. Kitchen storage areas, floors, and vents were dirty; 3. A fan in use in a food storage area was dirty; 4. Floor tiles were in poor condition; 5. Food was stored without identifying use-by-dates; 6. The ice machine was dirty. 7. A food preparation sink drain did not have an airgap (a gap between the sink drain and the drain that leads to sewage drain. This gap prevents a back-up of non potable water and/or bacteria into the sink). These failures had the potential for contamination of food resulting in food borne illness for 61 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings: 1. An observation and interview with [NAME] 1 (C1) during the kitchen's initial tour, on 6/5/23, at 9:23 a.m., showed a blender stored on a preparation table. The blender lid had black, slimy residue on the removeable plastic insert. In addition, there was significant black slimy residue on the lid that surrounded the plastic insert. The black slimy residue easily wiped off when it was wiped with a paper towel. C1 stated the plastic lid was probably not removed when blender was cleaned. C1 stated blender was not clean. As the initial tour of the kitchen continued on 06/05/23, at 10:13 a.m., an observation and concurrent interview showed cutting boards were stored and ready to use in a rack by the food preparation sink. 13 of 13 of the cutting boards had black residue embedded in cutting board surface. The cutting board surfaces were rough with cut marks and the plastic coating was peeling off of one of the cutting boards. C1 stated the cutting boards were not clean and could be cleaner. C1 confirmed black residue and plastic coating peeling. C1 stated he thought they just got lazy because there were new cutting boards available to replace the old ones. As the initial tour of the kitchen continued on 6/5/23, at 10:15 a.m., an observation and interview with the Dietary Manager (DM) showed a variety of types of pans stored on a shelf under a preparation table next to the stove. Four large muffin pans had crumbs and beige residue build-up on inside surface, which was rough to the touch, 8 large sheet pans had very thick black build-up on bottom surface and black residue build up on top surface and were greasy to the touch. Black residue wiped off when the pans were wiped with a paper towel. There was also loose debris resembling food particles and one live insect noted on the sheet pans. DM stated the sheet pans and muffin pans were not clean. In an interview on 6/6/23 at 9:35 a.m., DM stated items such as the blender should be clean when stored on the preparation table. An observation and interview in the kitchen on 6/7/23, at 10:34 a.m., showed [NAME] 2 (C2) opened a large can of vegetables with an an industrial can opener attached to the steam table. There was thick dark brown/black residue imbedded in sides where the base plate (the piece that holds the can opener) of the can opener attached to the table. The can opener shaft (a long metal handle) was sticky to the touch. The can opener blade had thick, dark brown/black, sticky residue on the blade surface. The can opener cogwheel (a wheel with projections on the edge which helps turn a can when it is opened with the can opener) had thick, dark/black, sticky residue and thick chunks of residue, on the cogwheel surface. DM stated the can opener was not clean and did not look like it was cleaned every day or recently. DM confirmed residue on the can opener blade and cogwheel was thick and sticky. Review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Sanitation, dated 2022, showed all utensils and equipment are kept clean and in good repair. 2. During the initial tour of the kitchen on 6/5/23 at 9:23 a.m., an observation an interview showed four cabinets attached along a wall above a preparation table. There was dark residue on the cabinet surface around the knobs of the 3 of 4 of the cabinets. The cabinet with no residue on the outside was locked and C1 stated there was fine service ware stored in the cabinet, so it was not used very often. The other three cabinets were not locked and contained dry food such as spices and food service items such as cups and thermoses. Inside the cabinets at the bottom surface there were loose particles and fuzzy residue that resembled food crumbs and dust. As the initial tour continued on 06/05/23, at 9:57 a.m., an observation showed a reach-in freezer (freezer 1) located adjacent to the dry food storage room. The floor surface around the freezer had a significant amount of debris resembling pieces of food, food crumbs and dust build-up. On the wall and ceiling above freezer 1 there were cobwebs. Also, there were 2 vent openings on the wall to the outside with a significant amount of grey, fuzzy residue resembling dust build-up on the wire mesh covering the vent openings. The sill surfaces of both vents had a significant amount of residue resembling dirty and dust build-up. As the initial tour continued on 6/5/23 at 10:13 a.m., an observation showed a drawer within a preparation table located next to the kitchen held utensils such as scoops used for food service. The scoops were held in plastic trays within the drawer. The plastic trays had particles resembling food crumbs on the inside surface and came into contact with the utensils held in the trays. Under the preparation table was a shelf that held various types of pans. When the pans were removed, it was revealed that there was a significant amount of loose debris resembling pieces of food and food crumbs on the shelf surface. During a concurrent interview on 6/5/23, at 10:13 a.m., DM confirmed there were crumbs in drawer with utensils and stated the drawers were not clean. She also confirmed there were food particles on the shelf below the food preparation table and stated the food particles could attract pests. In addition, DM confirmed area around reach-in freezer was not clean and vents were not clean and there were cobwebs on ceiling. DM stated housekeeping deep cleaned kitchen once a month. In an interview and observation on 6/6/23 at 10:48 a.m., the cabinet along the wall above the preparation table were observed. DM stated there was not a cleaning schedule for kitchen staff. She stated cooks and aides cleaned their own areas and for areas such as cabinets and freezers, these areas were cleaned by everyone. During an interview with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) on 6/6/23 at 12:30 p.m., MS stated he was responsible for cleaning air vents next to freezer 1. Stated they were vents for air circulation inside the kitchen and said the vents were not clean. MS stated vents were not on a schedule for cleaning. Said these vents have not been cleaned in a while. In an interview on 06/07/23 at 9:28 a.m., the Housekeeping Account Manager (HAC) stated she cleaned everything in the kitchen in May just as a special project per request by the administrator. She stated housekeeping did not normally deep clean the kitchen, but she did buff the floors in the kitchen two times per month. She stated she did not move heavy equipment such as freezers when she buffed the floors. She stated housekeeping did not clean anything else in the kitchen on a regular basis. Review of the policy and procedure titled Sanitization dated 2001, showed all kitchen areas are kept clean, free from garbage and debris, and protected from rodents and insects. Review of the policy and procedure titled Floors dated 2001, showed floors shall be maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner. According to the 2022 Federal Food Code, intake air ducts are to be cleaned so they are not a source of contamination by dust, dirt, and other material. 3. During the kitchen's initial tour, on 06/05/23, at 9:54 a.m., portable fan located in dry food storeroom was turned on and blowing into the storeroom. The surface of protective cover over the blades was covered with a fuzzy grey residue that resembled dust. During an observation and interview with MS on 6/6/23, at 1:05pm, he observed the fan and said he was responsible for cleaning the fan in the dry storeroom and it was not clean. He stated he did not have fans on a schedule to clean. According to the 2022 Federal Food Code, food is to be protected by storing food where it is not exposed to dust. 4. During the kitchen's initial tour, on 06/05/23 at 9:47a.m., 3 floor tiles in dry storeroom were broken and missing chunks creating a floor surface that was not smooth. During an observation on 6/06/23, at 9:35 a.m., showed the floor under the preparation table that held the microwave, had a floor tile that was detached from the floor and laid off to the side so did not cover the space it was intended for. The detached tile created a floor surface that was not smooth. During an interview with DM on 6/06/23, at 9:35 a.m., she stated broken tiles were a safety hazard and debris can get under broken tiles. Review of the policy and procedure titled Floors dated 2001, showed floors shall be maintained in a clean, safe, and sanitary manner. According to the 2022 Federal Food Code, floors and floor coverings are to be constructed so they are smooth and easily cleanable. 5. During the initial tour on 6/5/23 at 10:50 a.m., an observation showed five cartons of 4-ounce supplement shakes stored in refrigerator 2. The supplement shakes did not have a date on them to show when they were thawed or when to use by. The manufacturer's storing and handling directions printed on the container showed to shore frozen and thaw under refrigeration. After thawing keep refrigerated and use within 14 days after thawing. In a concurrent interview with DM on 6/5/23 at 10:50 a.m., DM stated she could not identify when the supplement shakes were removed from the freezer because they were removed from the box. She stated the staff dated the box when the shakes were removed from the freezer. Review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Receiving and Storage dated 2022, showed refrigerated foods are labeled, dated, and monitored so they are used by their use-by date, frozen or discarded. 6. During a concurrent observation and interview with MS on 6/6/23, at 12:49 p.m., MS stated he was responsible for cleaning the ice machine. MS removed the plastic cover off the evaporator plate (where ice is formed) and black dots of residue identified on the plastic frame around the evaporator plate. In addition, there was pink residue on the ice thickness probe which MS referred to as the water level sensor. MS acknowledged that ice machine was dirty. MS stated he cleaned the inside of the ice machine by placing removeable parts through the dish machine. He stated wiped the inside with the dish machine chlorine sanitizer. He stated he did this every two weeks. Then he stated every six months he put ice machine cleaner in the ice machine tray to circulate the chemical throughout the machine. Review of the ice machine manufacturer's instructions titled [Brand and Model of the Ice Machine] Installation Use and Care Manual dated 9/2005, showed to use only ice machine cleaner and sanitizer approved by the ice machine company. Specific ice machine cleaner and sanitizer were identified for use in the ice machine manual. The sanitizing procedure showed mix a solution of sanitizer (3 ounces) and water (4 gallons) and use the sanitizing solution to wipe all parts and interior surfaces of the ice machine. Then the direction showed to rinse all sanitized areas with clear water. Then start a sanitizing cycle on the machine using the indicated sanitizer solution. In an interview on 6/7/23 at 12:08 p.m., MS provided the ice machine cleaner he used to clean the ice machine. He confirmed he did not use the cleaner and sanitizer shown in the ice machine manufacturer's manual. Review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Sanitation dated 2022, showed all equipment is kept clean and ice machines and ice storage containers are drained, cleaned and sanitized per manufacturer's instructions. According to the 2022 Federal Food Code, equipment food-contact surfaces are to be clean to sight and touch. In addition, nonfood-contact surfaces of equipment are to be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, and other debris. 7. On 6/5/23 at 11:00 a.m., an observation showed a food preparation sink drain was plumbed directly into a wall. There was no gap to separate the sink drain from the drain plumbed to the sewer main drain. During an interview on 6/6/23 at 12:30 p.m., MS acknowledged there was no airgap for the food preparation sink drain. According to the 2017 Federal Food Code, a direct connection may not exist between the sewage system and the drain originating from equipment in which food, portable equipment, or utensils are placed.
CONCERN (F)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to maintain the reach in freezer in safe operating condition. This failure had the potential for food stored in the f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and facility document review, the facility failed to maintain the reach in freezer in safe operating condition. This failure had the potential for food stored in the freezer to remain frozen at all times leading to decreased food quality and food safety for 61 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings: An observation on 6/5/23, at 9:54 a.m., showed a two-door reach-in freezer located by the dry food storeroom. There was ice build-up on inside door surface and on upper inside surface with icicles hanging. A rubber gasket on the inside of one door had over 12-inch segments at the side and bottom of the door that were separated from the door and ripped. During an interview on 6/6/23 at 12:30 p.m., with Maintenance Supervisor (MS), MS stated he was aware of ice build-up and ripped gaskets in reach-in freezer 1 for a couple of months. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Refrigerators and Freezers, dated November 2022, the P&P indicated supervisors inspect refrigerators and freezers monthly for gasket condition . repairs are initiated immediately.
May 2019 1 deficiency
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0638 (Tag F0638)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update quarterly assessments for five (Resident 4, Resident 9, Resident 13, Resident 17, and Resident 10) of 21 sampled residents when the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update quarterly assessments for five (Resident 4, Resident 9, Resident 13, Resident 17, and Resident 10) of 21 sampled residents when the Minimum Data Set (MDS) assessments were not completed. This deficiency resulted in five residents not having an updated quarterly MDS assessment to track the residents' health status. Findings: A record review of Resident 4 indicated the last quarterly MDS (an assessment tool), was completed on 1/14/19. The quarterly MDS assessment was due 4/16/19. A record review of Resident 9 indicated the last quarterly MDS was completed on 1/22/19. The quarterly MDS assessment was due on 4/24/19. A record review of Resident 13 indicated the last quarterly MDS was completed on 2/2/19. The quarterly MDS assessment was due on 5/5/19. A record review of Resident 17 indicated the last quarterly MDS was completed on 2/11/19. The quarterly MDS assessment was due on 5/14/19. A record review of Resident 10 indicated the last quarterly MDS was completed on 1/25/19. The quarterly MDS assessment was due on 4/27/19. During a concurrent interview and record review with the MDS coordinator on 5/29/19, at 12:18 p.m., the MDS coordinator confirmed the overdue dates of the quarterly MDS assessments for Resident 4, Resident 9, Resident 13, Resident 17, and Resident 10. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI/MDS), revised 11/2012, indicated, The Resident Assessment Instrument will be completed timely and accurately, per Federal Guidelines, and will serve as a foundation for the comprehensive care planning process.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 43% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 25 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • $18,325 in fines. Above average for California. Some compliance problems on record.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 63/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Hayward Gardens Post Acute's CMS Rating?

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

How is Hayward Gardens Post Acute Staffed?

CMS rates HAYWARD GARDENS POST ACUTE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Hayward Gardens Post Acute?

State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at HAYWARD GARDENS POST ACUTE during 2019 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm, 23 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Hayward Gardens Post Acute?

HAYWARD GARDENS POST ACUTE 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 PACS GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 75 certified beds and approximately 69 residents (about 92% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in HAYWARD, California.

How Does Hayward Gardens Post Acute Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, HAYWARD GARDENS POST ACUTE's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Hayward Gardens Post Acute?

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

Is Hayward Gardens Post Acute Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HAYWARD GARDENS POST ACUTE has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in California. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Hayward Gardens Post Acute Stick Around?

HAYWARD GARDENS POST ACUTE has a staff turnover rate of 43%, 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 Hayward Gardens Post Acute Ever Fined?

HAYWARD GARDENS POST ACUTE has been fined $18,325 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,262. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Hayward Gardens Post Acute on Any Federal Watch List?

HAYWARD GARDENS POST ACUTE 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.