INGLEWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER

100 S. HILLCREST BLVD, INGLEWOOD, CA 90301 (310) 677-9114
For profit - Limited Liability company 99 Beds MARINER HEALTH CARE Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
38/100
#825 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Inglewood Health Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about its quality of care. Ranking #825 out of 1,155 facilities in California places it in the bottom half, and #194 out of 369 in Los Angeles County suggests there are only a few facilities rated better locally. While the facility is improving from 32 issues in 2024 to 8 in 2025, it still faces serious challenges, including a critical finding related to unsafe food handling practices that put many residents at risk. Staffing is rated average with a turnover rate of 36%, which is slightly better than the state average, yet the facility has less RN coverage than 78% of California facilities, potentially impacting the level of care. On a positive note, the center has not incurred any fines, indicating some compliance, but it is crucial for families to weigh these strengths against the significant weaknesses present.

Trust Score
F
38/100
In California
#825/1155
Bottom 29%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
32 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
36% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 18 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
63 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 32 issues
2025: 8 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 (36%)

    12 points below California average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 36%

Near California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Chain: MARINER HEALTH CARE

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 63 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Aug 2025 1 deficiency 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe dietary services were provided to 88 of 93 residents who were served food from the kitchen, when:1. On 8/13/2025,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe dietary services were provided to 88 of 93 residents who were served food from the kitchen, when:1. On 8/13/2025, from 5:30 am to 2:25 pm, liquid eggs (processed form of whole eggs, also known as cartoned eggs) were thawed (defrost) at room temperature (ambient temperature [actual temperature] measured by a thermometer around 73 degrees Fahrenheit ([ F]- a unit of temperature) without monitoring the time and temperatures. Liquid eggs were at 55 F which was within the danger zone [41-135 F] temperature range where bacteria grow quickly). 2. On 8/13/2025 from 12:10 p.m. to 1:30 p.m., ground beef was thawed at room temperature without time and temperature monitoring. At 12:10 p.m., the ground beef was at 64 F. At 1:30 p.m., [NAME] 3 placed the ground beef back into the refrigerator (fridge). 3. [NAME] 1 failed to check food temperatures (refers to the safe internal cooking temperatures for various types of food to prevent foodborne illnesses) of the regular, mechanical soft and pureed food preparations of beef steaks, mashed potatoes, and a carrot and green bean mix while cooking lunch on 8/12/2025 and the regular, mechanical soft, and pureed food preparations of grits, scrambled eggs, ground turkey, and turkey sausage while cooking breakfast on 8/13/2025. 4. [NAME] 1 failed to check trayline (an assembly line to plate food for meals) food temperatures for lunch on 8/12/2025 and breakfast on 8/13/2025.5. On 8/12/2025, [NAME] 2 failed to check food cooking temperatures for lunch items.6. Dietary staff substituted green beans for carrots without the Registered Dietitian's ([RD] licensed healthcare professional who specializes in nutrition and dietetics) approval. 7. [NAME] 1 did not follow the recipe to thicken pureed food (a texture-modified food for residents who can't handle solid food due to things like chewing or swallowing difficulties, or gut issues) when preparing pureed food for lunch on 8/12/2025 and breakfast on 8/13/2025.8. [NAME] 1 did not follow a recipe to make the gravy (sauce) on 8/12/2025 for lunch.9. On 8/13/2025, [NAME] 1 used a broken metal whisk (a cooking utensil) to prepare breakfast items.10. The kitchen did not have any supervision from qualified personnel like a Dietary Supervisor, Dietary Services Manager (DSM), Certified Dietary Manager, or RD for food safety preparation.These deficient practices had the potential to cause foodborne illness (any illnesses caused by consuming foods or beverages contaminated with harmful bacteria, viruses and parasites or their toxins), food allergies, medical complications such as malnourishment (excesses or imbalances in a resident's intake of nutrients and or energy), choking (blockage of the upper airway by food or other objects that prevents breathing), aspiration pneumonia (a lung infection caused by inhaling oral contents into the lungs) to the 88 residents who received food from the kitchen, resulting in hospitalizations and death.On 8/13/2025 at 5:46 p.m., an Immediate Jeopardy ([IJ] a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident) was called in the presence of Registered Nurse (RN 2) with the Administrator (Admin) present via telephone due to the facility's failure to ensure safe and sanitary dietary services were provided. On 8/15/2025 at 2:45 p.m., the facility submitted an acceptable IJ removal plan ([IJRP] interventions to immediately correct the deficient practices). After verification of IJRP implementation through observation, interview, and record review, the IJ was removed onsite on 8/15/2025 at 3:30 p.m. in the presence of the Admin, Regional [NAME] President of Operations (RVPO), and Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 2). The IJRP included the following immediate actions: 1. On 8/13/2025, the improperly thawed liquid eggs, ground beef and the broken whisk were discarded by the dietary staff. [NAME] 2 was removed from the dietary department schedule due to failure to respond to calls from the Admin to receive in-service for the improperly thawed meat and eggs, and temperature monitoring of food. [NAME] 2 remained off duty until the cook participated in individual in-service training sessions and competency assessed in areas including proper thawing and preparation of food, maintenance of sanitary equipment, notification and approval procedures with the RD for substitutions, verification of food temperatures, following recipes (including puree food and gravies) and menus. 2. On 8/13/2025, the Registered Dietitian (RD I) delivered initial in-service training to four of ten (10) dietary staff members, covering procedures for appropriate food thawing preparation (1. Under running water (submerging frozen food under running water at a temperature of 70 F), 2. refrigeration method (thawing food inside a refrigerator with temperature maintained at 41 F or lower to prevent the growth of dangerous microorganisms), and 3. microwave process (a quick and effective thawing method, requiring careful attention to ensure safety and even thawing), the new process for reviewing menus daily to pull frozen items and place in the refrigerator for thawing 3 days before use, equipment sanitation, notification protocols for substitutions, and monitoring food temperatures during cooking process and during trayline. Competency evaluations were conducted with verbal discussion and staff return demonstration to confirm comprehension of the material presented. 3. On 8/14/2025, the RD 1 conducted one-on-one in-service education (personalized, individualized training or professional development session designed to enhance an employee's skills, knowledge, or performance in their current role) to [NAME] 1 covering procedures for appropriate food thawing, the new process for reviewing menus daily to pull frozen items and place in the refrigerator for thawing 3 days before use, equipment sanitation, notification protocols for substitutions, and monitoring food temperatures during cooking process and during trayline, following recipes (including puree food and gravies) and menus. Competency evaluations were conducted with verbal discussion and staff return demonstration to confirm comprehension of the material presented. 4. On 8/14/2025, RD 1 conducted an initial in-service education to 1 more dietary personnel, for a total of 6 out of 10 dietary personnel. The in-service covered procedures for appropriate food thawing preparation, the new process for reviewing menus daily to pull frozen items and place in the refrigerator for thawing 3 days before use, equipment sanitation, notification protocols for substitutions, monitoring food temperatures during the cooking process and during trayline and following menus and recipes. Competency skills check was completed to verify understanding of topics discussed. In-service education will proceed until all dietary staff have received instruction and demonstrated competency. One of the remaining employees is currently on vacation and will receive training prior to their next scheduled shift upon returning to work. The RD 2 will provide ongoing monthly in-services for existing staff and onboard training for new employees. New dietary staff will complete a competency checklist during orientation and annually thereafter, facilitated by the Certified Dietary Manager or RD. 5. On 8/13/2025 and 8/14/2025, RD 1 verified competency with verbal discussions with staff return demonstration of the 6 dietary staff that were provided with in-service education, through skills check evaluation regarding appropriate food thawing (1. Under running water, 2. refrigeration method, and 3. microwave process; thawing food at room temperature will no longer be used), the new process for reviewing menus daily to pull frozen items and place in the refrigerator for thawing 3 days before use, food preparation, equipment sanitation, notification protocols for substitutions, monitoring food temperatures during food preparation and during trayline, location of recipes, and following menus and recipes. All cooks will check food temperatures while cooking and during trayline. The cook will log the temperatures in the temperature log binder. An audit was completed to verify the recipes are available for pureed diet and for gravy. The recipes were confirmed and available in a binder. 6. On 8/14/2025, the Admin provided one-on-one in-service to RD 2 regarding the oversight and approval of meal substitutions. RD I or RD 2 will review all substitutions for appropriate equivalent nutritional value and sign-off on the alternative food item as a substitute on the dietary substitution form. Additionally, the RD will review menus and recipes and conduct inventory of stock to place food orders to ensure recipes are followed and therefore minimize the need for substitutions. 7. On 8/14/2025, dietary staff, Admin, and RD 2 performed a comprehensive sanitation inspection of the kitchen using the Dietary Skills Checklist form, emphasizing correct food thawing procedures and equipment. 8. All 82 residents who received meals from the kitchen were evaluated by the designated Licensed Nurses for any gastrointestinal symptoms of foodborne illness, food allergy, medical complications such as malnourishment, choking, aspiration pneumonia. No issues have been identified. Designated Licensed Nurses notified the attending physicians regarding the identified deficient practice. Nursing Staff will continue to monitor residents for seventy-two (72) hours for any potential symptoms of gastrointestinal symptoms or changes in condition. Should any concerns arise, attending physicians will be promptly informed for fm1her assessment and management as appropriate.Findings: 1. During an observation on 8/13/2025 at 6:15 a.m. in the kitchen, a (cardboard [heavyweight paper-based]) box (container used for packaging) labelled Liquid Egg Product and Keep Refrigerated 33 F - 40 F was on the countertop next to the stove. The cardboard box contained a bag filled with yellow liquid eggs that was cold and hard to touch. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/13/2025 at 9:53 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN 1), the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Preparation, dated 2023, was reviewed. RN 1 stated the P&P indicated food preparation should be supervised by the Director of Food and Nutrition Services and reviewed by the Registered Dietitian, employees should prepare food in a safe manner to protect residents from foodborne illnesses and the facility should use proper defrosting methods in defrosting frozen food. RN 1 stated the P&P indicated, prepared food should be stored at proper temperature until serving time and the temperature forms should be utilized. RN 1 stated the P&P also indicated, cold foods must be kept at or under 41 F, and hot foods at or more than 140 F. RN 1 stated food (unspecified) must be kept in safe temperature zones. RN 1 stated there were 88 of 93 residents in the facility who ate food served from the kitchen. RN 1 stated these residents had the potential to develop foodborne illness, dehydration (a state where the body loses more water than it takes in, resulting in a lack of fluid), and hospitalization, if cold food was kept over 41 degrees. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/13/2025 at 12:10 p.m., with [NAME] 1 in the kitchen, the box labelled Liquid Egg Product and Keep Refrigerated 33 F - 40 F was in the same area on the countertop next to the stove, as previously observed on 8/13/2025 at 6:15 a.m. The box and bag (containing the liquid egg) were wet and felt soft and cold when touched. The temperature of the liquid egg was 55 F. [NAME] 1 stated he removed the box of liquid eggs from the freezer on 8/13/2025 at 5:30 a.m. [NAME] 1 stated the eggs were being thawed until completely defrosted (liquid in consistency). [NAME] 1 stated [NAME] 3 would place the box of liquid eggs in the refrigerator that evening to be cooked tomorrow morning. [NAME] 1 stated he was not trained in how to thaw frozen food. [NAME] 1 stated countertop thawing at room temperature was standard practice in the facility's kitchen. [NAME] 1 stated the facility did not have a temperature monitoring log when thawing food and there was no Pull Schedule (schedule of when to pull food from the freezer) to thaw. During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 1:00 p.m. with RD 1, RD 1 stated food should never be thawed at room temperature. RD 1 stated thawing food at room temperature was not safe and placed residents at risk of foodborne illness. RD 1 stated the cooks should have thawed the frozen eggs in the refrigerator, or through one of three safe methods to prevent bacterial growth and potential illness in residents. RD 1 stated the cooks should have used one of the following safe thawing options: labelling and placing the liquid eggs in the fridge, fully submerging the bag of liquid eggs under running water or microwaving the bag of eggs. RD 1 stated temperatures of thawing food had to be monitored and recorded throughout the thawing process to limit the amount of time that the food temperature was held in the danger zone. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/13/2025 at 2:25 p.m. with [NAME] 3 in the kitchen, the box labelled Liquid Egg Product and Keep Refrigerated 33 F - 40 F were observed on the countertop. [NAME] 3 stated the liquid eggs on the countertop were left to thaw at room temperature. [NAME] 3 stated she did not measure or record the temperatures and planned to put the liquid eggs in the fridge when fully defrosted to cook on 8/14/2025 for breakfast. [NAME] 3 stated eggs could be thawed at room temperature because eggs were not meat. [NAME] 3 stated thawing liquid eggs at room temperature was standard practice in the facility kitchen. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/13/2025 at 2:35 p.m. with [NAME] 3, the facility's breakfast, lunch, and dinner menus and recipes dated 8/13/2025 through 8/16/2025 were reviewed. The menus and recipes indicated eggs on the menu for breakfast on 8/14/2025. [NAME] 3 stated eggs were on the menu on 8/14/2025 for breakfast. [NAME] 3 stated the liquid eggs in the box on the countertop had been thawing at room temperature for nine hours and were to be prepared for residents' breakfast on 8/14/2025. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/13/2025 at 12:10 p.m. with [NAME] 1 in the kitchen, a large tube of red, pink, and white substance was on the countertop. The outside of the plastic tube felt wet, soft and cold. [NAME] 1 stated the red, pink, and white substance in the cylinder-shape ([cylinder], tumbler shape) was ground beef. [NAME] 1 stated the temperature of the ground beef was 64 F. [NAME] 1 stated the large cylinder of raw, ground beef was removed from the freezer on 8/13/2025 around 9:45 a.m. [NAME] 1 stated he thawed the raw ground beef at room temperature to cook and serve as a meat option in case he ran out of the planned meat for dinner that evening of 8/13/2025. [NAME] 1 stated countertop thawing at room temperature was standard practice in the facility's kitchen. During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 2:25 p.m. with [NAME] 3 in the kitchen. [NAME] 3 stated the ground beef was placed in the fridge on 8/13/2025 around 1:30 p.m. (3.75 hours) after it was held at room temperature. [NAME] 3 stated the temperature of the beef was checked and was 39 F. [NAME] 3 stated the beef was safe in the fridge and could be cooked for the residents' future meals.During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/13/2025 at 2:35 p.m. with [NAME] 3, the facility's menu and recipes for 8/13/2025 through 8/18/2025 were reviewed. [NAME] 3 stated, there was no ground beef on the menu for any meals from 8/13/2025 through 8/16/2025. [NAME] 3 stated the thawed ground beef could safely be returned in the fridge and stored, cooked, and served to residents within the next week. 3. During an observation on 8/12/2025 from 11:35 a.m. to 12:45 p.m., in the kitchen, [NAME] 1 did not measure or record food temperatures of the regular, mechanical soft, and pureed food preparations of the beef steaks, mashed potatoes, and the carrot and green bean mix while cooking lunch. During an interview on 8/12/2025 at 12:00 p.m., with [NAME] 1, [NAME] 1 stated, he did not have time to monitor or record any food temperatures during cooking.During an observation on 8/13/2025 from 6:15 a.m. to 8:05 a.m. in the kitchen, [NAME] 1 did not measure or record food temperature when preparing the regular, mechanical soft, and pureed food preparations of grits (corn dish), scrambled eggs, ground turkey, and turkey sausage for breakfast.During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 8:05 a.m., [NAME] 1 stated breakfast was served one hour late and he had no time to monitor or record any food temperatures during cooking. During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 9:53 a.m. with RN 1, RN 1 stated food temperatures must be monitored while cooking and serving meals to decrease the risk of foodborne illness and to improve residents' satisfaction. RN 1 stated foodborne illness had the potential to cause residents to be dehydrated and hospitalized .During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 1:00 p.m. with RD 1, RD 1 stated, cooks should follow the facility's P&P when cooking protein items such as beef and chicken. RD 1 stated the P&P indicated Cooks must monitor and record the food cooking temperature in the temperature log. RD 1 stated not monitoring food temperatures may cause undercooked food, food temperatures in the danger zone, bacterial growth and place residents at risk of foodborne illnesses. 4. During an observation on 8/12/2025 at 12:10 p.m., of the lunch trayline, in the kitchen, [NAME] 1 did not measure or record food temperatures of the regular, mechanical soft, and pureed food preparations of the beef steaks, mashed potatoes, and the carrot and green bean mix for lunch service prior to starting the trayline and serving lunch. During an observation on 8/13/2025 from 6:20 a.m. to 8:05 a.m., of the breakfast trayline in the kitchen, [NAME] 1 did not measure or record food temperatures prior to starting trayline and serving the regular, mechanical soft, and pureed food preparations of grits, scrambled eggs, ground turkey, and turkey sausage for breakfast. During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 8:05 a.m. with [NAME] 1, [NAME] 1 stated he did not have time to measure trayline temperatures prior to serving the regular, mechanical soft, and pureed food preparations of grits, scrambled eggs, ground turkey, and turkey sausage for breakfast on 8/12/2025 and lunch on 8/13/2025. [NAME] 1 stated he did not know where the Food Temperature Log was and placed. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/14/2025 at 12:33 p.m. with [NAME] 2, the facility's Food Temperature Log for 8/2025 was reviewed. [NAME] 2 stated the Food Temperature Log indicated food temperatures were not measured or recorded for meal items on the following dates and were blank: 1. 8/6/2025, 8/7/2025, 8/8/2025, 8/10/2025, 8/11/2025, 8/12/2025, and 8/13/2025 for hot food served for breakfast.2. 8/6/2025, 8/7/2025, 8/8/2025, 8/10/2025, 8/11/2025, and 8/12/2025 for hot food served for lunch.3. 8/6/2025, 8/9/2025, 8/11/2025, and 8/12/2025 for all food served for dinner.Cook 2 stated the Food Temperature Log was only used to record trayline temperatures prior to starting trayline. [NAME] 2 stated food temperatures were supposed to be measured and recorded prior to starting trayline for every meal. 5. During a concurrent interview and observation on 8/12/2025 at 12:15 p.m., with [NAME] 2 in the kitchen, [NAME] 2 did not measure the temperature of ground turkey while cooking. [NAME] 2 plated (placed on a plate) and served the ground turkey to 16 residents without measuring or recording the temperature. [NAME] 2 stated he did not check the temperature of the ground turkey. [NAME] 2 stated the ground turkey was safe for residents' consumption based on the meat's color. [NAME] 2 stated he had decades of cooking experience and did not need a thermometer (equipment to measure temperature) to check food temperatures. During an observation on 8/12/2025 at 12:45 p.m., CNA 4 served the ground turkey to three residents that was prepared by [NAME] 2 on 8/12/2025 at 12:15 p.m. with the temperature not measured or recorded. During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 1:00 p.m., with RD 1, RD 1 stated cooked food must reach certain temperatures while cooking and prior to serving to limit bacteria growth and decrease the potential for food-borne illnesses. RD 1 stated meat temperatures must be measured and recorded in the food temperature log while cooking and prior to serving. 6. During a review of the facility's menu, dated 8/12/2025, the menu indicated roasted carrots for lunch. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/12/2025 at 9:55 a.m. with [NAME] 1 in the kitchen, a small bag of carrots was in the fridge. [NAME] 1 stated the facility did not have enough carrots to serve full portions to over 80 residents. [NAME] 1 stated he did not ask RD 1 what to substitute for the carrots. [NAME] 1 stated he will substitute missing carrots with green beans for the vegetable serving. During an observation on 8/12/2025 at 12:00 p.m., in the kitchen, three trays of mixed steamed carrots and green beans, chopped green beans, and pureed green beans instead of carrots were served to 71 residents, for lunch.During an observation 8/12/2025 at 12:33 p.m. in the kitchen, [NAME] 1 ran out of the regular textured steamed carrots and green beans for 9 residents. [NAME] 1 substituted the missing steamed carrots, and green beans mixed with two scoops of mashed potatoes for 4 residents who were on regular textured diets. [NAME] 1 substituted a reheated fried vegetable roll for carrots and green beans and served to 5 residents on regular texture diets.During an interview on 8/12/2025 at 12:37 p.m. with [NAME] 1, [NAME] 1 stated he did not inform RD 1 about the carrots substitutions because he did not have time. [NAME] 1 stated he ran out of regular texture vegetable servings for 9 regular texture trays. [NAME] 1 stated he replaced the missing vegetable serving with an extra scoop of mashed potatoes or a reheated fried vegetable roll. [NAME] 1 stated he knew the nutritional value was not the same but had used all the vegetables he had.During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 1:00 p.m. with RD 1, RD 1 stated she was not notified about any food shortages and was not asked about any dietary substitutions over the past week. RD 1 stated the facility had a list of approved food substitutions in case of shortages. RD 1 stated carrots and green beans were not of similar nutritive value. RD 1 stated deviating (changing or not following) recipes could introduce allergens and cause allergic reactions for residents. RD 1 stated not following the menu and recipes had the potential for residents to lose weight, develop vitamin or mineral deficiencies, and skin issues. 7. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/12/2025 at 11:35 a.m., [NAME] 1 used an unmarked, white, Styrofoam (made of a lightweight, disposable plastic) cup to transfer white powdered thickener from a plastic storage bin to pureed food items. [NAME] 1 stated the Styrofoam cup was a drinking cup with no measurement indicators. [NAME] 1 stated he eyeballed (looked) to measure the thickener and did not use a system or method to evaluate the thickness of the pureed foods.During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 9:53 a.m. with RN 1, RN 1 stated residents on pureed texture diets had issues with swallowing. RN 1 stated if pureed texture diets were not provided, residents had the potential to choke, aspirate and develop pneumonia, requiring hospitalization and could cause death.During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 1:00 p.m., with RD 1, RD 1 stated, the cooks should follow the manufacturer's instructions and P&P to thicken pureed food items. RD 1 stated, not following instructions to prepare a thickener could cause pureed items to be too runny, potentially causing choking, aspiration, and pneumonia. RD 1 stated not following recipes could alter the calories, vitamins, and minerals of each meal, potentially causing residents' weight loss and skin breakdown. 8. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/12/2025 at 11:35 a.m. with [NAME] 1 in the kitchen, gravy was observed boiling on the stove. [NAME] 1 stated there was no pre-made gravy available for lunch. [NAME] 1 stated he prepared the gravy by mixing milk, garlic powder, and powdered beef broth. [NAME] 1 stated he did not have a recipe on how to make gravy. [NAME] 1 stated the lunch menu indicated to use pre-made gravy. [NAME] 1 stated he did not have any concerns about exposing residents to allergens, such as milk, or salt content in the gravy. During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 9:53 a.m., with RN 1, RN 1 stated menus, recipes, and diet orders must be followed for residents with electrolyte-restricted therapeutic diets (diets that limit the intake of electrolytes, such as potassium or sodium) orders. RN 1 stated 59 residents were on sodium-restricted diets and were at risk of high blood pressure, stroke, worsening cardiac issues, worsening kidney function, unintended weight gain, fluid retention, hospitalization, and organ failure. During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 1:00 p.m., with RD 1, RD 1 stated the Cooks did not notify her about any need for menu item substitutions or any food shortages over the past week. RD 1 stated any food served to residents must be standardized and cooked according to a recipe. RD 1 stated staff must follow a recipe for every menu item and should not have made and served the gravy without a standardized recipe. RD 1 stated deviating from recipes could introduce allergens and cause allergic reactions. 9. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/13/2025 at 6:20 a.m. with [NAME] 1 in the kitchen, [NAME] 1 used a broken large metal whisk to combine the powdered-thickened grits in a small metal tray. [NAME] 1 stated the two metal whisk wires had been broken for several days. [NAME] 1 stated he informed RD 1 about the broken whisk on 8/12/2025. [NAME] 1 stated he had to continue using the broken whisk to prepare menu items because there was no other large whisk in the facility. During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 9:53 a.m. with RN 1, RN 1 stated if the Cooks continue to use the broken metal whisk to prepare food in the kitchen, it placed all residents receiving kitchen-prepared diets at risk for broken metal pieces left in the food. RN 1 stated broken metal pieces in food placed residents at risk of infection, choking, and gastrointestinal (relating to the stomach and the intestines) perforation (poke a hole).During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 1:00 p.m. with RD 1, RD 1 stated she was not made aware of broken equipment in the kitchen and was not notified about a broken metal whisk on 8/12/2025. RD 1 stated using a metal whisk was extremely dangerous for residents and placed residents at risk of consuming metal pieces from the whisk. 10. During an interview on 8/12/2025 at 9:45 a.m., the Admin stated the facility did not have a dietary supervisor or Dietary Services Manager (DSM) for two weeks. During an observation on 8/12/2025 from 11:35 a.m. to 12:45 p.m., there was no Dietary Supervisor, DSM, or RD observed overseeing food preparation and trayline for lunch. During an observation on 8/13/2025 from 6:15 a.m. to 8:05 a.m., there was no Dietary Supervisor, DSM, or RD observed overseeing food preparation and trayline for breakfast.During an interview on 8/13/2025 at 1:00 p.m. with RD 1, RD 1 stated the Admin asked her to increase her hours at the facility as much as possible due to lack of dietary supervision in the kitchen. RD 1 stated she could not oversee the facility's kitchen operations daily because she worked at two other facilities. RD 1 stated she performed a monthly sanitation check and in-service for kitchen staff. RD 1 stated she was not involved in ordering food for the facility. RD 1 stated she primarily provided clinical services and visited the facility and kitchen twice per week, for two hours each visit. During an interview on 8/18/2025 at 2:06 p.m. with the Admin, the Admin stated she ordered food for the kitchen but was not certified to work in the kitchen. The Admin stated RD 1 was unable to provide additional hours and Cooks were not trained to oversee the operations of the kitchen. The Admin stated there was no certified supervisory dietary staff overseeing food preparation, equipment function, and menu coordination in the kitchen from 7/29/2025 until 8/15/2025. The Admin stated the presence of a Dietary Supervisor, DSM, or RD in the kitchen could have avoided the deficient practices. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Food Preparation, dated 2023, the P&P indicated food preparation should be supervised by the Director of Food and Nutrition Services and reviewed by the Registered Dietitian, employees should prepare food in a safe manner to protect residents from foodborne illnesses and the facility should use proper defrosting methods in defrosting frozen food. The P&P indicated, prepared food should be stored at proper temperature until serving time and the temperature forms should be utilized. The P&P also indicated, cold foods must be kept at or under 41 F, hot foods at or more than 140 F, hot beverages at or more than 140 F, ice cream or sherbet at or less than 32 F. The P&P indicated all menus should have standardized recipes used to ensure meals provide necessary nutritive value. The P&P indicated frozen food must be defrosted using proper defrosting methods. The P&P indicated recipes should be used which are quantified for the facility needs. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Menus, dated 2023, the P&P indicated menu substitutions must be made from the same food group as the omitted item and should be approved and signed off by the RD. The P&P indicated facilities must keep a menu substitution record on file for 30 days. The P&P indicated staff must refer to the List of Menu Substitutes to replace unavailable menu items. The P&P indicated List of Menu Substitutes, carrots- a vitamin A source; potatoes- a starch substitute, and mixed vegetables were a vitamin A source. The List of Menu Substitutes did not list green beans or fried vegetable as acceptable substitutes. The P&P indicated menus for the therapeutic and texture modified diets were written by the consultant dietitian for all diets served by the facility. During a review of the facility's undated Thick-It Usage Chart, the Usage Chart indicated pureed food should be mixed with the correct amount of Thick-It Original Food and Beverage Thickener using the enclosed measuring scoop. The Usage Chart indicated 1.5 tablespoons of Thick-It to be level measured prior to stirring into food. During a review of the facility's undated [NAME] job description, the job description indicated cooks handle, store, and dispose of raw food items in accordance with company and facility procedures, in compliance with state and federal regulations. The [NAME] job description indicated cooks should follow standardized recipes that correspond to the menu cycles developed by Registered Dietitians. The job description indicated that cooks maintained food service equipment in a clean and safe condition at all times. During a review of the facility's undated Registered Dietician - Salaried job description, the job description indicated RDs plan menus that meet resident's nutritional needs and confirms quality assurance processes are followed in preparation of food. The job description indicated that RDs may supervise food preparation using techniques that conserved nutritional values and may assist in the supervision of the Food Services staff and others for whom they were administratively and professionally responsible. During a review of the facility's undated Dietary Services Manager - Hourly, the job description indicated the position may be filled by a RD. The job description indicated the DSM coordinates the total operation of the dietary department, supervises preparation and service of planned menus, ensured food is stored, held, prepared, and served per company's P&P, state and federal guidelines.
Jul 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of six sampled residents (Resident 2) had ...

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 of six sampled residents (Resident 2) had a functioning television (TV) to watch. This deficient practice resulted in not being able to watch TV clearly when she wanted to.Findings: During a review of Resident 2's Face Sheet (front page of the chart that contains a summary of basic information about the resident), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 2 was admitted on [DATE]. During a review of Resident 2's Activity assessment dated [DATE], the Activity Assessment indicated Resident 2 enjoyed music, exercise, hand massage, music programs and watching TV, and enjoyed these activities in her own room or the activities room.During a review of Resident 2's Care Plan dated 5/14/2025, the Care Plan indicated Resident 2 is interested in independent and self-directed activities and had goals to maintain interest or pleasure in doing daily activities of preference. During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 5/20/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 2 had moderately impaired cognition (ability to reason, understand, remember, judge, and learn) and did not have impairments to both upper extremities (related to the arms).During a review of Resident 2's History and Physical (H&P) dated 6/6/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 2 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 12:37 p.m., the Family Member (FM) of Resident 2 stated she had a TV in her room on the wall that didn't work and was always fuzzy and unclear. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/3/2025 at 1:25 p.m., Resident 2's TV in her room was observed. Resident 2 had a TV mounted on the wall and Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 was asked to turn on the TV and scroll through the channel. Observed with LVN 1 and stated each channel had static (random white and black dotted pattern that interferes with the TV) and was unclear. During an interview on 7/3/2025 at 1:56 p.m. with Resident 2, Resident 2 stated she enjoyed watching TV in her room and had no issues in watching TV but sometimes the TV is very unclear and fuzzy and it was difficult to watch TV. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Quality of Life- Homelike Environment dated 10/2017, the P&P indicated the staff shall provide person-centered care that emphasizes the residents' comfort, independence and personal needs and preferences. During a follow up concurrent observation and interview on 7/3/2025 at 2:55 p.m. with LVN 1, Resident 2's TV was observed. LVN stated Resident could use the TV that was mounted on the wall or the TV that was on the nightstand. LVN 1 looked at the TV on the nightstand and stated that the TV was not plugged in to the wall. LVN 1 further stated the TV mounted on the wall had unclear and fuzzy channels and because one TV was not plugged in and the other was unclear, it would make watching TV very difficult and possibly not enjoyable for Resident 2. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Activities Program, undated, the P&P indicated the activity program will consist of individual Activities that are designed to meet the needs and interest of each resident.
Jun 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 three sampled residents (Resident 1) resident rights were accommodated when Resident 1 refused a blood draw. This deficient practice of not allowing Resident 1 to refuse blood draw had the potential for the resident to feel discomfort when the staff attempted to draw the blood. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1 diagnoses included dementia (a serious disturbance in a person's metal abilities that results in a decreased awareness of one's environment and confused thinking), anxiety (a feeling of worry, nervousness, or unease), and osteoarthritis (a degenerative joint disease, in which the tissues in the joint break down over time). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/20/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a resident assessment tool), dated 4/21/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognition (ability to learn, reason, remember, understand, and make decisions) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had not exhibited rejection of care including, blood work. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent (helper does all of the effort. Resident does none of the effort to complete the activity) on staff for toilet hygiene and dressing. During an observation of on 6/18/2025 at 4:20 p.m. in Resident 1's room, there was a sign posted above the bed and indicated if resident refused blood draw, please call family so the family could encourage the resident. Resident 1 had bruising (a type of injury that causes the skin to become discolored caused by rupturing under the blood vessels) to the left and right wrist. During a review of Resident 1's physician orders titled, Physician Order Report, dated 8/27/2024, the physician order indicated if resident refused blood drawn, please call family. During a review of Resident 1's Observation Detail List Report, dated 6/16/2025, the Observation Detail List Report indicated Resident 1 was noted to have discoloration of the left wrist. The Observation Detail List Report indicated Resident 1 had blood draw was attempted on 6/13/2025 and Resident 1 had refused blood drawn attempt. During a review of Resident 1's care plan titled, Behavioral Symptoms with rejection of care, dated 4/14/2025, the care plan interventions were to encourage resident to verbalize feelings, offer understanding, and empathy. During a review of Resident 1's Patient Service Log dated 6/13/2025, the Patient Service Log indicated and attempt to obtain a blood draw on 6/13/2025 and the phlebotomist was unable to obtain blood. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/18/2025 at 4:20 p.m. with Resident 1, in Resident 1's room, Resident 1 stated the staff wanted to draw my blood. Resident 1 stated, I told the staff to stop, they held me down and drew the blood anyway. Resident 1 stated the bruising on her left and right wrist came from the staff trying to draw blood. Resident 1 stated the staff did not listen to her request to refuse the blood draw. Resident 1 stated the staff drawing the blood it was painful and after the staff drew the blood her both her wrist had hurt. During a telephone interview on 6/20/2025 at 10:15 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated she went into Resident 1's room with the phlebotomist (). RN 1 stated the phlebotomist attempted to draw the blood. RN 1 stated Resident 1 was making sounds during the blood draw but could not describe what sounds the resident was making. RN 1 stated after the blood draw the Resident 1 was rubbing both wrist and I had asked her to stop rubbing her wrist, RN 1 stated was not aware of the signage above Resident 1's bed. RN 1 stated when a resident refuses the staff is not to force them to do care. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/24/2025 at 2:30 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Resident 1's physician orders titled, Physician Order Report, dated 8/27/2024, the physician order indicated if resident refused blood drawn, please call family. LVN 1 stated there was a sign above Resident 1's bed that states to call the family if the resident refuse blood draws. LVN 1 stated she had noticed the bruised left and right wrist the start of the morning shift on 6/13/2025. LVN 1 stated she had checked Resident 1 's chart records and there was an attempt to draw her blood. LVN 1 stated she had called the laboratory company for lab results and the lab company stated Resident 1 had resisted and they were not able to obtain the blood work. LVN 1 stated if Resident 1 resisted then would be considered refusing care. LVN 1 stated the protocol when Resident 1 resisted the staff were to call the family. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had a history of refusals of care and at times we do need to call the family to assist Resident 1. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had the right to refuse the care and her rights were violated. During a review of facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Resident Rights, date unknown, the P&P indicated the company protects and promotes the rights of each resident. The P&P indicated company staff will assist residents in exercising their rights. The P&P indicated company staff will not hamper or compel by force. The P&P indicated Residents had freedom of choice, to the maximum extent possible, about how they wish to live their everyday lives and receive care. During a review of facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Refusal of Treatment, date unknown, the P&P indicated refusal of treatment included treatments. The P&P indicated the resident is not forced to accept any medical treatment and may refuse specific treatment even thou a physician prescribes it.
Jun 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Dental Services (Tag F0791)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide dental services when one of three residents (...

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 dental services when one of three residents (Resident 1) did not receive follow up care for partial dentures as requested by the resident. This failure resulted in Resident 1 feeling embarrassed and had the potential to result in the resident having difficulty chewing and eating which could lead to weight loss and aspiration (accidental inhalation of food into the lungs). Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/5/2025 at 10:20 a.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 smiled and was observed with a large gap along the top row of the resident's teeth. Resident 1 stated, she had requested partial dentures from the facility's dentist (date unknown) and had not received them. Resident 1 stated she felt embarrassed, self-conscious to smile and talk due to her missing teeth. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including intracerebral hemorrhage (bleeding into the brain tissue) and respiratory failure (condition where there is not enough oxygen or too much carbon dioxide in the body). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 7/19/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had fluctuating capacity to make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 4/22/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderate cognitive impairment and needed supervision or touching assistance (helper provides cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance) to eat and perform oral hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's Physician Orders, dated 7/20/2024, the Physician Orders indicated the physician referred Resident 1 for dental consultation annually and as needed. During a review of Resident 1's Dental Notes, dated 1/30/2025, the Dental Notes indicated Resident 1 was missing several teeth and requested partial dentures. During a review of Resident 1's Social Services Notes, dated 1/30/2025, the Social Services Note indicated Resident 1 was seen by the dentist and no recommendations were given. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/5/2025 at 1:55 p.m. with the Social Services Director (SSD), Resident 1's Dental Note and Social Services Notes dated 1/30/2025 were reviewed. The SSD stated the Social Services department was responsible for following up on dental evaluations and resident needs. The SSD stated Resident 1 was missing four teeth and requested partial dentures on 1/30/2025. The SSD stated there was no follow up dental services or dentures provided for the resident since the resident's request on 1/30/2025. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/9/2025 at 11:15 with the Director of Nursing (DON), the facility's undated P&P titled, Social Services Program and Resident 1's Dental Notes dated 1/20/2025 were reviewed. The DON stated Resident 1 was missing several teeth and requested partial dentures on 1/30/2025 and the SSD should have followed up with the dental provider. The DON stated lacking the requested dentures had the potential to result in weight loss and swallowing issues for Resident 1. During a review of the facility's undated Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Social Services Program, the P&P indicated the social services staff are responsible for making referrals, securing dental care services, and obtaining services from outside entities. The P&P indicated social services staff must document any interaction or visits with the resident and outside provided working with the resident. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Dental Services dated 8/2/2024, the P&P indicated social services representatives will assist residents with appointments and follow-up services must be available for Resident 1's oral health.
May 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

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 3) incontinence brief were changed in a timely manner. This failure had the potential fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled (Resident 3) incontinence brief were changed in a timely manner. This failure had the potential for Resident 3 to develop a skin rash, infection and skin breakdown. Findings: During a review of Resident 3's admission Record (Face Sheet), the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 3 on 10/28/2024 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease (a disease characterized by a progressive decline in mental abilities) and anxiety (a feeling of worry or unease). During a review of Resident 3 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS-a resident assessment tool) dated 2/07/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 3 was severely cognitively impaired(never/rarely made decisions) and was dependent( helper does all of the effort) on the staff for eating, oral hygiene, personal hygiene, toileting, bathing, upper/lower body dressing, always incontinent(no control) of bladder or bowel movements and at risk for developing a pressure ulcer injury(localized, pressure-related damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence). During a review of Resident 3 ' s History and Physical (H&P) dated11/14/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 3 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 3 ' s care plan dated 12/5/2024, the care plan indicated to provide Resident 3 assistance when needed which would include incontinent care, clean and dry resident after each incontinent episode, observe for skin irritation and redness. Resident will be provided with needed assistance in activities of daily living to maintain comfort and dignity. During an interview on 5/14/2025, at 12:34p.m. with Resident 3 ' s Family Member (FM 1) 1, she stated there have been issues with having Resident 3 ' s incontinence brief not being changed. The staff are supposed to be changing her diaper twice a shift, some of the staff do not until the next shift. Since she is only changed once a shift at times and left with her diapers wet, I feel really bad since she cannot talk or complain. That ' s why I make sure I come every day. FM 2 comes in the afternoon; we don ' t trust the staff in her care. FM 1stated that on 5/4/2025 around 3:30p.m. in the afternoon, FM 1 found Resident 3 wet with urine from an unchanged diaper from the entire back side and including Resident 3 ' s gown. The FM 1 stated they had not changed her since the morning. FM 1stated, I felt terrible, I went to ask the staff to come and change her. During an interview on 5/14/2025, at 2:25p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)2 stated you can get a rash, itchy and develop a bed sore if left wet with urine from an unchanged diaper. During an interview on 5/14/2025, at 2:40p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 stated Resident 3 requires complete assistance for everything. If a resident is left with a wet diaper, they can get a rash and a urinary tract infection (an infection in the bladder/urinary tract) and can cause open wounds. During an interview on 5/14/2025, at 4:02p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated residents are changed at the beginning of the shift and as needed. If a resident ' s wet diaper is not changed, they are at risk for infection and skin breakdown. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure(P&P) titled, Bladder and Bowel Incontinence, undated, the P&P indicated, Preventive measures for controlling common infections are a critical component of the overall plan of care for incontinent residents.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a pain management evaluation for one of three ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a pain management evaluation for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to result in Resident 1 experience pain that was not controlled. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 10/12/2022, and readmitted on [DATE]/2024 with diagnoses including unspecified dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), unspecified severity, without behavioral disturbance, anxiety (a feeling of worry or unease), primary osteoarthritis(a progressive disorder of the joints, caused by a gradual loss of cartilage) of both knees, and hypertension(high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS-a resident assessment tool) dated 4/21/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderate cognitive impairment, and was dependent( helper does all of the effort) on the staff for toileting hygiene, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, lying to sitting on the side of the bed, chair/bed to chair transfer, tub/shower transfer. The MDS further indicated Resident 1 was substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half of the effort) on the staff for upper body dressing, shower/bathe self, personal hygiene, roll left and right and sit to lying. During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/20/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2 ' s care plan dated 12/5/2024, the care plan indicated to acknowledge resident ' s pain, provide or assist with non-pharmacological measures for pain relief, administer pain medication as ordered and inform provider if measures fail to provide adequate relief. During a review of Resident 1's physician order report indicated the following: 1. Naprosyn (a medication that helps reduce pain and inflammation) tablet 500 mg (milligrams) give one tablet by mouth two times a day for pain. 2. Acetaminophen (a medication to relieve pain) tablet 325 mg give two tablets by mouth every six hours as needed for pain. 3. Monitor for pain every shift. During a review of Resident 1's Pain Monitoring Administration History for April 2025, the following pain levels were documented: On April 10th, 2025, Resident 1 reported a pain level of 5 out of 10 in bilateral knees, during the day shift and remained at a level of 5 out of/10 after repositioning and emotional support. On April 19th, 2025, Resident 1 reported a pain level of 6 out of10 in knees, during the night shift and remained at a level of 6 out of10 after repositioning and emotional support. On April 27th, 2025, Resident 1 reported a pain level of 6 out of 10, no documented location of pain, during the night shift and remained at a level of 6 out of 10 after repositioning and emotional support. There was no documented administration of acetaminophen 625mg as needed for pain in the month of April 2025. During a review of Resident 1's Interdisciplinary Team (a group of individuals with diverse expertise and specialties who collaborate to provide comprehensive patient care) Progress Notes, dated 4/16/2025, the progress notes indicated, The resident will be referred to pain management for further evaluation and support. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/14/2025 at 11:47 a.m. in Resident 1 ' s room, CNA 1 was changing Resident 1 ' s clothes. CNA 1 raised Resident 1 ' s arm and Resident 1 complained of pain. Resident 1 stated I have pain all over, all day long and all night long in my legs. I cannot sit in my chair because of the pain in my knees. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 3:34 p.m. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1, she stated when a resident complains of pain, she reports it to the charge nurse and repositions the resident for comfort. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 3:41 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN)1 stated Resident 1 has generalized mild to moderate body pain. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 3:44p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN)1, she stated she is not aware of Resident 1 ' s pain issues. We have not referred Resident 1 to a pain specialist. During an interview on 5/14/2025 at 3:51p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated nursing would follow up if there is a referral made for pain management, and it would be documented in the progress notes. Resident 1 should have been seen by now. The DON stated, not sure why Resident 1 has not had her pain management consult and not been followed up on. If Resident 1 has pain, then the pain will not be managed. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure(P&P) titled, Pain Management, undated, the P&P indicated, Pain Screening, evaluation and care management is conducted upon admission, quarterly, annually, and with significant change in condition. The Policy further indicated to refer to other disciplines for evaluation.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary environment for one of three sampled residents (Resident 3) by not having a soap dispenser in residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, sanitary environment for one of three sampled residents (Resident 3) by not having a soap dispenser in resident ' s bathroom. This failure had the potential to result in the spread of disease and Resident 3 developing an infection. Findings: During a review of Resident 3's admission Record (Face Sheet), the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 3 on 10/28/2024 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease (a disease characterized by a progressive decline in mental abilities) and anxiety (a feeling of worry or unease). During a review of Resident 3 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS-a resident assessment tool) dated 2/7/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 3 was severely cognitively impaired (never/rarely made decisions) and was dependent (helper does all of the effort) on the staff for eating, oral hygiene, personal hygiene, toileting, bathing, upper/lower body dressing, always incontinent(no episodes of continent with voiding or bowel movements) and at risk for developing a pressure ulcer injury(localized, pressure-related damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence). During a review of Resident 3 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 11/14/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 3 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/14/2025, at 12:34p.m. in Resident 3 ' s room, there was no soap dispenser in resident ' s restroom. An un-labeled plastic cup with yellow liquid was sitting on the sink. Resident 3 ' s Family Member (FM) stated there is no soap in the restroom to wash your hands and it has been this way all the time. During an interview on 5/14/2025, at 2:25p.m. with Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 2, she stated bacteria can grow if you don ' t have any soap to wash your hands with, you can pass on an infection to someone else. CNA 2 stated we are supposed to inform the charge nurse if something needs to be fixed but I did not today. During an interview on 5/14/2025, at 2:34p.m. with Maintenance Supervisor (MNS) and Maintenance Assistant (MNA), they stated they use a communication book if something is wrong with the building. They were not aware of the restroom not having a soap dispenser. The maintenance supervisor stated it was an infection control issue. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/14/2025 at 2:40p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, the facility ' s maintenance log for year 2025 was reviewed. The maintenance log did not indicate there was an entry for a missing soap dispenser in resident ' s bathroom. LVN 1stated he was not aware of there not being a soap dispenser in the restroom and it can be unsafe; residents can be poisoned by drinking the liquid in the cup. During an interview on 5/14/2025, at 3:12p.m. with Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN) stated if there were no soap, there would be no hand hygiene and can cause an infection and harm to the residents. IPN stated, I would consider the soap in cup to be contaminated. We have maintenance to replace the missing soap dispenser; the CNA is supposed to notify maintenance. They are supposed to let us know so we can fix it right away. I did not know about it. During an interview on 5/14/2025, at 3:12p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated no soap dispenser would be an infection control problem. Using a cup filled with soap is not appropriate, there can be cross contamination, which is a safety issue. Leaving it there is inappropriate. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Maintaining Resident Rooms, undated, the P&P indicated, Resident rooms are inspected and maintained on a periodic basis to ensure proper function. Check bathrooms for proper operation .all dispensers are working properly. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Infection Control, undated, the P&P indicated, Healthcare Associated Infection, an infection that is associated with the facility.
Apr 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0774 (Tag F0774)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure transportation was arranged on 2/11/2025, for 1 of 4 residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure transportation was arranged on 2/11/2025, for 1 of 4 residents, Resident 1, who had a follow up appointment with the Surgeon regarding the Jackson Pratt (a surgical suction drain that gently draws fluid from a wound to help recover after surgery) drain. This failure had the potential to affect the care the resident need post (after) operation, and placed the resident at risk for complications, like infections. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including encounter for surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system ( the organs that take in food and liquids and break them down into substances that the body can use for energy, growth, and tissue repair), left bundle branch block (blockage or disruption of electrical impulses that causes heart to beat) and acute on chronic systolic heart failure (a sudden worsening of heart failure symptoms in a person who already has a history of systolic heart failure). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS -a resident assessment tool) dated 1/23/2025, the MDSindicated Resident 1 had clear speech, the ability to express ideas and wants, and clear understanding. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required partial/moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) with personal hygiene and upper body dressing, and supervision/touching (helper provides verbal cues or touching) assistance with eating. During a review of Resident 1's physician order dated 2/6/2025, the physician's order indicated follow up appointment with the Surgeon regarding the Jackson Pratt drain on 2/11/2025 at 11a.m. During a review of Resident 1's progress note dated 2/6/2025 at 3:11 p.m., the progress notes indicated the surgeon's office called the facility with Resident 1's appointment date for 2/11/2025 at 11 a.m. The progress notes indicated the Social Service Designee (SSD) was made aware for transportation arrangement. During a review of the SSD's 2/2025 calendar, the calendar did not indicate the requested transportation arrangement for Resident 1's Surgeon's appointment. During a review of Resident 1's progress note dated 2/11/2025 at 12:12 p.m., the progress notes indicated Resident 1 was not able to go to the Surgeon'sappointment due to transportation difficulty. The progress notes indicated, the appointment for the removal of the Jackson Pratt drainage system was rescheduled to 2/14/2024 at 10 a.m., During an interview on 4/2/2025 at 1:30 p.m. with the Social Service Assistant (SSA), the SSA stated her duties included arranging transportation for Resident 1's doctor appointment. The SSA stated she could not recall arranging transportation for Resident 1 and was unable to provide documentation indicating transportation was arranged. The SSA stated Resident 1 could feel unhappy for not able to follow up with his doctor of his health status. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Social Services Assistant, undated, the P&P indicated the Social Services Assistant assists in the transportation needs of the residents.
Nov 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement infection prevention and control practices d...

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 implement infection prevention and control practices during wound care, for 3 of five sampled residents (Residents 2, 3, and 4.) This deficient practice had the potential to cause wound infections and delay wound healing process. Findings: a). During an observation on 11/12/2024 at 9:30 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN) 1 in Resident 2 ' s room, LVN 1 cleaned the bedside table and applied plastic cover. LVN 1 washed hands, applied gloves and removed soiled dressing from Resident 2 ' s right heel. LVN 1 applied new pair of gloves and cleansed the right heel wound with normal saline ([NS] a cleansing solution). LVN 1 applied new pair of gloves and applied collagenase santyl ointment (wound ointment to remove damaged tissue from chronic skin ulcers) and covered the wound with gauze. LVN 1 applied vitamin A&D ointment (moisturizer to treat or prevent dry, rough) to Resident 2 ' s left heel and applied Resident 2 ' s bilateral heel protector boots, that had dried flaky skin particles built up inside the boots. During a review of Resident 2 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis that included cerebrovascular accident (CVA-stroke, loss of blood flow to a part of the brain), osteoarthritis (a progressive disorder of the joints, caused by a gradual loss of cartilage), and hypertension (HTN-high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 2 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized care assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/4/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 2 was sometimes understood and able to sometimes be understand. The MDS indicated Resident 2 was dependent with activities of daily living (ADLs) such as dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, transfer (moving between surfaces to and from bed, chair, and wheelchair) and bed mobility (how resident moves from lying to turning side to side). During a review of Resident 2 ' s Treatment Administration Record (TAR) dated 10/1/2024, the TAR indicated to cleanse Resident 2 ' s right heel unstageable pressure wound, with NS pat dry, apply santyl ointment then wrap it with gauze and secure with tape daily for 30 days. b). During an observation on 11/12/2024 at 10:00 a.m. with LVN 1, in Resident 3 ' s room, LVN 1 prepared Resident 3 ' s wound care supplies on the bedside table. LVN 1 was observed washed her hands and applied gown, face shield and gloves for personal protective equipment ([PPE] protection equipment that includes face shields, gloves, goggles and glasses, gowns, head covers, masks, respirators, and shoe cover to protect against the transmission of germs through contact and droplet routes).LVN 1 removed Resident 3 ' s soiled dressing in the sacral area, removed gloves, washed hands, and went outside Resident 3 ' s room wearing the PPE and took wound care supplies from the treatment cart. LVN 1 returned to Resident 3 ' s room, applied gloves, cleansed Resident 3 ' s sacral wound with NS and applied collagenase santyl ointment to Resident 3 ' s sacral area wound and covered the wound with gauze. LVN 1 applied A&D ointment to bilateral feet and applied the heel protector boots. During a review of Resident 3 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis that included cervical disc degeneration (discs in neck wear down), osteoarthritis (a progressive disorder of the joints, caused by a gradual loss of cartilage), and HTN. During a review of Resident 3 ' s history and physical (H&P) dated 11/4/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 3 did have the mental capacity to understand and make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 3 ' s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 3 was able to be understood and be understand by others. The MDS indicated Resident 3 wasdependent with ADLs such as dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and transfer. During a review of Resident 3 ' s TAR dated 10/18/2024, the TAR indicated to cleanse Resident 3 ' s Stage 4 pressure ulcer (full thickness skin loss with extensive destruction; tissue necrosis; or damage to muscle, bones) in the sacral area with NS, pat dry, apply santyl ointment and cover with gauze daily for 30 days. c). During an observation on 11/12/2024 at 10:45 a.m., in Resident 4 ' s room, with LVN 1, LVN 1 prepared Resident 4 ' s wound care supplies on the bedside table. LVN 1 washed hands, applied PPE and gloves and proceed to clean Resident 4 ' s sacral wound with NS. LVN 1 applied collagen powder (medical grade collagen supplements) to the sacral wound, then covered the wound with a gauze. LVN 1 removed gloves, washed his hands and went outside Resident 4 ' s room wearing PPEand took more supplies from the treatment cart. During a review of Resident 4 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 4 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 4 ' s diagnosis included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), peripheral vascular disease (PVD - a slow progressive narrowing of the blood flow to the arms and legs), and HTN. During a review of Resident 4 ' s H&P dated 11/1/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 4 did not have the mental capacity to understand and make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 4 ' s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 4 was rarely/never understood and rarely/never understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 4 was dependent with ADLs such as dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and transfer. During a review of Resident 4 ' s TAR dated 10/25/2024, the TAR indicated to irrigate Resident 4 ' s sacrococcyx stage 4 wound with NS, pat dry, sprinkle with collagen then cover with gauze daily for 30 days. During an interview on 11/12/2024 at 2:30 p.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated prior to starting the wound care, the licensed nurse should gather wound dressing supplies and arrange on a clean table. LVN 1 stated, the licensed nurse should wash hands before applying new gloves and after removing dirty gloves. The LVN 1 stated the license nurses should wash hands before and after removing wound dressings and before applying ointment. The LVN 1 stated, if hand hygiene were not performed, bacteria present in the gloves could cause wound infections. During an interview on 11/12/2024 at 5:09 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated when LVN 1 performed wound care to Residents 2, 3, and 4, the LVN 1 should have washed hands every time gloves are changed. The DON stated nurses should follow that procedure for infection control and avoid cross contamination. The DON stated nurses need to prevent the wound to get worse and get contaminated with bacteria. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Clean Dressing Change, dated 9/17/2024, the P&P indicated, to remove soiled dressing, wash hands, put on clean gloves, then clean the wound as ordered. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Personal Protective Equipment Guidelines, dated 5/29/2024, the P&P indicated to wash hands after removal of gloves or other PPE. The P&P indicated to remove PPE before leaving the work area.
Oct 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to recheck the blood pressure, of one of three sampled residents, (Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to recheck the blood pressure, of one of three sampled residents, (Resident 1). Resident 1 had a physician ' s order of no Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (a procedure to restore normal breathing after cardiac arrest that includes the clearance of air passages to the lungs, mouth-to-mouth method of artificial respiration, and heart massage by the exertion of pressure on the chest) and had a low blood pressure reading. This failure had the potential Resident 1 ' s medical condition not monitored and get worse. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated, Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 1 ' s diagnoses included acute (sudden) osteomyelitis (inflammation of bone or bone marrow, usually due to infection) on the right ankle and foot and end stage renal disease (a terminal illness that occurs when kidneys can no longer function properly). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 8/21/2024, The MDS indicated Resident 1 hadsevere (extreme) cognitive (ability to think, learn, remember, and make decisions) impairment. During a review of Resident 1 ' s physician ' s order dated, 5/15/2024, the physician ' s order indicated Resident 1 had a no Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation order as discussed with resident representative. During a record review of Resident 1 ' s nursing progress notes dated 10/27/2024 at 8:28 a.m., the nursing progress notes indicated Resident 1 ' s blood pressure (BP) medication (metoprolol tartrate tablet 25 milligram (mg- a unit of measurement), diltiazem hydrochloride 120 mg) were held due to Resident 1 ' s BPof 93/55 millimeters of mercury (mmHg – a unit of measurement [normal BP is less than 120 mmHg/80 mmHg) and a heart rate (the number of times the heart beats in one minute) of 53 beats per minute (normal heart rate is 60-100). During an interview on 10/31/24 at 9:54 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, LVN 2 stated Resident 1 ' s baseline BP after dialysis were always low. LVN 2 stated she could have rechecked Resident 1 ' s BP after 15 minutes, then called the physician. During an interview on 10/31/2024 at 10:48 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, if a resident has low BP, resident should be monitored. The DON stated it was important to know resident ' s baseline. The DON stated Even if a resident ' s baseline BP were low, the BP should have been rechecked and the physician informed, if the BP remained low. The DON stated Resident 1 was on palliative care (form of medical care in relieving symptoms without dealing with the cause of the condition) when she was at home.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 2), wa...

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 of three sampled residents (Resident 2), was provided a safe environment when providing wound care. This failure had the potential for Resident 2 to fall and sustain injuries. Findings: During a review of Resident 2 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated, Resident 2 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 2 ' s diagnoses included pressure ulcer (localized, pressure-related damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence) of sacral region (area relating to sacrum, [the large, triangle-shaped bone in the lower spine that forms part of the pelvis]). During a review of Resident 2 ' s History and Physical (H&P) dated 11/3/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 2 did not have the capacity (ability to) to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 9/6/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 2 had cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 2 had one-sided impairment (a loss of ability) on both upper (shoulder, elbow, wrist hand) and lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, foot). Resident 2 ' s MDS indicated Resident 2 was dependent (helper does all the effort) with rolling left and right movements. During an observation on 10/30/2024 at 11:34 a.m., in Resident 2 ' s room, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 and Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 raised Resident 2 ' s bed prior to LVN 1 providing wound care. LVN 1 left Resident 2 to gather supplies. Then, CNA 1 left Resident 2 laying on her left side, with the height of the bed raised, unattended. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 11:56 a.m. with LVN 1 in Resident 2 ' s room, LVN 1 stated residents should not be left alone with the height of bed raised. LVN 1 stated there should have been a staff member with Resident 2. LVN 1 stated that Resident 2 could have fallen out of bed and sustained injuries. During an interview on 10/30/2024 at 3:15 p.m. with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated she should not have left Resident 2with the height of the bed raised, unattended. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/31/2024 at 10:48 a.m., Resident 2 ' s quarterly fall risk assessment (an assessment used to determine a person ' s risk of falling), dated 9/6/2024 was reviewed. The DON stated Resident 2 ' s assessment indicated Resident 2 was at high risk for fall. The DON stated residents who were high risk for fall should not be left alone when providing care. During a review of the facility ' s undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Safety Supervision of Residents, the P&P indicated, resident safety and supervision and assistance to prevent accidents are company-wide priorities.
Oct 2024 21 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nurse Assistant 5 (CNA 5) was not assigned to one ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nurse Assistant 5 (CNA 5) was not assigned to one out of five sampled residents (Resident 195) after the resident's family member (FM 1) filed a grievance regarding CNA 5's loud and rude behavior. This deficient practice had the potential to affect Resident 195's sense of self-worth and self-esteem. Findings: During a review of Resident 195's face sheet (front page of the chart that contains a summary of basic information about the resident), the admission record indicated Resident 195 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The face sheet indicated Resident 195's diagnoses included displaced fracture of the upper end of the left humerus (a broken left upper arm bone), displaced fracture of the lower end of right humerus (a broken right upper portion of the elbow), displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the left femur (a broken thigh bone), and unspecified fracture of the left patella (a break in the kneecap). During a review of Resident 195's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 10/2/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 195's cognitive skills was intact. The MDS also indicated Resident 195 was fully dependent on staff with toileting, showering, upper and lower body dressing, and eating. During a record review of the facility's grievances log, the log indicated Resident 195's family member (FM 1), filed a grievance (a wrong or hardship suffered, real or supposed, which forms legitimate grounds of complaint) on 9/28/2024, stating Resident 195 was not treated with respect by Certified Nurse Assistant 5 (CNA 5). During an interview on 10/17/2024, at 12:02 p.m., with Resident 195, Resident 195 stated she felt CNA 5 had been rude to her two days after she was admitted to the facility. Resident 195 denied being called any derogatory names (a word or phrase that is intended to belittle, disparage, or detract from someone or something). Resident 195 stated the CNA 5 was rude to the resident with the tone of her voice used. Resident 195 stated CNA 5 had spoken loudly to her, but she could not understand what was being said, as there was a language barrier. Resident 195 stated FM 1 filed a grievance against CNA 5. Resident 195 stated she felt safe then began to cry. During an interview, on 10/17/2024, at 12:02 p.m., with the Social Services Director (SSD), the SSD stated she was aware of the grievance FM 1 filed on 9/28/2024. The SSD stated the family and staff had an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT- a team that brings together knowledge from different healthcare disciplines to help patients receive the care they need) meeting regarding dignity concerns such as not knocking and loud talking for Resident 195. The SSD stated staff should have not yelled or became loud when care was provided towards Resident 195. The SSD stated the risk of not providing residents with dignity and respect could result in disturbing a resident, causing a resident to feel intimated and afraid. The SSD stated, It is a dignity issue. During an interview and record review, on 10/17/2024, at 3:16 p.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN 1), RN 1 stated she was aware of the grievance filed by FM 1. RN 1 stated the interventions for the 9/28/2024 grievance included removing CNA 5 from providing care to Resident 195. RN 1 stated the intervention of removing CNA 5 from providing care to Resident 195 was not implemented. RN 1 stated CNA 5 worked with Resident 195 on 10/7/2024, 10/9/2024 and 10/10/2024 for a total of 3 days after she was to be removed from the assignment for Resident 195. RN 1 stated the risk of not providing residents with dignity and respect could result in the fear of retaliation and inadequate care. During an interview on 10/17/2024, at 3:42 p.m., with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated Resident 195 informed her that she was not comfortable with the care provided by CNA 5. The DSD stated Resident 195 stated CNA 5 was loud while in the resident's room. The DSD stated a 1:1 in-service regarding customer care, dignity and respect was provided for CNA 5 on 9/30/2024. The DSD stated CNA 5 should have been removed from providing care for Resident 195 after the grievance was filed. The DSD stated CNA 5 was not removed. The DSD stated the risk of not providing residents with dignity and respect could result in a resident becoming fearful and uncomfortable. During an interview on 10/17/2024, at 4:16 p.m., with the Human Resources Staffing Coordinator (HRSC), the HRSC stated she was the one who coordinated the staffing assignment. The HRSC stated CNA 5 worked with Resident 195 for 3 days after she was to be removed from her care. The HRSC stated CNA 5 should not have been assigned to work with Resident 195. The HRSC stated the risk of not providing dignity and respect could result in fear. The HRSC stated It's not good, you don't want to see anyone that you're afraid of. I'm sorry about that. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P), titled Quality of Life-Dignity, undated, the P&P indicated Staff speak respectfully to residents at all times, including addressing the resident by his or her name of choice and not labeling or referring to the resident by his or her room number, diagnosis or care needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of five sampled residents (Resident 81) was notified...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of five sampled residents (Resident 81) was notified her missing Electronic Benefit Transfer ([EBT]- to access benefits for food and cash aid) card was found. This deficient practice of not notifying Resident 81 the EBT card was found had the potential to cause distress for Resident 81. Findings: During a review of Resident 81's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 81 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 81's diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy (a brain dysfunction caused by a chemical imbalance in the blood that affects the brain), chronic kidney disease (a condition where the kidneys do not work as well as they should), and dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities). During a review of Resident 81's History and Physical (H&P), dated 9/11/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 81 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 81's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a federally mandated assessment tool), dated 9/16/2024 the MDS indicated, Resident 81's cognition (ability to learn, reason, remember, understand, and make decisions) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 81 required substantial assistance from staff for personal hygiene, showering, and dressing. During a review of Residents 81's inventory list titled, Inventory of Personal Effects, dated 9/10/2024, the Inventory of Personal Effects indicated Resident 81 had an identification (ID) pack with an EBT card from the resident's family. During an interview on 10/16/2024 at 10:39 a.m. with Resident 81's Responsible Party (RP) 1, RP 1 stated while visiting Resident 81, Certified Nursing assistant (CNA) 2 told him Resident 81's EBT card was missing. RP 1 stated the EBT card had a value of 190 dollars. RP 1 stated the EBT card had not been found. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 12:00 p.m. with Resident 81, Resident 81 stated her EBT card was missing and did not know what happened to the EBT card. Resident 81 stated she was worried about her EBT card. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 1:52 p.m. with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated Resident 81's EBT card was missing on 10/12/2024. CNA 2 stated she looked everywhere for the EBT card and was not able to locate the EBT card. CNA 2 stated once she could not locate Resident 81's EBT card she notified the registered nurse supervisor. CNA 2 stated Resident 81 was worried about the missing EBT card. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 4:07 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated she was not aware Resident 81's EBT card was missing. RN 1 stated it was important to be notified of the missing EBT card so the staff could continue to look for the EBT card. RN 1 stated the administrator and social worker should have been notified so the EBT card could be replaced. RN 1 stated the staff not notifying each other of Resident 81's missing EBT card delayed the finding of the EBT card and caused more distress for Resident 81. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 4:17 p.m. with the Activities Director (AD), the AD stated Resident 81's EBT card was located in the activity room on 10/14/2024. The AD stated she put the EBT card in her office and did not notify the staff or Resident 81 the EBT card was located. The AD stated it was important to notify the staff, Resident 81, and return the EBT card to eliminate distress. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Residents and Personal Property, date unknown, the P&P indicated, residents are permitted to retain use of personal possessions, appropriate clothing, and as space permits. Reports of misappropriation or mistreatment of resident property are to be investigated through the resident theft/loss/grievance process and documented in the progress notes or through the grievance process.
CONCERN (D)

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of five sampled residents (Resident 81) was offered ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of five sampled residents (Resident 81) was offered an opportunity to file a grievance (a complaint) for a missing Electronic Benefit Transfer ([EBT]- to access benefits for food and cash aid) card. This deficient practice of not allowing Resident 81 to file a grievance for missing the EBT card had the potential to cause distress for Resident 81. Findings: During a review of Resident 81's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 81 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 81's diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy (a brain dysfunction caused by a chemical imbalance in the blood that affects the brain), chronic kidney disease (a condition where the kidneys do not work as well as they should), and dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities). During a review of Resident 81's History and Physical (H&P), dated 9/11/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 81 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 81's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a federally mandated assessment tool), dated 9/16/2024 the MDS indicated, Resident 81's cognition (ability to learn, reason, remember, understand, and make decisions) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 81 required substantial assistance from staff for personal hygiene, showering, and dressing. During a review of Residents 81's inventory list titled, Inventory of Personal Effects, dated 9/10/2024, the Inventory of Personal Effects indicated Resident 81 had an identification (ID) pack with an EBT card from her family. During an interview on 10/16/2024 at 10:39 a.m. with Resident 81's Responsible Party (RP) 1, RP 1 stated while visiting Resident 81, Certified Nursing assistant (CNA) 2 told him Resident 81's EBT card was missing. RP 1 stated the EBT card had a value of 190 dollars. RP 1 stated the EBT card had not been found. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 12:00 p.m. with Resident 81, Resident 81 stated her EBT card was missing and did not know what happened to the EBT card. Resident 81 stated she worried about her EBT card. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 3:55 p.m. with the Social Services Director (SSD), the SSD stated she was not aware Resident 81's EBT card was missing. The SSD stated the process was to investigate and allow Resident 81 to file a grievance for the missing EBT card. The SSD stated if she knew Resident 81's EBT card was missing she would have initiated to have the EBT card replaced. The SSD stated the grievance process was not followed. The SSD stated not allowing Resident 81 to file a grievance could cause distress for the resident. During an interview on 10/17/ 2024 at 4:05 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated she was not aware Resident 81's EBT card was missing. The DON stated the process was for Resident 81 to file a grievance as staff continued to look for the EBT card. The DON stated Resident 81's lost EBT card could cause Resident 81 to have emotional distress and may cause anxiety (a feeling of fear, dread, and uneasiness). During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Grievances and Complaints, date unknown, the P&P indicated, to support each resident's right to voice grievances and to ensure that after a grievance has been received, the company will actively resolve the issue and communicate the resolution's progress to the resident and or resident's family in a timely manner. The P&P indicated the written grievance is to be forwarded to the company's grievance official within 24 hours of receipt.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a federally mandat...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete the Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a federally mandated resident assessment tool) Section A for the level II Preadmission Screening and Resident Review ([PASRR] a tool to determine if the person had or was suspected of having a mental illness or intellectual disability) condition for two out of five sampled residents (Resident 42 and 85). This deficient practice resulted in incorrect data transmitted to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and had the potential to result in inaccurate care and services for Resident 42 and 85. Cross Reference F644. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 42's admission Record (Face Sheet - front page of the chart that contains a summary of basic information about the resident), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission record indicated Resident 42's diagnoses included schizophrenia (a mental illness that is characterized by disturbances in thought), dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), osteoarthritis (a progressive disorder of the joints, caused by a gradual loss of cartilage) of the left shoulder and anemia (a condition where the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells). During a review of Resident 42's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 42's cognitive skills was severely impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 42 was dependent on staff with toileting, showering, upper and lower body dressing, and eating. The MDS also indicated Resident 42 did not have a diagnosis of schizophrenia. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 10/18/2024, at 9:39 a.m., with the MDS Nurse, the MDS Nurse stated Resident 42 had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. The MDS Nurse stated the MDS Assessment regarding mental health disorders did not acknowledge Resident 42's diagnosis. The MDS Nurse stated Resident 42's MDS was inaccurate. The MDS Nurse stated the risk of having inaccurate assessments could result in poor quality of care. The MDS Nurse stated, It should have reflected her having a mental illness. b. During a review of Resident 85's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 85's diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), chronic kidney disease ([CKD]- a condition where the kidneys are damaged and can't filter blood properly), and dysphagia (difficulty of swallowing). During a review of Resident 85's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/6/2024, the H&P indicated, Resident 85 did not have the capacity for medical decision making. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/18/2024 at 11:43 a.m., with the MDS nurse, Resident 85's MDS assessment, dated 6/11/2024 was reviewed. The MDS nurse stated Resident 85's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS nurse stated Resident 85's MDS section A1500 (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review) assessment and A1510 (Level II Preadmissions Screening and Resident Review Conditions) were completed inaccurately. The MDS nurse stated Resident 85's MDS assessment section A1500 should had been coded as 1 and not 0. The MDS nurse stated Resident 85's MDS assessment section A1510 (Level II Preadmissions Screening and Resident Review Conditions) should have a checked on the box for serious mental illness since Resident 85 had a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. The MDS nurse stated accuracy of assessment in the MDS was essential because it involves the care provided by facility staff to the residents. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Certifying Accuracy of the Resident Assessment, the P&P indicated, Any person completing a portion of the Minimum Data Set/MDS (Resident Assessment Instrument) must sign and certify the accuracy of that portion of the assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

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 ensure a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review ([PASRR] a tool...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review ([PASRR] a tool to determine if the person had or was suspected of having a mental illness or intellectual disability) was resubmitted for two out of five sampled residents (Resident 42 and 85). This deficient practice had the potential to result in Residents 42 and 85 not receiving the necessary mental health care and services needed. Cross Reference F641. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 42's admission record (face sheet), the admission record indicated Resident 42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The admission record indicated Resident 42's diagnoses included schizophrenia (a chronic mental disorder that affects how people think, feel, and behave), dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), osteoarthritis (a chronic degenerative joint disease that occurs when the cartilage in a joint breaks down and becomes rough) of the left shoulder, and anemia (a condition where the body doesn't have enough healthy red blood cells or the red blood cells aren't functioning properly). During a review of Resident 42's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated assessment tool), dated 8/9/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 42's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 42 was dependent on staff with toileting, showering, upper and lower body dressing, and eating. During a record review of Resident 42's diagnosis list, the diagnosis list indicated Resident 42 was diagnosed with schizophrenia on 9/20/2021. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 10/18/2024, at 9:39 a.m., with the MDS Nurse, the MDS Nurse stated PASRR's were completed before a resident was admitted to the facility. The MDS Nurse stated if a resident had a mental illness diagnosis, the PASARR process was to be completed. The MDS Nurse stated Resident 42 had a diagnosis of schizophrenia and a PASRR should have had been resubmitted for Resident 42. The MDS Nurse stated the risk of not resubmitting a PASRR could result in a decline in a resident's mental health, and not receiving the additional resources provided by PASRR. b. During a review of Resident 85's Face Sheet (front page of the chart that contains a summary of basic information about the resident), the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 85's diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), chronic kidney disease ([CKD]- a condition where the kidneys are damaged and can't filter blood properly), and dysphagia (difficulty of swallowing). During a review of Resident 85's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/6/2024, the H&P indicated, Resident 85 did not have the capacity for medical decision making. During a review of Resident 85's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated, Resident 85's cognitive skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 85 required supervision (helper provides verbal cues as resident completes activity) from staff with toileting hygiene and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 85's Order Summary Report (a document containing active orders), dated 10/17/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated, Resident 85 had a physician's order of aripiprazole (medication that treats several kinds of mental health conditions) 2 milligrams ([mg] unit of measurement) 1 tablet once a day at bedtime for schizoaffective disorder. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/18/2024 at 11:43 a.m., with the MDS Nurse, Resident 85's PASRR level 1 screening completed and submitted by the general acute care hospital (GACH) on 6/5/2024 was reviewed. The PASRR level 1 screening indicated, Resident 85 had no serious mental illness mental diagnosis and was not receiving psychotropic medications (any drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) for mental illness. The PASRR level 1 screening also indicated Resident 85's case was closed, and a PASRR level 11 mental health evaluation was not required. The MDS nurse stated the PASRR level 1 was not completed accurately since Resident 85 had a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder and was receiving psychotropic medication. The MDS nurse stated the facility should have completed and resubmitted a new PASRR level 1 screening for Resident 85 to indicate the serious mental illness diagnosis and use of psychotropic medication in order to trigger a PASRR level 11 evaluation and redetermination so Resident 85 could be evaluated and possibly receive appropriate treatment recommendations for schizoaffective disorder. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Preadmission Screening and Resident Review, the P&P indicated, The facility's designated staff will review the PASSR from the acute hospital and determine if there is a required follow-up such as a level 11 referral.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 a person-centered care plan for two of five sampled residents (Resident 83 and Resident 195) by failing to: 1. Develop a comprehensive care plan addressing Resident 83's smoking. 2. Develop a care plan after Resident 195 filing of two grievances (a wrong or hardship suffered, real or supposed, which forms legitimate grounds of complaint). These deficient practices had the potential to negatively affect the delivery of necessary care and services for Resident 83 and Resident 195. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 83's Face Sheet (front page of the chart that contains a summary of basic information about the resident), the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 83 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 83's diagnoses included major depressive disorder (a mental health condition characterized by a depressed mood or loss of interest in activities for a prolonged period of time), anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness) and mental disorder (a condition that affect your thinking, feeling, mood, and behavior). During a review of Resident 83's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/9/2024, the H&P indicated, Resident 83 had a capacity for medical decision making. During a review of Resident 83's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 8/13/2024, the MDS indicated, Resident 83's cognitive (ability to think and reason) skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 83 required setup assistance (helper assist only prior to or following the activity) from staff with eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/17/2024 at 2:38 p.m., with the MDS Nurse (MDS Nurse), Resident 83' smoking assessment and evaluation, dated 8/8/2024 was reviewed. The MDS Nurse stated Resident 83's smoking assessment and evaluation indicated, Resident 83 was a smoker and needed supervision in smoking. The MDS Nurse stated Resident 83 had no comprehensive care plan for smoking in his clinical records. The MDS Nurse stated comprehensive care plans should be developed by the interdisciplinary team ([IDT] team members from different disciplines who come together to discuss resident care) upon admission, quarterly and as needed. The MDS Nurse stated a care plan was a communication tool among staff so they would know how to manage and meet the needs of the resident. The MDS Nurse stated it was important to develop a comprehensive care plan addressing Resident 83's smoking for the safety of the staff and other residents. b. During a review of Resident 195's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 195 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 195's diagnoses included displaced fracture of the upper end of the left humerus (a broken left upper arm bone), displaced fracture of the lower end of right humerus (a broken right upper portion of the elbow), displaced intertrochanteric fracture of the left femur (a broken thigh bone), and unspecified fracture of the left patella (a break in the kneecap). During a review of Resident 195's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 195's cognitive skills was intact. The MDS also indicated Resident 195 was fully dependent on staff with toileting, showering, upper and lower body dressing, and eating. During a record review of the facility's grievances log, the log indicated Resident 195's family member (FM 1), filed a grievance on 9/28/2024, indicating Certified Nurse Assistant 5 (CNA 5) was loud and rude while providing resident care to Resident 195. During a review of Resident 195's care plans, the care plans indicated there was no care plan regarding the incident between CNA 5 and Resident 195. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 10/17/2024, at 3:16 p.m., with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1), RN 1 stated care plans were completed upon a resident's admission, change of condition, transfer, or discharge. RN 1 stated there was not a care plan regarding a grievance filing for Resident 195. RN 1 stated the risk could result in delay of care such as inadequate care for a resident. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Plan of Care, the P&P indicated, Each resident will have a comprehensive care plan developed that includes goals, measurable objectives, and timetables to meet their medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs identified during the comprehensive assessment. The P&P also indicated Care plan evaluation must occur in response to changes in the resident's physical, emotional, psychosocial, or communicative status as they occur, as well as following the RAI guidelines.
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 six sampled residents (Resident 32)...

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 six sampled residents (Resident 32) dentures were cleaned daily. This deficient practice of not cleaning Resident 32s dentures daily made Resident 32 feel frustrated. Findings: During a review of Resident 32's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 32 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 32's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), heart failure (a heart disorder which causes the heart to no pump the blood efficiently, sometimes resulting in leg swelling), and blindness (the inability to see or a lack of vision). During a review of Resident 32's History and Physical (H&P), dated 11/10/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 32 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 32's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a federally mandated assessment tool), dated 8/4/2024 the MDS indicated, Resident 32's cognition (ability to learn, reason, remember, understand, and make decisions) had the ability to understand and be understood. The MDS indicated Resident 32 vision was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 32 required substantial assistance from staff for personal hygiene and showering. During a review of Resident 32's Lumina Healthcare, dated 6/13/2024, the Lumina Healthcare dental service indicated, Resident 32 did not use the dentures because it was hard for the resident to put them in (as the resident was blind). During an interview on 10/15/2024 at 10:19 a.m. with Resident 32, Resident 32 stated his dentures were not cleaned daily. Resident 32 stated the staff did not clean nor put them on the table within reach before eating. Resident 32 stated since he was blind it was hard for the resident to keep track if the dentures were cleaned or not. During an interview on 10/16/2024 at 11:45 a.m. with Resident 32, in his room, Resident 32 stated the staff did not offer to clean his dentures. Resident 32 stated he did not wear them because he did not know if they were clean or not. Resident 32 stated it was frustrating because he was blind and when the dentures were in his mouth, they felt dirty. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 4:46 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the certified nursing assistants (CNA) were to soak the dentures at night and clean them in the morning. The DON stated after the dentures were cleaned the CNAs were to place the dentures within reach. The DON stated since Resident 32 was blind the CNAs should explain that the dentures were cleaned and offered to put the dentures in the resident's mouth. The DON stated not cleaning Resident 32's dentures could cause emotional stress due to the lack of not listening to the resident's concerns. During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 32 on 10/17/2024 at 8:30 a.m., in Resident 32's room, there were no dentures observed. Resident 32 stated the dentures were not offered for breakfast. Resident 32 stated it would be easier to eat the food with dentures. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/18/2024 at 9:37 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 7, CNA 7 stated Resident 32's dentures were in the drawer and not within reach for the resident to eat his breakfast. CNA 7 stated the dentures were to be cleaned daily and placed on the resident bedside table. CNA 7 stated Resident 32 was blind, and the dentures should be offered so the resident could chew his food. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Assisting the Resident to Eat, date unknown, the P&P indicated, to assist the resident to eat. The P&P indicated, assist the resident with hand washing and oral hygiene or dentures. The P&P indicated, identify food and location on the tray for residents with visual problems. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Denture Care date unknown, the P&P indicated, to remove soft plaque deposits and calculus and to reduce mouth odor. The P&P indicated to wash with warm water and place dentures in a clean denture cup. The P&P indicated to encourage resident to wear dentures to enhance appearance, facilitate eating, and speaking, and prevent change in gum line that may affect denture fit.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a follow-up cataract (a medical condition in which the lens ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a follow-up cataract (a medical condition in which the lens of the eye becomes cloudy) and glaucoma (group of eye conditions that can cause blindness and gradual loss of sight) appointment was scheduled for one of three sampled residents (Resident 85). This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 85's worsening vision that would negatively affect his quality of life. Findings: During a review of Resident 85's Face Sheet (front page of the chart that contains a summary of basic information about the resident), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 85 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 85's diagnoses included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), chronic kidney disease ([CKD]- a condition where the kidneys are damaged and can't filter blood properly), and dysphagia (difficulty of swallowing). During a review of Resident 85's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/6/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 85 did not have the capacity for medical decision making. During a review of Resident 85's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 9/11/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 85's cognitive (ability to think and reason) skills for daily decision making was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 85's vision was impaired. During a review of Resident 85's Eye Consultation Record, dated 9/9/2024, the eye consultation record indicated Resident 85 required an ophthalmology (a branch of medical science dealing with the structure, functions, and diseases of the eye) referral to evaluate for cataracts and glaucoma. During an interview on 10/15/2024 at 11:01 a.m., with Resident 85, in Resident 85's room, Resident 85 stated he had blurry vision on his right eye and had difficulty in reading the newspaper. Resident 85 stated he was waiting for his new prescription of eyeglasses. Resident 85 stated he was seen by a physician last month and recommended for the resident to be seen by an eye specialist because of his poor vision. Resident 85 stated he did not want to lose his eyesight. During an interview and record review on 10/17/2024 at 2:31 p.m. with the Social Service Director (SSD), Resident 85's clinical records were reviewed. The SSD stated she was responsible for scheduling ophthalmology appointments for all residents. The SSD stated she was not aware Resident 85 needed an ophthalmology appointment to evaluate his cataracts and glaucoma. The SSD stated there was no documentation or follow up by staff that Resident 85 was referred to see an ophthalmologist. The SSD stated the risk of not following up on Resident 85's eye appointment could result in delay of care and treatment, and blindness that would affect his quality of life. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Social Services Program, the P&P indicated, General services which a social service department may assist, oversee, or manage could include making referrals and arrangement for and obtaining services from outside referrals including vision, hearing, dental care, and podiatry. During a review of the facility's undated P&P titled, Quality of Care, the P&P indicated, Based on the comprehensive assessment of a resident, the facility must ensure that residents receive treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice, the comprehensive person-centered care plan, and the residents choices.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**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 six residents (Resident 84) had the...

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 six residents (Resident 84) had the correct low air loss (LAL) mattress (an air mattress with small holes that helps prevent pressure wounds and keeps the skin dry and cool) setting to prevent pressure ulcer development (localized injuries to the skin and soft tissue caused by prolonged pressure on the skin). This deficient practice of not having the correct LAL mattress settings had the potential for Resident 84 to develop a pressure ulcer. Findings: During a review of Resident 84's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 84 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 84's diagnoses included failure to thrive (a decline caused by chronic diseases and functional impairments which can cause weight loss, decreased appetite, poor nutrition, and inactivity), dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing). During a review of Resident 84's History and Physical (H&P), dated 9/11/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 84 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. The H&P indicated Resident 84 had rashes, ulcers, and blanchable redness (when redness on the skin temporarily disappears when light pressure is applied) to the left heel. During a review of Resident 84's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a federally mandated assessment tool), dated 5/12/2024, the MDS indicated, Resident 84's cognition (ability to learn, reason, remember, understand, and make decisions) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 84 was at risk of developing pressure ulcers. The MDS indicated Resident 84 required substantial assistance from staff for personal hygiene, showering, and dressing. The MDS indicated Resident 84 was dependent to roll left and right. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/16/2024 at 3:56 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, in Resident 84's room, Resident 84's LAL mattress setting was set at 400 pounds. LVN 1 stated the setting was incorrect and it should be set at Resident 84's weight of 101 pounds. LVN 1 stated the LAL mattress was used for skin wound management to prevent skin breakdown. LVN 1 stated if the settings were not set correct it could put the resident at risk for skin breakdown. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 1:08 p.m. with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse, the MDS Nurse stated the LAL mattress was used to reduce the pressure on the skin for residents who were at high risk for skin breakdown. The MDS Nurse stated Resident 84 was at high risk for skin breakdown. The MDS Nurse stated it was important to have the correct settings on the LAL mattress to uphold Resident 84's skin integrity and to help with circulation. The MDS Nurse stated if the LAL mattress settings were not set properly set; it had the potential to place Resident 84 at risk for pressure ulcers. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Low Air Loss Therapy Bed, date unknown, the P&P indicated low air loss therapy beds consist of segmented, air-filled cushions that provide surface area for pressure relief. The P&P indicated low air loss therapy beds inflate to specific pressures based on the height and weight of the patient.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

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 six sampled residents (Resident 32)...

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 six sampled residents (Resident 32) had the correct diet texture when not wearing dentures. This deficient practice of not providing the correct diet texture had the potential for Resident 32 to not properly chew his food. Findings: During a review of Resident 32's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 32 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 32's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), heart failure (a heart disorder which causes the heart to no pump the blood efficiently, sometimes resulting in leg swelling), and blindness (the inability to see or a lack of vision). During a review of Resident 32's History and Physical (H&P), dated 11/10/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 32 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 32's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a federally mandated assessment tool), dated 8/4/2024 the MDS indicated, Resident 32's had the ability to understand and be understood. The MDS indicated Resident 32 vision was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 32 required substantial assistance from staff for personal hygiene and showering, and supervision with eating and oral hygiene. During a review of Resident 32's Lumina Healthcare document dated 6/13/2024, the Lumina Healthcare dental service indicated, Resident 32 did not wear dentures because it was hard for the resident to put them in. During a review of Resident 32's Physician Order Report, dated 10/2024, the Physician order Report indicated a low sodium (salt) regular diet. During an interview on 10/15/2024 at 10:19 a.m. with Resident 32, Resident 32 stated I am blind, and the staff do not offer my dentures while I'm eating. Resident 32 stated the food texture sometimes made it difficult to chew his food without dentures. Resident 32 stated he was frustrated when meat was served because it was hard to chew. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/16/14 at 4:46 p.m. with the Registered Dietitian (RD), Resident 32's Physician Order Report, dated 10/2024 was reviewed. The Physician Order Report indicated, Resident 32 was on a low sodium regular diet. The RD stated the diets were reviewed quarterly and as needed. The RD stated Resident 32's textured food should correlate with him not wearing dentures. The RD stated it was important to assist Resident 32 at all-times with wearing dentures due to his blindness. The RD stated if the texture of the food was too hard for the resident to chew without dentures than it placed him at risk for weight loss. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/18/14 at 10:29 a.m. with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse, Resident 32's Physician Order Report, dated 10/2024 was reviewed. The Physician Order Report indicated, Resident 32 was on a low sodium regular diet. The MDS Nurse stated Resident 32 was on a low sodium diet. The MDS Nurse stated Resident 32's diet needed to be downgraded to fit a diet texture to match that the resident was not wearing dentures. The MDS Nurse stated Resident 32 needed to be screened for the correct texture diet to prevent choking. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), Registered Dietician, date unknown, the P&P indicated, plans, organizes, coordinates, and evaluates nutritional component of food services for the facility. The P&P indicated plans menus and diets for special nutritional requirements. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), Nutrition Policy, date unknown, the P&P indicated, residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as body weight and protein levels, unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrates that this is not possible. The P&P indicated the company provides special eating equipment and utensils for resident who need them.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

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 of one sample resident (Resident 83) with ...

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 of one sample resident (Resident 83) with post traumatic stress disorder ([PTSD] - a disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event) received informed trauma care ([TIC] - an intervention and approach that focuses on how trauma may affect an individual's life and his or her response to behavioral health) per their policy. This deficient practice had the potential for the staff's inability to identify possible triggers that could result in re-traumatization (the reactivation of trauma symptoms via thoughts, memories, or feelings related to the past traumatic experience) for Resident 83. Cross Reference F745. Findings: During a review of Resident 83's Face Sheet (front page of the chart that contains a summary of basic information about the resident), the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 83 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 83's diagnoses included major depressive disorder (a mental health condition characterized by a depressed mood or loss of interest in activities for a prolonged period of time), anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness) and mental disorder (a condition that affect your thinking, feeling, mood, and behavior). During a review of Resident 83's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/9/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 83 had a capacity for medical decision making. During a review of Resident 83's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 8/13/2024, the MDS indicated, Resident 83's cognitive (ability to think and reason) skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 83 required setup assistance (helper assist only prior to or following the activity) from staff with eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 83's care plan titled, Resident with emotional and psychological deficit due to depression, dated 8/8/2024, the care plan indicated the goal was to maximize the resident's functional potential and well-being. Staff interventions included to identify depressive symptoms and situations that might trigger depressive symptoms to occur and to provide psychosocial treatment. During a review of Resident 83's Trauma-Informed Care Observation record, dated 8/10/2024, the Trauma-Informed Care Observation record indicated, Resident 83 experienced and witnessed a life-threatening illness when his wife passed away with cancer. The Trauma-Informed Care Observation record also indicated Resident 83 felt sad always thinking about his wife and the event still bothered him. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/16/2024 at 1:53 p.m., with Resident 83, in Resident 83's room, Resident 83 was observed teary eyed. Resident 83 stated he lost his wife 11 months ago after suffering a long battle with cancer. Resident 83 stated he was there from the beginning to end until she passed away holding her hands. Resident 83 stated it was the worst experience and traumatic event in his life. Resident 83 stated none of the staff visited him to provide psychosocial support. Resident 83 stated he wanted to join group therapy so he could share his thoughts and experience with others. Resident 83 stated group therapy was not offered to him by staff. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 11:39 a.m., with the Social Service Director (SSD), the SSD stated it was a federal requirement to screen all residents for history of trauma. The SSD stated it was important to know what traumatic event Resident 83 experienced for staff to know the triggers to prevent re-traumatization. The SSD stated losing a family member was a traumatic event. The SSD stated Resident 83's trauma triggering event would affect his activities of daily living ([ADL's] routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing, and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves) and his quality of life. The SSD stated the facility did not address Resident 83's past traumatic experience and did not provide any interventions to alleviate his trauma. During a review of the Facility Assessment titled Caring for Residents with Trauma and PTSD, revised 9/7/2024, the Facility Assessment indicated, To utilize customized behavioral management techniques that cater to the individual resident's specific requirements and preferences, emphasizing positive reinforcement, redirection, and de-escalation methods. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Trauma Informed Care, dated 8/23/2024, the P&P indicated, To develop an organizational culture that supports trauma-informed care. The P&P also indicated to develop relationship with community support organizations for services, referrals, training and information. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Psychosocial Wellbeing-Behavioral Health Services, dated 8/11/2024, the P&P indicated, Residents who exhibit signs of emotional/psychosocial distress receive services and support that address their individual needs and goals of care. The P&P also indicated behavioral health services are provided by staff who are qualified and competent in behavioral health and trauma-informed care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0711 (Tag F0711)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff was following the physician orders f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the staff was following the physician orders for the correct oxygen settings for one out five sampled Residents (Resident 12). This deficient practice of not following the physician orders had the potential to worsen Resident 12's health. Findings: During a review of Resident 12's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 12's diagnoses included emphysema (a chronic lung disease that damages the air sacs in the lungs, making it hard to breathe), end stage renal disease (irreversible kidney failure), and heart failure (a heart disorder which causes the heart to no pump the blood efficiently, sometimes resulting in leg swelling). During a review of Resident 12's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/17/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 12 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 12's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a federally mandated assessment tool), dated 8/21/2024 the MDS indicated, Resident 12's cognition (ability to learn, reason, remember, understand, and make decisions) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 12 required substantial assistance from staff for personal hygiene, showering, and dressing. During an observation on 10/16/2024 at 8:09 a.m. in Residents 12's room, Resident 12's oxygen concentrator (medical device that supplies oxygen-enriched air to help people breathe easier) was set at three liters (a metric unit of volume) per minute. During a review of Resident 12's Physician Order Report, dated 10/2024, the Physician Order Report indicated, Resident 12 may have continuous oxygen at two liters via nasal canula (a medical device that provides supplemental oxygen to patients through two prongs inserted into their nostrils). During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/16/2024 at 3:50 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, in Resident 12's room, Resident 12's oxygen setting was observed at three liters. LVN 1 stated Resident 12's oxygen should be set at two liters not at three liters. LVN 1 stated the physician orders were not being followed. LVN 1 stated it was important to follow the physician orders to give the correct dose of oxygen of two liters. LVN 1 stated the higher dose of oxygen could cause direct injury to the lungs and exacerbate (a worsening of a medical condition or its symptoms) Resident 12's emphysema. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/18/2024 at 3:21 p.m. with the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse, Resident 12's Physician Order Report, dated 10/2024, was reviewed. The Physician Order Report indicated, Resident 12 may have continuous oxygen at two liters via nasal canula. The MDS Nurse stated the physician order for oxygen was considered a medication. The MDS Nurse stated once the oxygen settings pass two liters the orders were no longer being followed. The MDS Nurse stated it was important to follow the physician orders to give the proper care to Resident 12. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Physician Orders, date unknown, the P&P indicated, physician orders are obtained to provide a clear direction in the care of the resident. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Pass Guidelines, the P&P indicated, to assure the most complete and accurate implementation of physicians' medication orders and to optimize drug therapy for each resident by providing for administration of drugs in an accurate and safe manner. The P&P indicated medications are administrated in accordance with written orders of the attending physician.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided with medically related...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was provided with medically related social services and emotional support while grieving for one of one sampled resident (Resident 83). This deficient practice placed Resident 83 at risk for further depression (a serious mental illness that can affect how a person feels, thinks, and acts) and ineffective coping ability. Cross Reference F699 Findings: During a review of Resident 83's Face Sheet (front page of the chart that contains a summary of basic information about the resident), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 83 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 83's diagnoses included major depressive disorder (a mental health condition characterized by a depressed mood or loss of interest in activities for a prolonged period of time), anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness) and mental disorder (a condition that affect your thinking, feeling, mood, and behavior). During a review of Resident 83's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/9/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 83 had capacity for medical decision making. During a review of Resident 83's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 8/13/2024, the MDS indicated, Resident 83's cognitive (ability to think and reason) skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 83 required setup assistance (helper assist only prior to or following the activity) from staff with eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 83's care plan titled, Resident with emotional and psychological deficit due to depression, dated 8/8/2024, the care plan indicated a goal was to maximize the resident's functional potential and well-being. The staff's interventions indicated to identify depressive symptoms and situations that might trigger depressive symptoms to occur and to provide psychosocial treatment. During a review of Resident 83's Trauma-Informed Care Observation record, dated 8/10/2024, the Trauma-Informed Care Observation record indicated, Resident 83 experienced and witnessed a life-threatening illness when his wife passed away with cancer. The Trauma-Informed Care Observation record also indicated Resident 83 felt sad while always thinking about his wife and the event still bothered him. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/16/2024 at 1:53 p.m., with Resident 83, in Resident 83's room, Resident 83 was observed teary eyed. Resident 83 stated he lost his wife 11 months ago after she suffered a long battle with cancer. Resident 83 stated he was there from beginning to end until she passed away holding her hands. Resident 83 stated it was terribly hard for him losing his wife and he was still self-grieving. Resident 83 stated he wanted to join group therapy so he could share his thoughts and experience with others. Resident 83 stated he had not been seen by a psychologist (a person who specializes in the study of mind and behavior or in the treatment of mental, emotional, and behavior disorders) since his admission to the facility. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 11:39 a.m., with the Social Service Director (SSD), the SSD stated she was responsible in assessing the behavior, mental, and psychosocial issues of all residents. The SSD stated she could not provide any documentation that daily supportive visits, emotional support, and other interventions such as group therapy were offered to Resident 83. The SSD stated she had no reason as to why Resident 83 was not referred to the psychologist. The SSD stated Resident 83 would think he was left out and that none of the staff cared about him. The SSD stated by not providing psychosocial services to Resident 83 he would be more at risk for further depression. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Social Services Program, the P&P indicated, A resident who displays mental or psychosocial adjustment difficulty receives appropriate treatment and services to correct the assessed problem. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Psychosocial Wellbeing-Behavioral Health Services, dated 8/11/2024, the P&P indicated, Residents will receive behavioral health services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being in accordance with the comprehensive assessment and plan of care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a pharmacy consultant (a professional responsible for review...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a pharmacy consultant (a professional responsible for reviewing each resident's medication profile monthly to identify and report changes) recommendation to consider a trial reduction of psychotropic medication (drug that affects behavior, mood, thoughts, or perception) was acknowledged and acted upon for one out of five sampled residents (Resident 83). This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 83 receiving unnecessary medication. Findings: During a review of Resident 83's Face Sheet (front page of the chart that contains a summary of basic information about the resident), the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 83 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 83's diagnoses included major depressive disorder (a mental health condition characterized by a depressed mood or loss of interest in activities for a prolonged period of time), anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness) and mental disorder (a condition that affect your thinking, feeling, mood, and behavior). During a review of Resident 83's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/9/2024, the H&P indicated, Resident 83 had capacity for medical decision making. During a review of Resident 83's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 8/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 83's cognitive (ability to think and reason) skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 83 required setup assistance (helper assist only prior to or following the activity) from staff with eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 83's Order Summary Report (a document containing active orders), dated 10/16/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated, Resident 83 had a physician's order of Seroquel (medication that treats several kind of mental health conditions) 25 milligrams ([mg] unit of measurement) 1 tablet once a day at bedtime for paranoia (a mental disorder in which a person has an extreme fear and distrust of others) manifested by talking to self and unseen person. During a review of the consultant pharmacist Medication Regimen Review (MRR), dated 8/12/2024, the MRR indicated the consultant pharmacist made a recommendation to Resident 83's attending physician to consider a trial reduction and to assess continued use of Seroquel 25mg once a day at bedtime. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/17/2024 at 11:24 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 83's clinical records were reviewed. The DON stated the facility failed to take any action on the consultant pharmacist recommendation by not informing Resident 83's physician. The DON stated the pharmacy consultant recommendation note should be signed and dated by Resident 83's physician. The DON stated all pharmacy consultant recommendations should be addressed accordingly to ensure the resident was not receiving unnecessary medications that would result in the resident's decline in physical and mental function. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Regimen Review and Reporting, the P&P indicated, Resident-specific MRR recommendations and findings are documented and acted upon by the nursing care center and/or physician. The P&P also indicated the nursing care center follows-up on the recommendations to verify that appropriate action has been taken and shall be acted upon within 30 calendar days.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure an opened multi-dose tuberculin (a sterile liq...

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 an opened multi-dose tuberculin (a sterile liquid that contains substances taken from the bacterium that causes tuberculosis and is used in the diagnosis of the disease) vial was labeled with an expiration date in the medication storage room. This deficient practice had the potential to result in a medication error and/or administering expired medication. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview, on [DATE], at 8:53 a.m., with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1), a multidose vial of tuberculin purified protein derivative vial was observed in the refrigerator with a date of [DATE] and no expiration date. RN 1 stated the vial was just opened and was to be labelled with an expiration date. RN 1 stated the date written on the vial box also could have been confusing and taken as an expiration date instead of an open date. RN 1 stated the risk of not labeling an expiration date on a medication could result in giving expired medication and/or a medication error. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P), titled Medication Storage, undated, the P&P indicated Refrigerated medications should be kept in closed and labeled containers.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the oxygen humidifier (a device that adds mois...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the oxygen humidifier (a device that adds moisture to prevent dryness) was dated and labeled for one out of five sampled residents (Resident 12). This deficient practice of not dating and labeling the oxygen humidifier had the potential to cause respiratory infection to Resident 12. Findings: During a review of Resident 12's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 12's diagnoses included emphysema (a chronic lung disease that damages the air sacs in the lungs, making it hard to breathe), end stage renal disease (irreversible kidney failure), and heart failure (a heart disorder which causes the heart to no pump the blood efficiently, sometimes resulting in leg swelling). During a review of Resident 12's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/17/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 12 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 12's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a federally mandated assessment tool), dated 8/21/2024 the MDS indicated, Resident 12's cognition (ability to learn, reason, remember, understand, and make decisions) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 12 required substantial assistance from staff for personal hygiene, showering, and dressing. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/16/2024 at 3:42 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, in Resident 12's room, Resident 12's oxygen humidifier observed undated and unlabeled. LVN 1 stated the humidifier was not dated and labeled and should be changed once a week. LVN 1 stated if the humidifier was not dated and labeled Resident 12 was at risk for bacteria in the tubing which could affect Resident 12's respiratory system (the organs that are involved in breathing). LVN 1 stated this would place Resident 12 at risk for a respiratory infection. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 12:47 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the humidifier should be changed every Sunday or as needed. The DON stated when the humidifier was changed the staff should label and date after it was opened. The DON stated if the humidifier was not labeled and dated the staff did not know when the humidifier was opened. The DON stated it could make Resident 12 sick when the humidifier lasted longer than seven days. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Care and Handling of Respiratory Equipment, date unknown, the P&P indicated, care should be exercised in handling respiratory equipment to prevent contamination. The P&P indicated all respiratory and nursing personnel shall follow a regular schedule for cleaning and maintaining respiratory equipment. The P&P indicated equipment should be changed based on the following schedule change every seven days or when obviously contaminated.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a competency assessment skills check (a measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a competency assessment skills check (a measurable pattern of knowledge, skills, abilities, behaviors, and other characteristics in performing that an individual need to perform work roles or occupational functions successfully) was performed upon hire and annually for two out of five randomly selected staff. This deficient practice had the potential for the facility to not be able to assess the skills necessary to provide nursing services while assuring resident safety and attaining or maintaining the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident within the acceptable standards of practice. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/17/2024 at 8:45 a.m., with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), Registered Nurse (RN 1), Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 1), CNA 2, CNA 3, and CNA 4's employee files were reviewed. The DSD stated RN 1, CNA 1, CNA 2, CNA 3, and CNA 4 did not have an annual skills competency assessment check on file. The DSD stated a skills competency assessment check must be performed upon hire and annually. The DSD stated she was not able to complete an annual skills competency assessment for CNA 1, CNA 2, CNA 3, and CNA 4. The DSD stated the Director of Nursing (DON) was not able to complete an annual competency assessment skills for RN 1. The DSD stated the importance of competency assessment skills were to validate the licensed nursing staff and CNA's ability to meet the needs of the resident's health and safety. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 12:08 p.m., with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated it was essential to perform an annual competency assessment skills to make sure all employees were up to date with the state and federal regulations. The ADM stated competency assessment skills of an employee would reflect the care provided to the resident. During a review of the facility's undated Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Competency of Nursing Staff, the P&P indicated, Competency skills evaluation will be completed upon orientation and annually thereafter, or when there is a need to evaluate competency of the employee as deemed necessary by the Director of Nursing/Administrator. During a review of the Facility Assessment, dated 9/7/2024, the Facility Assessment indicated, The DSD will provide ongoing training and assess competencies upon hire, annually, as needed, and on demand.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the standardized recipes for lunch menu and foo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the standardized recipes for lunch menu and food preferences was followed when: 1. 25 of 25 residents who were on mechanical soft diets and 20 of 20 residents who were on puree diets were served using a smaller scoop size of ground/finely chopped meat and squash. 2. One of one resident (Resident 33), who was a vegetarian was served hamburger meat. This deficient practice resulted in the residents receiving incorrect portion sizes and non-preferred food, which had the potential to affect residents' nutritional intake and result in weight loss. Findings: a. During an observation on the tray line service for lunch on 10/16/2024 at 11:18 a.m., the cook (Cook) served residents who were on mechanical soft diet (consists of foods that are moist, or easily mashed requiring little chewing) ground cheeseburger using the #12 scoop yielding 2.7 ounces (oz). The [NAME] served soft mashed squash using the #16 scoop yielding 2 oz or 1/4 cup. During an interview on 10/16/2024 at 12:39 p.m. the [NAME] stated that the green handle was 4 oz and the person who was responsible for set up scoops for food trays was the Dietary Aide (DA 1). During an interview on 10/16/2024 at 12:43 p.m. The DA 1 stated a 2 oz scoop was used to serve soft mash squash instead of a 4 oz scoop. DA 1 could not see what was written on the scoop because of the handle was melted off. DA 1 stated a 4 oz scoop was used to serve ground beef instead of 8 oz. During an interview 10/16/2024 at 12:54 p.m. with the Registered Dietician (RD), the RD stated the portions served to residents were incorrect for cheeseburger and squash. The RD stated there was a potential for the residents to have weight loss if portions are smaller, or maybe too much protein if larger portions were served. The RD stated it had been a while since the last in-service on portion sizes. During a review of the facility's lunch menu for pureed and mechanical soft diet on 10/16/2024, the following items were served for residents on mechanical soft diet including ground cheeseburger 5/8 cup and for residents on pureed diet, pureed squash 1/4 cup. A review of facility's policy titled, Portion Control, undated, indicated, Portion size is determined by the nutritional needs of the residents and federal and state regulations that specify the food group and portion sizes that must be served. Use standardized recipes based on Company census and cycle menus. Serve portion s according to the menu spreadsheet. Use scoops, spoodles, ladles, and scales to serve proper menu portions. b. During an interview with Resident 33 on 10/15/2024, at 10:18 a.m., Resident 33 stated she was a vegetarian but the facility serves her meals that include meat dishes. A review of Resident 33's diet order indicated a regular diet, no added salt (NAS), reduced concentrated sweets (RCS), jello with all meals, small portion only, salad for lunch [NAME] at patient's request. During an observation of 10/16/2024, at 12:40 p.m., Resident 33 was served a plate of food with a hamburger bun with a slice of orange cheese and a meat patty on it. During an interview on 10/16/2024, at 11:40 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 8, CNA 8 stated she was aware Resident 33 was a vegetarian. During an interview on 10/16/2024, at 4:30 pm, with the Director of Dietary Services (DDS), the DDS stated was new to the facility and had not spoken with Resident 33 about her preferences but will interview do so as well as other residents. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Nutrition Care, dated 2018, indicated the food preferences should be minimally reviewed quarterly with the resident/patient by the DSS and as needed with a clinical risk. Food preferences are recorded in the medical record, profile, and trade card.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and proper storage of items in the refrigerator when : 1. One frozen bottled water was found not labelled in the free...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and proper storage of items in the refrigerator when : 1. One frozen bottled water was found not labelled in the freezer. 2. Undated, opened food items were found in the refrigerator and under the food preparation counter. 3. The internal refrigerator fan which was blowing air over uncovered fresh produce had black substances on the fan blades. These deficient practices of not dating and labelling opened food, improper sanitation of equipment for food storage, and food stored in open containers without covers had the potential for harmful bacteria growth and cross-contamination (transfer of harmful bacteria from one place to another) that could lead to food -borne illness. Findings: During an observation on 10/15/2024 at 8:15 a.m., in the kitchen, the following was observed: 1. In freezer #3, a water bottle was on shelf without a label , 2. In refrigerator #1 a bag of white sliced bread loaf, no open date, no use by date 3. Under the food preparation counter, stored foods were observed: Oatmeal, grits, hot sauce bottle and cornstarch had no open date or use by date 4. In refrigerator #4 a container of pickle relish with open date of 5/12/2024, had no use by date, and mayonnaise container had no open date and no use by date. During a concurrent observation and interview with the Director of Dietary Services (DDS) on 10/15/2024 at 8:39 a.m., above the top shelf of refrigerator #4, one internal fan was observed with black substance, the refrigerator had fresh produce located on shelves to the right of fan without covers. The DDS stated, It looks dirty. The DDS stated the fans are not cleaned by maintenance, that the facility calls for service. The DDS stated the dirty fan was an issue because of the potential for cross contamination and how food was stored without lids. During an interview on 10/16/2024 at 12:34 p.m., with the Registered Dietician (RD), the RD stated there was dirt on the fan in the refrigerator and the uncovered fresh produce on shelves. The RD stated the fans in the refrigerator are for circulation and the dirty fan and open containers of produce could potentially give the residents food poisoning. The RD stated the fans should be cleaned on a regular basis and the produce should be covered. During a review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Food Storage Principles, undated, the P&P indicated to, Label each package, box, can, etc. with the expiration date, date of receipt, or when the item was stored after preparation. During a review of the facility P&P titled Cold Food Storage Areas, undated, the P&P indicated, Units work effectively and efficiently when maintained, cleaned, and serviced. Maximize air circulation by not overcrowding. Store foods in original packaging and in leak-prof, non-absorbent, sanitary containers with tight-fitting lids. During a review of the facility policy titled Preventative Maintenance Program, undated, the P&P indicated, A company-wide system to communicate issues or items that need attention, repair, or replacement. A schedule for performing preventative maintenance.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise and provide an updated accurate resident census in the Facility's Assessment (a process for evaluating a facility's resident populat...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise and provide an updated accurate resident census in the Facility's Assessment (a process for evaluating a facility's resident population and identifying the resources needed to provide care and services). This deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for delay of care and treatment services. Findings: During a review of the facility census for 10/15/2024, indicated 94 residents were residing in the facility. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/18/2024 at 8:13 a.m., with the Administrator (ADM), the Facility's Assessment was reviewed. The ADM stated the Facility's Assessment was last updated on 9/7/2024. The ADM stated the assessment provided was an average daily census of 88 to 91 residents. The ADM stated the census recorded on the Facility Assessment did not match with the current census. The ADM stated the Facility Assessment did not match the census number and for section for Assistance with Activities of Daily Living ([ADL's] - routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing, and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves) for residents. The ADM stated there were residents who were not accounted for on the Facility Assessment. The ADM stated she was responsible for updating the Facility Assessment. The ADM stated the Facility Assessment was an overview of the services provided by the facility to the resident population. The ADM stated the risk of incorrect documentation on the Facility Assessment could result in not providing quality and standard of care to residents. During a review of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), reference QSO-24-13-NH, dated 6/18/2024, titled Revised Guidance for Long-Term Care Facility Assessment Requirements, the CMS QSO-24-13-NH indicated the new requirements specify that the facility assessment must include an evaluation of diseases, conditions, physical or cognitive limitations of the resident population, acuity (the level of severity of residents' illnesses, physical, mental, and cognitive limitations, and conditions) and any other pertinent information about the resident population as a whole that may affect the services the facility must provide. The CMS QSO-24-13-NH indicated the facility must conduct and document a facility-wide assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for its residents competently during both day-to-day operations including nights and weekends and emergencies. The CMS QSO-24-13-NH indicated the facility must review and update that assessment, as necessary, and at least annually, and also review and update the assessment whenever there is, or the facility plans, for any change that would require a substantial modification to any part of the assessment.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the antibiotic stewardship program (coordinated program ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the antibiotic stewardship program (coordinated program that promotes the appropriate use of antibiotics by clinicians) by failing to monitor and address antibiotic (a substance used to kill bacteria or to treat infection) use for one of one sampled resident (Resident 20) who was on antibiotics for urinary tract infection [(UTI) an infection in the bladder/urinary tract] was not evaluated when the resident returned from the hospital. The failure had the potential for Resident 20 to receive an inappropriate antibiotic and develop antibiotic resistance. Findings: During a record review of Resident 20 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included UTI, sepsis (a life-threatening blood infection) and diabetes mellitus [(DM) a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing]. During a record review of Minimum Data Set [(MDS) a federally mandated assessment tool] dated 8/07/2024, the MDS indicated the resident had a moderately impaired cognition (thought process). During a record review of Resident 20 ' s laboratory report dated 10/9/2024, from General Acute Care Hospital (GACH 1), the laboratory report indicated urinalysis values for the following: clarity = turbid, protein = 1+, occult blood (blood in the urine) = 2+, nitrite = positive, and urine microscopic: bacteria 3+ During a record review of Resident 20 ' s Physician ' s Order (prescription) dated 10/10/2024, the order indicated Bactrim DS (sulfamethoxazole-trimethoprim combination, used to treat bacterial infections including urinary tract infections) dated 10/10/2024, oral tablet 800-160 milligrams (mg, unit of weight), 1 tablet to be given by mouth twice a day for 10 days for UTI. The order indicated Bactrim DS end date of 10/19/2024. During a record review of Resident 20 ' s Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 10/01/2024 through 10/17/2024, the MAR indicated Resident 20 was administered Bactrim DS 800-160 mg, one tablet by mouth twice a day for UTI since 10/10/2024. During a record review of Resident 20 ' s Care Plan initiated on 10/10/2024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 20 had presence of UTI. The Care Plan ' s goal indicated the infection will be resolved after a course of treatment, ensure comfort and relief from signs and symptoms of UTI, will be able to complete treatment without complications. The Care Plan ' s interventions included check for signs and symptoms of dehydration, monitor for increased/continuing signs of infection, check for adverse reaction from antibiotic therapy, and obtain a urine test as ordered. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 3:59 p.m. with Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), the IPN stated Resident 20 was the only resident at the facility who was on antibiotics and meets the criteria for antibiotic surveillance. The IPN stated she did not fill out the surveillance form for Resident 20 within 3 days of Resident 20 ' s admission per the facility ' s policy. The IPN stated there were no laboratory specimens drawn at the facility since the resident was discharged from the hospital and admitted [DATE]. During an interview on 10/16/24 at 4:43 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the antibiotic stewardship program decreases the use of unnecessary use of antibiotics. The DON stated Resident 20 not being surveilled for antibiotics had the potential outcome to cause harm to the resident who does not need it, causing antibiotic resistance, or potential adverse reactions. During a record review of facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Antibiotic Stewardship Program, the P&P indicated The Infection Preventionist will complete the infection surveillance .a. type of antibiotic ordered, route of administration, antibiotic costs b. whether the order was made by phone, if order was given by attending physician or on-call doctor, c. whether a culture was obtained before ordering antibiotic .
Sept 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide needed assistance for one of four sampled Residents (Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide needed assistance for one of four sampled Residents (Resident 3), who was assessed as needing partial/moderate assistance (resident could perform half of the mobility task while staff assisted with 50%) after toileting and while ambulating (walking). This failure resulted in Resident 3 sustaining a fall and placed the resident at risk for injuries and hospitalization from a fall. Findings: During a review of Resident 3 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including radiculopathy lumbar region (disease or damage of the nerve roots in the lower back), spinal stenosis (spinal canal narrows), and neuralgia (nerve pain). During a review of Resident 3 ' s History and Physical (H&P) dated 8/1/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 3 ' s Fall Care Plan, dated 8/1/2024, The Care Plan Indicated Resident 3 was a high risk for fall that may result to physical harm due to: muscle weakness and balance problem. The care plan indicated nursing interventions included, to provide assistance to the resident as identified in transfer and mobility. During a review of Resident 3 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 8/5/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 3 required substantial/maximal assistance (staff does more than half the effort. Staff lifts, holds, or supports trunk or limbs) with activities of daily living (ADLs) such as dressing, sit to stand (the ability to come to a standing position from sitting position) and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 3 ' s Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation ([SBAR] a communication tool used by healthcare workers when there is a resident change in condition) dated 9/13/2024, the SBAR indicated Resident 3 had a witnessed fall in the resident ' s bathroom. The SBAR indicated Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 took Resident 3 to the bathroom with walker and the resident ' s leg became weak and lost balance. The SBAR indicated CNA 1 assisted Resident 3 to the floor. During a review of Resident 3 ' s, Physical Therapist (PT) treatment notes dated 9/4/2024. The PT treatment notes indicated Resident 3 needed partial/moderate assistance for transfers and ambulation (walking) 10 feet. During an interview on 9/20/2024 at 12:45 p.m. with Resident 3, Resident 3 stated she fell in the bathroom one week ago. Resident 3 stated after using the toilet, she got up and when she took a few steps, she lost her balance and fell. Resident 3 stated CNA 1 was in front of me and not holding the resident. During an interview on 9/20/2024 at 2:00 p.m. with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated Resident 3 fell one week ago on a weekend. CNA 1 stated after Resident 3 finished using the toilet, the resident stood up and held herself on the walker. CNA 1 stated Resident 3 turned to the side and walked about 3 steps to come out of the restroom and the resident ' s leg gave up and the resident fell. CNA 1 stated she was not holding Resident 3, because CNA 1 was in the front of the resident and could not reach her. During an interview on 9/20/2024 at 2:59 p.m. with the Rehabilitation Supervisor (RS), RS stated Resident 3 needed partial/moderate assistance to go to the bathroom. RS stated needed at least one nurse to touch and help the resident when she walked and maneuvered with her walker after toileting. RS also stated, Resident 3 fell because of improper assistance by staff (CNA 1). During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/24/2024 at 1:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 3 ' s PT Treatment Note was reviewed. The DON stated, when CNA 1 assisted Resident 3 to the bathroom, CNA 1 needed to be in close distance from Resident 3 and should have been behind the resident, ready to hold her. The DON stated Resident 3 needed partial to moderate assistance, meaning CNA 1 needed to be within reach in case Resident 3 lost her balance. During a review of the facility ' s undated Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Safety Supervision of Residents, the P&P indicated the facility strived to make the environment as free from accident hazards as possible and resident safety, supervision, and assistance to prevent accidents are the facility-wide priorities. The P&P also indicated, the care team should target interventions to reduce individual risks including adequate supervision and assistive devices. During a review of the facility ' s undated P&P titled, Fall Management, the P&P indicated a fall prevention program would be developed for each resident that would provide staff with strategies to minimize the risk for falls and undue injuries from such incidents. During a review of the facility ' s undated P&P titled, Falling Start Program, the P&P indicated the Falling Star Program identified residents at highest risk for falls and/or injuries. The P&P indicated individualized plans of care would be implemented by the care team to minimize the risk of resident falling with major injuries. The P&P indicated sample strategies to minimize risk of falls with major injuries for transfer and ambulation risk factors included, to identify and provide needed assistance for safe transfer and ambulation.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Care Plan for two of four sampled residents (Resident 1 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Care Plan for two of four sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 3) who were at risk for fall, were revised and individualized to include the level of staff assistance needed for the safe transfer and mobility (ability to move) of the residents. This deficient practice had the potential to result in unidentified nursing interventions and recurrent falls for Residents 1 and 3. Findings: a) During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including left thigh osteopenia (low bone density), bradycardia (heart beats slower than 60 beats per minute), and syncope (fainting or passing out). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Care Plan, dated 3/15/2024, the care plan indicated Resident 1 was a high risk for fall that may result to physical harm due to: history of falls and syncope. The Care Plan indicated interventions included to help Resident 1 as identified in transfer and mobility. The Care Plan did not include the level of assistance Resident 1 needed for transfer and mobility. During a review of Resident 1 ' s, Physical Therapist (PT) Discharge summary dated [DATE]. The PT discharge summary indicated Resident 1 needed contact guard assist (type of physical assistance where the caregiver places one or two hands on the resident ' s body to help with balance) for transfers and level surfaces (ability to walk on level surfaces). During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P) dated 5/24/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 6/20/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required supervision or touching assistance for activities of daily living (ADLs) such as dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, transfer (moving between surfaces to and from bed, chair, and wheelchair) and bed mobility (how resident moved from lying to turning side to side.) During a review of Resident 1 ' s Risk Meeting Notes, dated 9/10/2024. The Notes indicated Resident 1 had a fall incident on 9/6/2024. The Notes indicated Resident 1 ' s mobility status was transferring assist and contact guard assist. The Notes also indicated Resident 1 ' s gait and balance was unstable and the resident needed assistance with toileting. b) During a review of Resident 3 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including radiculopathy lumbar region (disease or damage of the nerve roots in the lower back), spinal stenosis (spinal canal narrows), and neuralgia (nerve pain). During a review of Resident 3 ' s H&P dated 8/1/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 3 ' s Fall Care Plan, dated 8/1/2024, The Care Plan Indicated Resident 3 was a high risk for fall that may result to physical harm due to: muscle weakness and balance problem. The care plan indicated nursing interventions included, to provide assistance to the resident as identified in transfer and mobility. The Care Plan did not include the level of assistance Resident 3 needed for transfer and mobility. During a review of Resident 3 ' s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 3 required substantial/maximal assistance (staff does more than half the effort. Staff lifts, holds, or supports trunk or limbs) with ADLs such as dressing, sit to stand (the ability to come to a standing position from sitting position) and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 3 ' s, PT treatment notes dated 9/4/2024. The PT treatment notes indicated Resident 3 needed partial/moderate assistance (resident could perform half of the mobility task while staff assisted with 50%) for transfers and ambulation (walking) 10 feet. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/24/2024 at 12:00 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN), Resident 1 and 3 ' s Care Plans were reviewed. RN stated licensed nurses were responsible to develop or revise resident ' s care plans who were at risk of fall. RN stated resident Care Plans should be individualized based in Residents needs for assistance. RN stated, Resident 1 and Resident 3 ' s care plan did not indicate the level of assistance the residents needed. RN stated residents needed different levels of assistance and the care plan should indicate the level of assistance needed for each resident. RN also stated, not having a clear Care Plan, could cause an increased risk for falls for Residents 1 and 3. During an interview on 9/24/2024 at 1:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON) the DON stated care plans were templates individualized for each Resident. The DON stated Care Plans for falls should include the level of assistance the resident ' s needed with mobility and transfer. The DON stated by not specifying the level of assistance in the Care Plan, could lead to resident falls. The DON also stated care plan interventions were developed to ensure residents received proper care and to prevent future falls. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Fall Management, the P&P indicated facility staff, with the input of the attending physician would implement a resident-centered fall prevention plan to reduce the specific risk factor(s) of falls for each resident at risk or history of falls. During a review of the facility ' s undated P&P titled, Comprehensive Plan of Care, the P&P indicated the comprehensive plan of care must address the resident ' s individual needs, strengths, preferences and include interventions to prevent avoidable decline in function or functional level. The P&P also indicated, care plans should be re-evaluated and modified as necessary to reflect changes in care, service, and treatment.
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 2) was free from phys...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 2) was free from physical abuse by Resident 1 by failing to: 1. Follow Resident 2 ' s Care Plan and physician ' s order to monitor and address episodes of aggressive and abusive behaviors. 2. Revise and individualize (tailoring to the resident) the Care Plan for Resident 2 who had a history of altercations and aggressive behaviors. 3. Ensure Residents 1 and 2 who had prior resident-to resident altercation on 7/29/2024, were separated. 4. Follow the facility ' s Policy and Procedure titled, Abuse Prevention Program which indicates the facility would protect residents from abuse. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 1 being physically abused by Resident 2 on 8/18/2024, sustained a hematoma to the forehead (collection of blood that forms outside of the blood vessel) and had the potential to other injuries including intracranial hemorrhage (bleeding within the skull) and fractures (broken bones). Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses including psychotic disorder (a mental illness that causes people to lose touch with reality and have abnormal perceptions and thinking), mood [affective] disorder (a group of mental health conditions that cause significant disruptions to a person ' s emotions), dementia (loss of intellectual abilities that affects a person ' s ability to think, remember, and reason). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized care assessment and care screening tool) dated 7/18/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive (the ability to think and reason) impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was needed supervision or touching assistance from staff for Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) such as personal hygiene, lower body dressing, sit to stand (ability to come to a standing position from sitting in a chair), and walking 150 feet (Once standing, the ability to walk at least 150 feet in a corridor or similar space. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Observation Detail List Report and SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendation) dated 7/29/2024. The SBAR indicated another resident (Resident 2) slapped Resident 1 on the right eye. During a review of Resident 1 ' s SBAR dated 8/18/2024, the SBAR indicated Resident 1 had a resident-to-resident altercation (with Resident 2) causing injury. The SBAR indicated Resident 1 was pushed to the floor (by Resident 2) and sustained swelling to the left side of the forehead. During a review of Resident 1 ' s General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) H&P dated 8/19/2024, the GACH H&P indicated Resident 2 was admitted for a fall after being pushed by a resident at the facility. The H&P indicated fell during the resident altercation and a hematoma formed on her forehead. During an interview 9/3/2024 4:40 pm with Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA) 1 stated Resident 1 was seen walking without a wheelchair in the hall, CNA 1 went to get a wheelchair and when she returned approximately two minutes later Resident 1 was standing in front of Resident 2 ' s room. CNA 1 stated Resident 2 stood up from his wheelchair and pushed Resident 1 and hit her head on the floor. During a review of Resident 2 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Schizophrenia (mental illness that affected a person ' s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors), and cerebral infarction (loss of blood and oxygen to part of the brain). During a review of Resident 2 ' s Physician Order dated 3/27/2024, the order indicated to monitor behavior of outburst of anger and agitation towards staff and residents and notify the physician accordingly for further interventions when indicated. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Physician ' s Order dated 5/24/2024, the order indicated to monitor behavior, s/s of delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking and notify the physician for further interventions when indicated. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Care Plan for Behavioral Symptoms dated 6/18/2024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 2 was physical abusive to others, short tempered with angry outbursts, and verbally abusive cursing at staff. The Care Plan nursing approach indicated to monitor Resident 2 ' s behaviors: s/s of delusions, hallucinations, disorganized thinking and notify the physician accordingly for further interventions when indicated every shift. The Care Plan also indicated nursing to monitor for outbursts of anger and agitation towards staff and residents and notify the physician accordingly for further interventions when indicated every shift. During a review of Resident 2 ' s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 2 had physical (i.e. hitting, kicking, pushing, scratching, grabbing, abusing others) and verbal (i.e. threating, screaming, cursing) behavioral symptoms directed towards others. The MDS indicated Resident 2 ' s current behavior status was worse compared to prior assessment. The MDS also indicated Resident 2 was independent for ADLs such as bed mobility, sit to stand and transfer (ability to transfer to and from a bed to a chair or wheelchair). During a review of Resident 2 ' s SBAR dated 7/29/2024, the SBAR indicated Resident 2 slapped another resident ' s (Resident 1) right eye. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Care Plan for Negative/Untoward Event dated 7/29/2024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 2 swung his left hand and hit another resident (Resident 1). The Care Plan indicated nursing approach indicated to neutralize the situation by separating involved parties. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Behavior Monitoring Administration History dated 8/2024, the Behavior Monitoring indicated to Monitor behavior of Delusions of persecutions thinking staff was against him causing extreme agitation. The Behavior Monitoring indicated Resident 2 had 3 episodes 8/14/2024 morning shift (7:00 a.m.- 3:00 p.m.), 2 episodes on 8/15/2024, 8/16/2024 and 8/17/2024 night shifts (11:00 p.m.- 7:00 a.m. shift). The Behavior Monitoring also indicated Resident 2 was redirected with unchanged outcome. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Nurses Notes, the Notes indicated there was no documentation to indicate Resident 1 ' s behaviors were addressed according to Resident 2 ' s Care Plan and physician ' s orders. During a review of Resident 2 ' s SBAR dated 8/17/2024 at 6:15 p.m., the SBAR indicated Resident 2 had physical aggression. The SBAR indicated Resident 2 slapped an unnamed Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) on the right side of the face and neck as the LVN was trying to enter the resident ' s room. The SBAR indicated the physician was notified and gave an order to monitor the Resident 2. During a review of Resident 2 ' s SBAR dated 8/18/2024 at 2:22 p.m., the SBAR indicated Resident 2 had a resident-to-resident altercation resulting in the other resident (Resident 1) sustaining an injury. During an interview on 9/3/2024 at 1:35 p.m. with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated Resident 2 could be physically aggressive. LVN 1 stated she would made sure Resident 2 got what he wanted to calm him down. During an interview on 9/3/2024 at 1:55 pm with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated Resident 1 would have outbursts if he did not get what he wanted. RN 1 stated Resident 2 did not want to wait, and he would curse and was aggressive. During an interview on 9/3/2024 at 2:20 pm, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 1 has some agitation but is redirectable and Resident 2 has hit staff before. During a concurrent Record Review and Interview on 9/13/2024 at 1:12 pm with LVN 2, LVN stated Resident 2 would throw water on the floor or yell at nurses and curse for no reason. Also stated Resident 1 and Resident 2 were on monitoring at the time of the incident and when they are seen getting close, they were separated. LVN 2 stated, It was hard to keep Resident 1 in one place because Resident 1 walked around the facility. During a concurrent Record Review and Interview on 9/18/2024 at 3:17 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 2 ' s Behavior Monitoring and Care Plans were reviewed. The DON stated Resident 2 was redirectable however could be agitated and aggressive when the resident did not get what he wanted. The DON stated Resident 1 and Resident 2 had a previous altercation on 7/29/2024 and should have been kept separated and not be in contact with each other without supervision. The DON stated separating the residents was important to ensure the safety of the residents. The DON stated, the physician should have been notified because Resident 2 had behaviors of agitation on 8/14/2024- 8/16/2024 and interventions were ineffective on 8/15/2024 and 8/16/2024. The DON stated the physician should have also been contacted because Resident 2 had behaviors on consecutive days. The DON stated there was no documentation to indicate the physician was notified or other interventions were provided when redirecting was not effective. The DON stated it was important to address the resident ' s behaviors and notify the physician so the team and physician could evaluate the behavior and identify other interventions that could assist the resident. The DON also stated Resident 2 ' s Care Plan was not individualized and should have indicated the resident ' s triggers of behaviors such as not receiving what the resident wanted right away and the type of supervision the resident needed; however, the Care Plan did not include these information. The DON stated it was important to individualize the Care Plan to ensure the facility identified specific and detailed needs of the resident. During a review of the facility ' s undated P&P titled, Behavior Assessment, Intervention and Monitoring, the P&P indicated, the interdisciplinary team will evaluate behavioral symptoms in residents to determine the degree of severity, distress and potential safety risk to the resident and develop a plan of care accordingly. The P&P indicated safety strategies will be implemented immediately if necessary to protect the resident and others from harm. The P&P also indicated interventions will be individualized and part of an overall care environment that supports physical, functional, and psychosocial needs. During a review the facility ' s undated P&P titled, Abuse Prevention Program, the P&P indicated, residents have the right to be free from abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation. The P&P indicated as part of the abuse prevention, the administration will: protect residents from abuse by anyone including, other residents, implement P&P to aid the facility in preventing abuse, neglect or mistreatment of the residents and implement measures to address factors that may lead to abusive situations. During a review of the facility ' s undated P&P titled, Safety Supervision of Residents indicated the care team shall target interventions to reduce individual risks related to hazards in the environment including adequate supervision. The P&P indicated implementing interventions to reduce accident risks and hazards include communicating specific interventions to all relevant staff, ensuring interventions are implemented and documenting interventions. The P&P also indicated monitoring the effectiveness of interventions shall include ensuring interventions are implemented correctly and consistently, evaluating the effectiveness of interventions, modifying, or replacing interventions as needed and evaluating the effectiveness of new or revised interventions. The P&P also indicated resident supervision is a core component of the system approach to safety and the type and frequency of resident supervision is determined by the individual residents assessed needs.
Jun 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to: 1. Follow their policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Elope...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record reviews, the facility failed to: 1. Follow their policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Elopement (an instance of a patient or person in care leaving a care facility, or safe area independently without notifying anyone), which indicated, the facility will provide a safe environment and preventive measures for elopement. 2. Follow their policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Safety Supervision of Residents, which indicated, resident supervision is a core component of the systems approach to safety. As a result, one of three resdients, Resident 1, left the facility unsupervised. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 1's diagnoses included dementia (loss of the ability to think, remember, and reason to levels that affect daily life and activities), anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities), hypertension (when the pressure in your blood vessels is too high), and osteoarthritis (a progressive joint disease, in which the tissues in the joint break down over time). A review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 5/20/2024, indicated Resident 1 did not have the capacity for medical decision making due to dementia. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 5/23/2024, indicated Resident 1 was assessed to comprehend most conversation. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required supervision or touching assistance from staff for activities of daily living (ADLs) such as showering, dressing, putting on and off footwear, and needed set up assistance for personal hygiene, oral hygiene and eating. A review of Resident 1's care plan, titled At risk for elopement and wondering out of the facility related to wanting to go home, wandering without purpose, exit seeking behavior due to dementia. The interventions indicated check the resident's whereabouts. A review of Resident 1's Elopement Risk Assessment, dated 5/19/2024, the elopement risk assessment indicated Resident 1 was at risk of wandering and elopement. A review of Resident 1's physician's order dated 5/17/2024, the physician's order indicated donepezil (medication to treat certain mental/mood disorders such as dementia) 10 milligrams ([mg] unit of measurement), once daily (QD), amlodipine (high blood pressure medication) 5 mg, 1 tablet daily (QD), potassium chloride (medication to treat hypokalemia [low potassium an important body chemical. this problem can result in fatigue, muscle cramps, and abnormal heart rhythms). An order was placed for a wander guard to the right wrist (a bracelet placed on for elopement precautions). During an interview on 6/20/2024 at 12:10 p.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2, CNA 2 stated Resident 1 was not in the bed when I started my shift, a coworker told me Resident 1 likes to be in the activity room. CNA 2 stated I did not put eyes on Resident 1. CNA2 stated I never heard the alarm from the wander guard go off. During an interview on 6/20/2024 at 1:15 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, LVN 3 stated, the resident was noticed missing at 5:30 p.m. where we immediately called a code, started the search. LVN 3 stated, resdients who are at high risk for wandering have a wander guard placed on them so when they get close to an exit they alarm will sound. LVN 3 stated, no I do not remember hearing the alarm go off. LVN 3 stated, it is important to check and supervise residents at risk for elopement. LVN 3 stated if this is not done it is a safety issue and we need to keep the resdients safe. During an interview on 6/20/2024 at 3:22 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, when residents are assessed to be high risk an order is obtained from the physician and a wander guard is placed on the resident. The DON stated a wander guard was placed on Resident 1 on 5/18/2024. The DON stated, when a resident has on a wander guard it should alarm as soon as the resident gets to close to the door, the day Resident 1 left the facility no one heard the alarm go off. The DON further stated the resident was found. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Elopement, (undated), the P&P indicated, the facility will provide a safe environment and preventive measures for elopement. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Safety Supervision of Residents, (undated), the P&P indicated, Resident safety and supervision and assistance to prevent accidents are company-wide priorities. Resident supervision is a core component of the systems approach to safety. The type and frequency of resident supervision is determined by the individual resident's assessed needs and identified hazards in the environment. Risk factors and environmental hazards include unsafe wandering.
Apr 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain a physician order to allow 1 of 5 sampled residents (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain a physician order to allow 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 1), to leave the facility on out on pass . This failure had the potential to jeoaprdize resident's safety and may result to bodily injuries. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of acute kidney failure (kidneys unable to filter waste products from blood), presence of automatic cardiac defibrillator (preprogramed device implanted in the chest to automatically detect cardiac arrest or a life-threatening irregular rhythms) and hypertension (high blood pressure). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment and care planning tool), dated 3/5/2024 indicated Resident 1 had clear speech, ability to express ideas and wants, and understands. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was independent with eating, toileting hygiene, and personal hygiene. A review of the Out of Facility Release of Responsibility logs indicated Resident 1 signed to leave the facility and went out on pass on the following dates: 1/6/2024 at 12:06 p.m., 1/7/2023 at 3 p.m. , 1/8/2024 at 12 noon, 1/10/2024 at 1 p.m., 1/11/2024 at 12 noon, 1/12/2024 at 12:15 p.m.,1/13/2024 at 12 noon, 1/15/2024 at 4 p.m., 1/16/2024 at 11 a.m., 1/17/2024 at 11 a.m., 1/20/2024 at 12 noon, 1/21/2024 at 11 a.m., 1/22/2024 at 10 a.m., 1/23/2024 at 12 noon, 1/24/2024 at 11 a.m., 1/25/2024 at 12 noon, 1/26/2024 at 1 p.m., 1/27/2024 at 12:28 p.m., 1/28/2024 at 10:44 a.m., 1/29/2024 at 11 a.m., 1/30/2024 at 11 a.m., 1/31/2024 at 11 a.m., 1/31/2024 at 6:45 p.m., 2/1/2024 at 1 p.m., 2/1/2024 at 5:30 p.m., 2/2/2024 at 1 p.m., 2/3/2024 at 11 a.m., 2/4/2024 at 11 a.m., 2/5/2024 at 7 a.m., 2/5/2024 at 10 a.m., 2/6/2024 at 11 a.m., 2/7/2024 at 6:45 a.m., 2/8/2024 at 11:30 a.m., 2/9/2024 at 9 a.m., 2/9/2024 at 11:30 a.m., 2/10/2024 at 12:30 p.m., 2/11/2024 at 2:30 p.m., 2/12/2024 at 6:45 a.m., 2/13/2024 at 11 a.m., 2/14/2024 at 12 noon, 2/15/2024 at 7 a.m., 2/15/2024 at 11 a.m., 2/16/2024 at 12 noon, 2/17/2024 at 10 a.m., 2/18/2024 at 9:30 a.m., 2/19/2024 at 12 noon, 2/10/24 at 11:30 a.m., 2/21/2024 at 11:30 a.m., 2/22/2024 at 1p.m., 2/23/2024 at 11 a.m., 2/24/2024 at 11:30 a.m., 2/25/2024 at 11:30 a.m., 2/26/2024 at 11:20 a.m., 2/26/2024 at 7 p.m., 2/27/2024 at 11:30 a.m., 2/28/2024 at 1 p.m., 2/29/2024 at 10 a.m., 3/1/2024 at 10 a.m., 3/2/2024 at 10:30 a.m., 3/3/2024 at 10:27 a.m., 3/4/2024 at 11:10 a.m., 3/5/2024 at 12 noon, 3/6/2024 at 11:30 a.m., 3/8/2024 at 12 noon, 3/9/2024 at 11:30 a.m., 3/10/2024 at 12 noon, 3/11/2024 at 11 a.m., 3/12/2024 at 12 noon, 3/13/2024 at 1 p.m., 3/14/2024 at 12 noon, 3/15/2024 at 12 noon, 3/16/2024 at 9:40 a.m., 3/18/2024 at 11:45 a.m., 3/19/2024 at 12 noon, 3/20/2024 at 1 p.m., 3/21/2024 at 10:30 a.m., 3/22/2024 at 10:30 a.m., 3/23/2024 at 11:40 a.m., 3/25/2024 at 2 p.m., 3/26/2024 at 12 noon, 3/27/2024 at 11:30 a.m., 3/28/2024 at 2:30 p.m., 3/29/2024 at 11:30 a.m., 3/30/2024 at 11:30 a.m., 3/31/2024 at11:30 a.m. During a review of Resident 1's care plan titled, Resident 1 goes out on pass and drives his car outside, and has bilateral lower extremities venous ulcers (a wound on the leg or ankle caused by abnormal or damaged veins) dated 12/9/2023, the care plan indicated Resident 1 was at risk of injury. One of the interventions indicated to assess Resident 1 for presence of medical condition that may affect residents' physical function such as signs and symptoms of hypertension, dizziness, headache, seizure (a sudden, uncontrolled burst of electrical activity in the brain) disorder. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/17/2024 at 11:15 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the physician order reports for January 2024 through April 2024, were reviewed. The physician order reports did not indicate a physician order to allow Resident 1 to leave the facility or go out on pass. The DON stated Resident 1's safety may have been compromised by allowing him to go out on pass. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure titled, Resident on Pass indicated all residents leaving the facility must be signed out and have an appropriate out on pass physician order written. Residents must have a doctor's order indicating that the resident is medically stable and able to go out on pass. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure titled Physician Orders indicated physician orders are obtained to provide a clear direction in the care of the resident.
Feb 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure medication was administered as ordered, for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice had the potential to a poor healing process of Resident 1 ' s vaginal condition. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle weakness and urinary tract infection. During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H/P), dated 1/17/2024, the H/P indicated Resident 1 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized care assessment and care screening tool), dated 2/11/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 required substantial assistance for personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Order Summary Report (physician orders), dated 1/19/24, the physician order indicated estrace ([estradiol] cream 0.01 % [0.1 mg/gram) 500 mg vaginally, for vaginal atrophy (decrease in size), three times a week, every Monday, Wednesday, Friday at 9:00 p.m. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) for February 2024, the following were observed: 1. On 2/7/2023 at 9:00 p.m., the eMAR had no signature to indicate that estrace was administered as ordered. 2. On 2/19/2024, estrace was administered at 6:55 p.m. instead of 9:00 p.m. During an interview on 3/6/2024 at 9:58 a.m., a Family Member (FM) stated that the facility was not giving Resident 1 her estrace on time and sometimes they were not giving the medication at all. During an interview and concurrent record review with Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2) on 3/6/2024 at 4:47 p.m., the eMAR was reviewed. LVN 2 stated that the administration for estrace on 2/7/2024 was blank. LVN 2 stated that when the eMAR had no signature, it meant the medication was not given. LVN 2 stated the risk of Resident 1 not receiving his medication was vaginal dryness, bleeding and hot flashes. During an interview on 3/11/2024 at 10:59 a.m., LVN 3 stated documentation of medication administration should have been documented right after the medication was given to a resident. LVN 3 stated that on 2/12/2024, estrace should have been documented after the medication was administered. During an interview on 3/11/2024 at 11:16 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that, after a medication is administered, it has to be documented immediately to ensure accuracy of documentation and to reflect treatment had been provided in a timely manner. During a review of the facility ' s undated policy and procedure (P&P), titled Medication Pass guidelines, the P&P indicated to initial the record after the medication was administered to the resident.
Jan 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its infection prevention and control policy and procedure...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its infection prevention and control policy and procedure (P&P) by failing to report the facility ' s Coronavirus ([Covid-19] a highly contagious infection caused by a virus that could easily spread from person to person) outbreak (at least one confirmed case of Covid-19 who had resided for at least 7 days in the facility) to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) District Office (DO). This deficient practice had the potential to result in a delay in the investigation by the DO and the spread of Covid-19. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission record (Face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including anemia (low blood iron), and alcohol abuse. During review of Resident 1 ' s history and physical (H&P) dated 10/11/2023, the H&P indicated, Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Covid-19 Antigen Test (detection device for Covid-19) Result Form dated 1/7/2024, the Form indicated Resident 1 tested positive for Covid-19 on 1/7/2024. During a review of Resident 6 ' s face sheet, the face sheet indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including diabetes (high blood sugar), and metabolic encephalopathy (brain disorder). During a review of Resident 6 ' s H&P dated 12/29/2024, the H&P indicated, Resident 6 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 6 ' s Covid-19 Antigen Test Result Form dated 1/7/2024, the Form indicated Resident 1 tested positive for Covid-19 on 1/7/2024. During a review of Resident 7 ' s face sheet, the face sheet indicated Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including hyperlipidemia (elevated fat in the blood) and adult failure to thrive (state of decline that may be caused by diseases and impairments causing weight loss, poor nutrition, and inactivity). During a review of Resident 7 ' s H&P dated 6/6/2023, the H&P indicated, Resident 7 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 7 ' s Covid-19 Antigen Test Result Form dated 1/7/2024, the Form indicated Resident 1 tested positive for Covid-19 on 1/7/2024. During an interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/11/2024 at 10:40 a.m. DON stated the facility should have reported the covid-19 outbreak to the DO however was not done. DON stated it was important to report outbreaks immediately so they could be investigated in a timely manner and to prevent further transmission. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Infection Control Program last revised on 5/1/2020, the P&P indicated it was the facility ' s policy to follow Covid-19 protocols including regulatory agencies ' directives (Center Disease control, CDPH, County Public Health). The P&P indicated outbreak management is a process that consists of determining the presence of an outbreak, managing the affected residents, preventing the spread to other residents and reporting the information to appropriate public health authorities.
Jan 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders and care plan interventions by ensuring the nursing staff turned on a wheelchair pad alarm (a weight-s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow physician orders and care plan interventions by ensuring the nursing staff turned on a wheelchair pad alarm (a weight-sensitive sensor pad that is connected to a monitor unit and activates an alarm if a resident leaves the chair or the bed) to ensure its working properly and alerts staff of a potential fall for one of three sampled residents, (Resident 2). This failure had the potential to increase Resident 2 ' s risk of falling and sustaining injuries. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/3/2024 at 11:55 a.m., Resident 2 sat in a wheelchair with a wheelchair pad alarm on the back of his wheelchair. The pad alarm did not show a red flashing light indicating the pad was working. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 assisted Resident 2 to a standing position, but the pad alarm did not sound. LVN 1 then turned the pad alarm on, and the alarm sound and red flashing light activated. LVN 1 stated the pad alarm was off and staff members would not hear the alarm if Resident 2 tried to stand up and walk. LVN 1 stated Resident 2 would be at risk of falling and possibly sustaining injuries. During a record review, Resident 2 ' s undated face sheet indicated an admission to the facility on 1/26/2023 with diagnosis of cerebral infraction (damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area), acute failure with hypoxia (acute or chronic impairment of gas exchange between the lungs and the blood) and atrial fibrillation (abnormally fast heartbeat). During a review, Resident 2 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment and care planning tool), dated 10/29/2023, indicated Resident 2 had clear speech, the ability to express ideas and wants, and understands. The MDS also indicated Resident 2 required substantial assistance with toilet transfers, sit to stand, and chair/bed to chair transfers. During a record review, Resident 2 ' s Physician Order Report, dated 12/1/2023 through 12/31/2023 indicated to use the personal alarm pad while in the wheelchair or in bed and to remind the resident to call for assistance prior to mobility (the ability to change and control your body position), and transferring due to the risk of falling and getting up unassisted. During a record review, Resident 2 ' s Fall Risk Data Collection, dated 12/3/2023 indicated a score of 18 (a total score of 14 or above represents a high risk for falls) due to poor decision-making, inconsistency with asking for assistance and balance problems. During a record review, Resident 2 ' s care plan titled Falls, dated 4/7/2023 indicated the resident has increase susceptibility to falling that may cause physical harm due to balance problems, loss of muscle strength, and a fall on 2/10/2023. One of the care plan goals indicated Resident 2 will decrease the risk of falls and injuries with interventions such as using safety measures to decrease the risk of falls. The nursing interventions included to encourage/remind Resident 2 to ask for help when needed, adjust the height of bed to accommodate Resident 2 ' s ability to get in and out of bed with ease, and to use a personal safety alarm when in the wheelchair or in bed, and to remind the resident to call for assistance prior to mobility and transfers. During a review, the facility ' s undated policy titled Personal Safety Alarms indicated the facility staff understands it ' s the facility ' s responsibility, as well as their own, to ensure the safest environment possible for the residents. Position change alarms are any physical or electronic device that monitors a resident ' s movement and alerts the staff when movement is detected. The licensed nurse will provide an initial evaluation of the resident ' s need for the use of a personal safety alarm. The licensed nurse will monitor for the personal safety alarm ' s proper placement every shift and document it in the Medication Administration Record.
Oct 2023 13 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assist and document grievance for missing personal clothing for one...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assist and document grievance for missing personal clothing for one of one sampled resident (Resident 57). This deficient practice violated the resident's right to have his grievance addressed. Findings: During a review of Resident 57's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 57 on 6/30/2021 and was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area), mild protein calorie malnutrition (a nutritional status in which reduced availability of nutrients leads to changes in body composition and function), and epilepsy (a disorder in which nerve cell activity in the brain is disturbed causing seizures). During a review of Resident 57's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/28/2023, the H&P, indicated Resident 57 has fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 57's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated 10/7/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 57 required setup or clean-up assistance (Helper sets up or cleans up, resident completes activity. Helper assists only prior to or following the activity) with oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 57's Inventory of Personal Effects form, dated 9/20/2023, the Inventory of Personal Effects Form, indicated Resident 57 had 3 shorts. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 8:05 a.m. with Resident 57, Resident 57 stated he did report verbally to the SSA (Social Service Assistant) last Friday about his two missing shorts, one-color dark sky blue and one-color purple, labeled initials with his first and last name. Resident 57 stated his mother brought these 2 shorts three weeks ago and he was upset when facility staff did not found it since it was a brand-new short. Resident 57 stated no one told him to file and complete the grievance form. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 9:42 a.m. with SSD (Social Service Director), SSD stated she was informed by her SSA about Resident 57's missing clothing last Friday and she asked her SSA to look around each resident's closet and go to the laundry. SSD stated until now, Resident 57 missing personal clothing had not been found. SSD stated she did report Resident 57's missing personal clothing to the Administrator (ADM) last Monday. SSD stated she did not document and assist Resident 57 to file and complete the Grievance form since her process was to wait for 5 days to complete the investigation before filing for grievance. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 9:56 a.m. with SSA, SSA stated she did report Resident 57 missing two shorts to her SSD last Friday and went to the laundry the same day to look for the missing shorts. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 10:04 a.m. with ADM, ADM stated he knows Resident 57's missing 2 shorts as it was reported to her by SSD last Monday. ADM stated he has seventy-two hours to replace the missing clothing. ADM stated SSD is responsible in filing and completing the Grievance form and it should had been done the day the missing personal clothing reported to her. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 12:15 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated facility did violate Resident 57's rights to file for grievance and Resident 57 would feel no one listens to his complaint because no one helped him to file and complete the Grievance form. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Grievances and Complaints, the P&P indicated if a resident, a resident's representative, or another interested family member of a resident has a complaint, a staff member should encourage and assist the resident or resident's representative to file a written grievance with the company using the Grievance form. If utilizing the Grievance form, it should only be completed by company personnel. The department head will submit a written report of such findings to the Administrator within 3 working days of receiving the grievance and/or complaint. The investigation and report should be completed using the grievance form.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, for Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA), is a comprehensive assessment that must be completed when the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) has determined that a resident meets the significant change guidelines for either improvement or decline, was completed within the time frame for one of one sampled resident (Resident 25). This deficient practice had the potential to result inaccurate care and services due to inappropriate MDS care screening and assessment tool practices. Findings: During a review of Resident 25's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 25 on 3/25/2016 and was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease (group of disorders of the heart and blood vessels), obstructive uropathy (a condition in which the flow of urine is blocked) and renal calculi (kidney stone). During a review of Resident 25's History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/7/2023, the H&P, indicated Resident 25 does not have the capacity for medical decision making due to cognitive impairment. During a review of Resident 25's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 25 had no indwelling catheter (a hollow, partially flexible tube that collects urine from the bladder and leads to a drainage bag). During a review of Resident Progress Notes dated 10/5/2023, The Resident Progress Notes indicated Resident 25 was readmitted from the hospital with indwelling catheter and nephrostomy tube (a tube that lets urine drain from the kidney through an opening in the skin on the back). During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/2023 at 1:46 p.m. with MDS nurse (a nurse that collects and assess information for the health and well-being of residents in Medicare or Medicaid certified nursing homes), the MDS nurse could not locate Resident 25's recent comprehensive MDS assessment except the quarterly assessment on 9/26/2023. The MDS nurse stated Resident 25 had a significant decline in his health status for presence of indwelling catheter and nephrostomy tube when he was readmitted from the hospital to the facility on [DATE]. The MDS nurse stated, he should have completed MDS SCSA of Resident 25 on 10/19/2023 which is the 14th calendar day after the readmission. The MDS nurse stated he got busy and that was why he did not complete on time the required MDS SCSA. During a review of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS)'s Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Version 3.0 Manual dated October 2023, the RAI manual indicated the MDS for significant change in status must be completed 14th calendar day after determination that significant change in resident's status occurred. The RAI manual indicated one of the guidelines for determining a significant change in resident status was incontinence pattern change or there was a placement of an indwelling catheter.
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 correctly fill out the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to correctly fill out the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR, a tool to determine if the person had, or was suspected of having, a mental illness, intellectual disability, or related condition) level one screening and refer one of three sampled residents (Resident 15) who had a diagnosis of schizophrenia (a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves) to the appropriate state-designated authority for PASRR level two evaluation and determination. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 15 not receiving appropriate treatment recommendations for schizophrenia. Findings: During a record review of Resident 15's Face Sheet, dated 10/26/2023, the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 15 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of metabolic encephalopathy (a chemical imbalance in the blood that affects the brain) and schizophrenia. The MDS Coordinator stated, Resident 15 had schizophrenia from the record review that he did for this resident. During a review of Resident 15's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/27/2019, the H&P indicated, Resident 15 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. The H&P indicated; Resident 15 had a diagnosis of schizophrenia. During a review of Resident 15's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 9/9/2023, the MDS indicated, Resident 15's cognition (ability to think and understand) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated, Resident 15 had a diagnoses of depression (a condition of feeling sad and/or loss of interest in activities of interests), psychotic disorder (a group of serious illnesses that affect the mind) and schizophrenia. During a review of Resident 15's Psychiatrist Progress Notes, dated 5/19/2021, the Psychiatrist Progress Notes indicated, Resident 15 had psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality) or schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that affects one's thoughts, mood, and behavior). The Psychiatrist Progress Notes indicated; Resident 15 was receiving Risperdal (a medication that works in the brain to treat schizophrenia). During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/2023, at 3:21 p.m., with the MDS Coordinator, Resident 15's PASRR Level 1 Screening, dated 4/25/2022, was reviewed. The MDS Coordinator sated the PASRR Level 1 Screening did not indicate Resident 15 had a diagnosed mental disorder such as schizophrenia. The MDS Coordinator sated Resident 15's case was closed due to no serious mental illness and a PASRR level two evaluation and determination was not required. The MDS Coordinator stated, the PASRR level one screening for Resident 15 should have been marked as an individual with a diagnosed mental disorder of schizophrenia to trigger PASRR level 2 evaluation and determination so, Resident 15 could be evaluated and possibly receive appropriate treatment recommendations for schizophrenia. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Admissions Screening, dated 10/23/2023, the P&P indicated, nursing and medical needs of individuals with mental disorders or intellectual disabilities will be determined by coordination with the Medicaid Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review program (PASARR) to the extent of being put into practice.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a comprehensive care plan for physical therapy (the treatme...

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 a comprehensive care plan for physical therapy (the treatment of disease, injury, or deformity by physical methods such as massage, heat treatment, and exercise rather than by drugs or surgery) and occupational therapy (a form of therapy for those recuperating from physical or mental illness that encourages rehabilitation through the performance of activities required in daily life) for one of one sampled resident (Resident 25). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect the delivery of care and services to Resident 25. Findings: During a review of Resident 25's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 25 on 3/25/2016 and was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease (group of disorders of the heart and blood vessels), right hip contracture (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints), and muscle weakness (lack of muscle strength). During a review of Resident 25's History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/7/2023, the H&P, indicated Resident 25 does not have the capacity for medical decision making due to cognitive impairment. During a review of Resident 25's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and screening tool, dated 9/26/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 25 required total dependence with one-person physical assist with bed mobility, transfer, toilet use, and bathing. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/2023 at 1:37 p.m. with MDS nurse (a nurse that collects and assess information for the health and well-being of residents in Medicare or Medicaid certified nursing homes), Resident 25's Physician Order Report, dated 10/10/2023 was reviewed. The Physician Order Report indicated Resident 25 had an order for occupational therapy treatment daily 5x/week (Monday to Friday) for therapeutic exercise (involves movement prescribed to correct impairments, restore muscular and skeletal function and/or maintain a state of wellbeing), therapeutic activities (tasks that improve the ability to perform activities of daily living, neuromuscular re-education (a series of therapeutic techniques to restore normal function of nerves and muscles), orthotic/splinting (a supportive device that when applied to the body can protect, promote healing or improve function) for 8 weeks and physical therapy treatment daily 3x/week (Monday, Wednesday and Friday) for therapeutic exercise, therapeutic activities, neuromuscular re-education and orthotic training. The MDS nurse stated he could not find a care plan for Resident 25 to address physical and occupational therapy treatment as ordered by the physician. The MDS nurse stated care plan should be developed upon admission, quarterly, annually and as needed. The MDS nurse stated it was important for the facility staff to develop care plan for each resident needs, implement interventions, and for delivery of care. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Plan of Care, the P&P indicated, Each resident will have a comprehensive care plan developed that include goals, measurable objectives, and timetables to meet their medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs identified during the comprehensive assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update and revise a comprehensive care plan to include the new phys...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to update and revise a comprehensive care plan to include the new physician's order for wound care treatment for one of one sampled resident (Resident 33). This deficient practice had the potential to place Resident 33 to not receive appropriate care and/or services. Findings: During a review of Resident 33's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including anemia (a condition in which the blood does not have enough healthy red blood cells) in chronic kidney disease (a condition in which the kidneys are damaged and cannot filter blood as well as they should), and atherosclerosis of extremities (a disease of the peripheral blood vessels that is characterized by narrowing and hardening of the arteries that supply the legs and feet) with gangrene (dead tissue caused by an infection or lack of blood flow). During a review of Resident 33's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/4/2023, the H&P, indicated Resident 33 had the capacity for medical decision making. During a review of Resident 33's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated 8/9/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 33 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 33 had one arterial (inadequate blood supply to the affected area) ulcer (a break in skin)] and infection of foot. During a review of Resident 33's Physician Order Report, dated 10/1/2023, the Physician Order Report, indicated Resident 33 had an order to cleanse right forefoot (the front part of the human foot) with normal saline (mixture of sodium chloride and water), pat dry, paint with betadine (antiseptic solution) and wrap with kerlix and secure with tape daily for 30 days then re-evaluate. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/2023 at 2:01 p.m. with MDS nurse (a nurse that collects and assess information for the health and well-being of residents in Medicare or Medicaid certified nursing homes), Resident 33's care plan, titled right foot gangrene, revised 8/4/2023, was reviewed. The care plan did not address and indicate the new wound care treatment on right forefoot gangrene. The MDS nurse, stated the care plan should have been revised and updated as soon as the current order for wound care treatment and new interventions were obtained. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Plan of Care, the P&P indicated, re-evaluate and modify care plans as necessary to reflect changes in care, service and treatment, quarterly, annually and with significant change in status assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

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 of six sampled residents (Resident 18), who...

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 of six sampled residents (Resident 18), who was assessed at risk for weight loss received High Protein Nutrition (HPN) as indicated in the physician orders and nutritional assessment. This deficient practice had the potential for further weight loss to Resident 18 by not providing the HPN as ordered. Findings: During a review of Resident 18's Face Sheet, dated 10/26/2023, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 18 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses that include glaucoma (a condition of increased pressure within the eyeball, causing gradual loss of sight), legal blindness, dementia (loss of the ability to think, remember, and reason to levels that affect daily life and activities) with behavioral disturbance, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (high level of sugar in the blood). During a review of Resident 18's History and Physical (H&P), dated 4/21/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 18 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 18's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 8/27/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 18's cognitive skills were severely impaired. Resident 18 required one-person physical assist with bed mobility, transfer, toileting, personal hygiene, and setup help with eating. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 1:22 p.m. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2, CNA 2 stated if a resident has an order for assisted feeding the charge nurse would let me know. I did not know Resident 18 had an order for assisted feeding. If a resident has an order for assisted feeding and is not getting the assistance it would affect the resident, they could become dehydrated, have weight loss and skin break down. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 1:35 p.m. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated I did not know that Resident 18 was assisted feeding. CNA 1 stated that no one let me know that Resident 18 needed assistance with feeding. CNA 1 stated that usually charge nurse lets us know which residents need assistance. During an observation on 10/27/2023 at 7:48 a.m. in Resident 18's room, there was no high protein nutrition (HPN) shake on meal tray. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/27/2023 at 9:10 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 18's electronic medical record physician orders dated 4/26/2023 and meal ticket dated 10/27/2023 was reviewed. Physician orders indicated, on 4/26/2023 there was an order for HPN three times a day with meals, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Meal ticket dated 10/27/2023 did not indicate a HPN should be on the meal tray. RN 1 stated the HPN was missing on the meal ticket. RN 1 stated that the HPN is for weight gain. RN 1 stated that if the HPN is not showing on the meal ticket there is no way to be sure if the resident is getting it. RN 1 stated that if a resident doesn't get the HPN it can lead to weight loss and decline of the resident. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/27/2023 at 9:30 a.m. with Kitchen Supervisor (KS), Resident 18's diet order and communication dated 4/21/2023 and meal ticket dated 10/27/2023 was reviewed. Diet order and communication indicated 8oz HPN with meals was ordered. Meal ticket did not indicate HPN should be on the meal tray. KS stated the changes do not match the meal ticket slip. KS stated I forgot to input the change for the 8oz HPN with meals. KS stated if the changes are not put in the system, it would not be on the order slip. KS stated it could affect the resident with more weight loss. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/27/2023 at 2:30 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 18's electronic medical record physician orders dated 4/26/2023 and meal ticket dated 10/27/2023 was reviewed. Physician orders indicated, on 4/26/2023 there was an order for HPN three times a day with meals, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Meal ticked dated 10/27/2023 did not indicate a HPN should be on the meal tray. DON stated HPN was missing on the meal ticket. DON stated that I don't know what happened it was missed for Resident 18. DON stated HPN is for maintaining weight and weight gain. DON stated if the HPN is not given to a resident as ordered, the resident can potentially have more weight loss and other issues to the resident. During a review of Resident 18's vitals report, dated 4/1/2023-10/26/2023, the vitals report indicated weight on 4/2/2023 of 109lbs, 5/14/2023 of 107lbs, 7/1/2023 of 103lbs, 8/1/2023 of 99lbs, 9/1/2023 of 101lbs and 10/1/2023 of 99lbs. During a review of Resident 18's physician orders, dated 5/10/2023, the physician orders indicated assist patient in feeding. During a review of Resident 18's progress notes dated 10/10/2023, registered dietitian note indicated 6-month weight loss down 9.2% not significant however progressive. Diet is Regular, NAS, RCS with multiple nutritional interventions and assistance feeding resident at all meals. During a review of Resident 18's care plan dated 4/21/2023, care plan for self-care deficit indicated Resident 18 should have supervision/setup help with eating. Care plan goal indicated resident will be provided with needed assistance in ADL to maintain comfort and dignity. During a review of Resident 18's Nutritional assessment dated [DATE], nutritional assessment indicated diet order: Regular, NAS (no added salt), RCS (reduced concentrated sweets), 8oz HPN TID (three times a day) with meals, HS (hour of sleep) snack. Supplements: 8oz HPN TID (three times a day) with meals. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Nutritional Assessment, undated, the Nutritional Assessment P&P indicated The nutritional assessment is a comprehensive approach to screen, define, and treat the resident's nutritional status. The assessment of the overall nutritional status of the resident includes but is not limited to the following: a. Diet Order: insert the diet order as exactly written by the physician. b. Supplement: insert the supplement order as exactly written by the physician.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act on one recommendation from the pharmacy consultant (a professio...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act on one recommendation from the pharmacy consultant (a professional responsible for reviewing each resident's medication profile monthly to identify and report changes) from September 2023 for routine lab works, the Complete Metabolic Panel (CMP) (a test that measures different substances in the blood, and provides important information of your body's chemical balance and how it uses food and energy), Complete Blood Count (CBC) (a blood test used to look at overall health conditions and blood disorders), lipid panel (a blood test used to monitor and screen your risk for heart disease), Hemoglobin A1c (HBA1c) (average level of blood sugar over the past two to three months) and magnesium levels (a test measuring the amount of mineral you get from foods you eat for high or low levels), in one of five sampled residents, (Resident 6). The deficient practice of failing to respond to recommendations from the consultant pharmacist had the potential to result in Resident 6 experiencing preventable complications from abnormal lab values, possibly leading to medical complications, requiring hospitalization and could diminish quality of life. Findings: A review of Resident 6's Face Sheet (a document containing admission dates, insurance information, medical conditions, emergency contacts, and physician information), dated 10/26/23, indicated he was admitted to the facility originally on 2/26/2018 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia (a mental illness associated with false beliefs or hearing and seeing things that does not exist) and unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological condition (a set of symptoms that causes people to have difficulty thinking, concentrating, and behavior changes). A review of Resident 6's History and Physical (a physician's note documenting a patient medical exam), dated 6/27/23, indicated Resident 6 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of the consultant pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review (MRR), dated 9/5/23, indicated the consultant pharmacist made a recommendation to Resident 6's attending physician to monitor the following labs based on Resident 6's medication regimen: Complete Metabolic Panel (CMP) (a test that measures different substances in the blood, and provides important information of your body's chemical balance and how it uses food and energy), Complete Blood Count (CBC) (a blood test used to look at overall health conditions and blood disorders), lipid panel (a blood test used to monitor and screen your risk for heart disease), Hemoglobin A1c (HBA1c) (this test tells you your average level of blood sugar over the past two to three months) and magnesium levels (a test measuring the amount of mineral you get from foods you eat for high or low levels.) A review of Resident 6's clinical record indicated the facility did not document a response from the attending physician regarding the consultant pharmacist's recommendation to perform routine lab work for medication monitoring. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 2:36 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the facility failed to take any action on this recommendation by failing to request orders for the labs to be monitored on 9/5/23 from Resident 6's attending physician. The DON stated if the pharmacist's recommendations like routine laboratory monitoring are not acted upon by the facility, it may cause the resident to experience medical complications. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Monitoring Medication Regimen Review and Reporting, dated January 2023, indicated, The nursing care center follows up on the recommendations to verify that appropriate action has been taken. Recommendations shall be acted upon within 30 calendar days .
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 observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to discard a bottle of Humalog insulin (a fast-acting medication used to treat high blood sugar) with an opened date of 9/16/2...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to discard a bottle of Humalog insulin (a fast-acting medication used to treat high blood sugar) with an opened date of 9/16/23 according to the manufacturer's requirements affecting Resident 61 in one of two medication carts inspected (Station 2 Medication Cart). (cross-refer F760) The deficient practice of failing to discard opened bottle of Humalog insulin within the date recommended by manufacturer resulted in Resident 61 received 36 doses between 10/14/23 and 10/25/23 per medication administration record (MAR) (important information about someone's medication, time, date, and amount taking). Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/25/23 at 1:45 PM of Station 2 Medication Cart with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1), the following medication was found expired: 1. One opened vial (a small container made of glass for holding liquid medications) of Humalog insulin for Resident 61 was found labeled with an open date of 9/16/23. According to manufacturer's product labeling, opened Humalog should be used and discarded after 28 days. LVN 1 stated Resident 1's current supply of Humalog was opened on 9/16/23 and expired as of 10/14/23 per the manufacturer's specifications. LVN 1 stated there is no other supply of Humalog insulin for Resident 61 currently in the facility. LVN 1 stated the only routine check of the medication carts for expired medications occurs every three months. LVN 1 stated this would not be sufficient to find medications like Resident 61's Humalog that expired 28 days after opening. LVN 1 stated Resident 61's expired Humalog insulin should have been removed from the medication cart before 10/14/23 and reordered from the pharmacy. LVN 1 stated it is the responsibility of the licensed nurse to check a medication's expiration date prior to administering a medication to a resident. LVN 1 stated he failed to check whether Resident 61's insulin was expired on multiple occasions prior to administering it to her. LVN 1 stated administering expired insulin to a resident is not safe as it could cause medical complications due to loss of blood sugar control or infections at the injection site possibly resulting in hospitalization. A review of the facility's policy and procedure(P&P) titled Drug & Biological Storage, (undated), indicated No discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals may be retained for use. All such drugs must be returned to the pharmacy or destroyed in accordance with the procedure governing the destruction of medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

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 document and provide education regarding the benefits and risks of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document and provide education regarding the benefits and risks of immunization and administration of influenza (a contagious respiratory illness) vaccine and pneumonia ([PNA] infection of the lungs) vaccine (medication to prevent a particular disease) to residents or resident's responsible party for four of five sampled residents (Residents 13, 18, 38, and 80). This deficient practice resulted in incomplete resident's medical records. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 18's Face Sheet, dated 10/26/2023, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 18 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses that include glaucoma (a condition of increased pressure within the eyeball, causing gradual loss of sight), legal blindness, dementia (loss of the ability to think, remember, and reason to levels that affect daily life and activities) with behavioral disturbance, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (high level of sugar in the blood) During a review of Resident 18's History and Physical (H&P), dated 4/21/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 18 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 18's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 8/27/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 18's cognitive skills were severely impaired. Resident 18 required one-person physical assist with bed mobility, transfer, toileting, personal hygiene, and setup help with eating. During a review of Consent Form for Influenza Vaccine-Resident/Patient (flu consent form), dated 10/9/2023, the flu consent form, indicated Resident 18's resident representative (RR) agreed to give consent for Influenza Vaccine. The flu consent form did not indicate documentation of education of Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) was given or provided to Resident 18's RR. 2. During a review of Resident 38's Face Sheet, dated 10/27/2023, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses that include type 2 diabetes mellitus (high level of sugar in the blood) and hypertension (when the pressure in your blood vessels is too high). During a review of Resident 38's History and Physical (H&P), dated 4/21/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 38 has the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 38's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 8/29/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 38 has a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 13 which indicates cognitive intactness. Resident 38 required one-person physical assist with bed mobility, toileting, personal hygiene. During a review of Consent Form for Influenza Vaccine-Resident/Patient (flu consent form), dated 10/9/2023, the flu consent form, indicated Resident 38 refused to give consent for Influenza Vaccine. The flu consent form did not indicate documentation of education of Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) was given or provided to Resident 38. 3. During a review of Resident 13's Face Sheet, dated 10/27/2023, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses that include dementia (loss of the ability to think, remember, and reason to levels that affect daily life and activities) and anxiety (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities). During a review of Resident 13's History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/12/2022, the H&P indicated Resident 13 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 13's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 10/19/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 13 has a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 03 which suggests severe cognitive impairment. MDS indicates Resident 13 dependent assist with toileting, personal hygiene, and lower body dressing. During a review of Consent Form for Influenza Vaccine-Resident/Patient (flu consent form), dated 10/9/2023, the flu consent form, indicated Resident 13's resident representative (RR) agreed to give consent for Influenza Vaccine. The flu consent form did not indicate documentation of education of Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) was given or provided to Resident 13's RR. 4. During a review of Resident 80's Face Sheet, dated 10/27/2023, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 80 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses that include cerebral infarction (damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing foods or liquids), and acute respiratory failure (a serious condition that makes it difficult to breathe on your own). During a review of Resident 80's History and Physical (H&P), dated 1/27/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 80 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 80's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 7/29/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 80 has a BIMS (brief interview for mental status) score of 06 which suggests severe cognitive impairment. MDS indicates Resident 80 required one-person physical assist with bed mobility, transfer, toileting, personal hygiene, and setup help with eating. During a review of Consent Form for Pneumococcal Vaccine (PVC), dated 9/19/2023, the (PVC) form, indicated Resident 80 record did not indicate documentation of education of Vaccine Information Statement (VIS) was given or provided to Resident 80's resident representative. During an interview on 10/25/2023 at 2:46 p.m., with Infection Preventionist Nurse (IP), IP stated if the Consent Form for Influenza Vaccine-Resident/Patient (flu consent) is not filled out completely showing that the VIS was given we are unable to know if education was given. It is also important to have the consent forms filled out completely to know if the residents have any reaction and to know what type of medication they received. If vaccine education is not given to residents or representatives, they are not able to make an informed decision regarding the vaccine.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure eight of 20 sampled residents' (Residents 18, 35, 3, 25, 41,...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure eight of 20 sampled residents' (Residents 18, 35, 3, 25, 41, 45, 53 and 72) medical records were updated to show documentation that advance directives (written statement of a person's wishes regarding medical treatment made to ensure those wishes were carried out should the person be unable to communicate them to a doctor) were discussed and written information provided to the residents and/or their responsible parties. This deficient practice violated the residents' and/or the responsible parties' rights to be fully informed of the option to formulate their advance directives and had the potential to cause conflict with the residents' health care wishes. Findings: A. During a review of Resident 18's Face Sheet, dated 10/26/2023, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 86 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with the diagnoses including glaucoma (a condition of increased pressure within the eyeball, causing gradual loss of sight), legal blindness, dementia (loss of the ability to think, remember, and reason to levels that affect daily life and activities) with behavioral disturbance, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (abnormal blood sugar). During a review of Resident 18's History and Physical (H&P), dated 4/21/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 18 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 18's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 8/27/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 18's cognitive skills were severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 18 required a one-person physical assist with bed mobility, transfer, toileting, personal hygiene, and setup help with eating. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/2023 at 8:35 a.m. with the Social Service Director (SSD), Resident 18's Social Service assessment dated [DATE] was reviewed. The Social Service Assessment indicated Resident 18 did not want to execute an advance directive. The SSD stated that it was not documented that written or verbal information regarding advance directives were given to resident 18 or the responsible party. B. During a review of Resident 35's Face Sheet, dated 10/27/2023, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 35 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included congestive heart failure (when the heart does not pump blood effectively), chronic kidney disease ([CKD], condition in which the kidneys cannot filter blood like they should), anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities), and type 2 diabetes mellitus). During a review of Resident 35's H&P, dated 8/24/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 35 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 35's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 35's was able to understand and be understood. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/2023 at 8:35 a.m. with the SSD, Resident 35's Social Service assessment dated [DATE] was reviewed. The SSD stated Resident 35's Social Service Assessment indicated Resident 35 did not want to execute an advance directive. The SSD stated there was no documentation to indicate written or verbal information on advance directives was given to resident 35 or the resident's responsibly party. C. During a review of Resident 3's Face Sheet, dated 10/27/2023, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, lung disease that causes blocked airflow from the lungs), dementia (loss of the ability to think, remember, and reason to levels that affect daily life and activities), and type 2 diabetes. During a review of Resident 3's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 3 had severe cognitive impairment. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/2023 at 8:35 a.m. with the SSD, Resident 3's Social Service assessment dated [DATE] was reviewed. The SSD stated Resident 3's assessment indicated Resident 3 did not want to execute an advance directive. The SSD stated there was no documentation to indicate written or verbal information on advance directives was given to resident 35 or the resident's responsibly party. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/2023 at 8:44 a.m. with the SSD, the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Advance Directives, undated was reviewed. The SSD stated the P&P indicated, The Company must document in a prominent part of the resident's clinical record whether the resident has issued an Advance Directive. The SSD stated, It's important for them to make informed health decisions, not having an advanced directive can affect residents or resident representatives about making informed decision. D. During a review of Resident 25's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 25 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease (group of disorders of the heart and blood vessels), obstructive uropathy (a condition in which the flow of urine is blocked) and renal calculi (kidney stone). During a review of Resident 25's H&P, dated 10/7/2023, the H&P, indicated Resident 25 did not have the capacity to make medical decision due to cognitive impairment. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/2023 at 8:42 a.m. with the SSD, Resident 25's Social Service assessment dated [DATE] was reviewed. The SSD stated the Social Service Assessment indicated Resident 25 did not want to execute an advanced directive. The SSD stated she did not give Resident 25 an acknowledgement form or did provide education materials regarding advanced directives. The SSD stated it was important to have the resident's advanced directives, so the staff was aware of the resident's healthcare wishes. E. During a review of Resident 41's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 41 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease (group of disorders of the heart and blood vessels), hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body), type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. During a review of Resident 41's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 41 could make independent decisions that were consistent and reasonable. The MDS indicated Resident 41 had no advance directives. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 7:35 a.m. with Resident 41, Resident 41 stated he was not given an acknowledgement form about advance directives. Resident 41 stated this was the best time to execute advance directive since he still had the capacity to make decisions and he did not want his family to be involved with his healthcare needs. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/2023 at 8:43 a.m. with the SSD, Resident 41's chart was reviewed. The SSD stated Resident 41 had no advance directives and no evidence that an acknowledgement form was given to the resident. F. During a review of Resident 53's Face Sheet, dated 10/27/2023, the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 53 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic (long-lasting) kidney disease and schizophrenia (a mental health condition in which people interpret reality abnormally). The Face Sheet indicated, Resident 53 had one resident representative and four other emergency contacts listed. During a review of Resident 53's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated the Resident 53's cognition was severely impaired. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/26/2023, at 9:26 a.m., with the SSD, Resident 53's chart was reviewed. The SSD stated, Resident 53's chart did not have advance directives or advance directives acknowledgement. The SSD stated, she did not provide the information in the advance directive acknowledgement to the residents or resident's representatives. The SSD stated, the admission Coordinator was responsible for providing the advance directive acknowledgment found in the admission packets of residents. The SSD stated, she only handled the execution of advance directives if a resident had the capacity to make decisions. G. During a review of Resident 72's Face Sheet, dated 10/27/2023, the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 72 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of anemia (a condition that develops when your blood produces a lower-than-normal amount of healthy red blood cells) and essential hypertension (high blood pressure). The Face Sheet indicated, Resident 72 was self-responsible or able make decisions for himself. During a review of Resident 72's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 72 was able to understand and be understood by others. During an interview on 10/26/2023, at 11:01 a.m., with the SSD, the SSD stated, Resident 72 was supposed to give the SSD his family member's phone number so the advance directive could be completed, on 9/29/2023. The SSD stated, she forgot to follow up on it. The SSD stated, there was no other contacts or back-up decision maker listed on Resident 72's Face Sheet in case of an emergency. H. During a review of Resident 45's Face Sheet, dated 10/27/2023, the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 45 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of urinary tract infection (infection in the urinary system which includes the kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra) and hypertension. The Face Sheet indicated; Resident 45 had two contacts listed. During a review of Resident 45's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 45's cognition was severely impaired. During an interview on 10/26/2023, at 11:14 a.m., with the SSD, the SSD stated, she gave verbal information to Resident 45's significant other but there was no advance directive acknowledgment filled out as proof. During an interview on 10/27/2023, at 4:54 p.m., with the admission Coordinator (AC), the AC stated, he asked residents or residents' representatives if they had a copy of their advance directives. The AC stated, he did not give specific information or explanation about advance directives to residents or residents' representatives. The AC stated it was the SSD's responsibility to give explanations about advance directives. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Advance Directives, dated 8/16/2021, the P&P indicated, upon admission of the resident, the company will provide a resident or the resident's representative with written information regarding the company's policies on advance directives and a copy of this policy. The company will inquire at the time of admission whether the resident has previously executed an advance directive. The Company must document in a prominent part of the resident's clinical record whether the resident has issued an advance directive.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure the Lorazepam oral solution (a medication...

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: 1. Ensure the Lorazepam oral solution (a medication used to treat mental illness) was stored in one of one inspected medication rooms, (Station 1 Medication Room), and ensure the 29.5 milliliters (ml - a unit of measure for volume) of lorazepam was accounted for and was maintained for Resident 60's use. 2. Reorder Lactulose solution (a medication used to maintain regular bowel movements) for one of three residents (Resident 1), from the facility's contracted pharmacy, to ensure the medication supply was available between 6/13/2023 and 10/26/2023 and was available during the observed medication administration for Resident 1. (cross-refer F842) The deficient practice of failing to maintain accountability of Resident 60's Lorazepam oral solution increased the risk of diversion (the illegal distribution or abuse of prescription drugs or their use for purposes not intended by the prescriber) of medications, staff working in an impaired state, or accidental exposure of controlled substances (medications with a high potential for abuse) to the facility's other residents, possibly resulting in medical complications. The deficient practice of failing to reorder lactulose increased the risk Resident 1 could have experienced constipation or other medical complications, possibly leading to hospitalization. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview with the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1), on 10/25/2023 at 2:13 p.m. of the medication refrigerator in Station 1 Medication Room, Resident 60's supply of lorazepam oral solution could not be found in the refrigerator. LVN 1 stated the lorazepam oral solution was not in Station 2 Medication Cart as it requires refrigeration and the refrigerator in Station 1 Medication Room is the only refrigerator for medications within the facility. LVN 1 stated Resident 60's supply of lorazepam oral solution is not in the medication refrigerator, and he does not currently know where it is. During an observation on 10/25/2023 at 2:30 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) informed all licensed staff to search the facility's medication carts and other storage areas to find the missing lorazepam. Further observation indicated Resident 60's lorazepam could not be found in any of the facility's three medication carts or medication room. A review of the Controlled Drug Record (a log containing the time, quantity, and nurse's signature each time a dose is administered) for Resident 60's Lorazepam oral solution, indicated the initial quantity on hand was 30 ml and the last and only dose was administered on 9/15/2023 for 0.5 ml, leaving 29.5 ml unaccounted for. A review of the Controlled Drugs-Count Record (a log signed by licensed nurses during shift change endorsing over responsibility for the controlled substances in the cart) indicated, Signing below acknowledges that you have counted the controlled drugs on hand and have found that the quantity of each medication counted is in agreement with the quantity stated on the Controlled Drug Administration Record. Further review of the Controlled Drugs-Count Record indicated LVN 1 signed off with LVN 2 around 7:00 a.m. on 10/25/2023 that all controlled substances in Station 2 Medication Cart were accounted for at the correct quantities. During an interview on 10/25/2023 2:59 p.m. with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated the missing lorazepam was found in the specimen refrigerator (a refrigerator used to hold biological specimens such as stool samples for laboratory testing) on Station 2. LVN 1 stated the medications are not supposed to be stored in the specimen refrigerators and the only proper place to store this medication would have been in the refrigerator in the Medication Room on Station 1. LVN 1 stated he was not sure how it got into the specimen refrigerator on Station 2 unless it was accidentally stored there after the last administration. LVN 1 stated he failed to complete a full reconciliation of the controlled substances this morning as he did not count Resident 60's lorazepam oral solution. LVN 1 stated if he had performed a full controlled substance reconciliation per the facility's policy when coming onto his shift this morning, he would have noticed that Resident 60's lorazepam was unaccounted for then. LVN 1 stated when he signs the Controlled Drugs-Count Record, it means that all controlled medications are accounted for at the correct quantities between himself and the nurse he is relieving. LVN 1 stated he did not count the controlled substances with the nurse assigned to the shift before him (LVN 2) because he arrived to work late. LVN 1 stated LVN 2 endorsed them to a different nurse (LVN 3), who then endorsed them to him when he arrived. LVN 1 stated he failed to follow the facility's policy regarding endorsing controlled substances between shift change, because the Controlled Drugs-Count Record had no record of him receiving the endorsement from LVN 3. LVN 1 stated, the Controlled Drug-Count Record also did not indicate a record that LVN 2 endorsed over the controlled medications to LVN 3. LVN 1 stated, this practice increased the possibility that medications could be diverted resulting in them not being available for a resident when needed. During an interview on 10/25/2203 at 3:07 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated when nurses sign off on the Controlled Drugs-Count Record, they (nurses) indicated that they (nurses) have counted the controlled substances in that cart together and agreed that all controlled substances had been accounted for at the correct quantities. The DON stated, if one nurse is late or one leaves early, and they are not able to count with each other, they are required to sign on their own line along with whichever nurse they counted the controlled substances with. The DON stated when the next nurse arrives, that nurse then needs to also sign on their own line along with whichever nurse counted the controlled substances with the previously assigned nurse. The DON stated, this policy exists to maintain a chain of accountability for the accuracy of controlled substances between nurses during shift change and helps to prevent diversion. The DON stated the Controlled Drugs-Count Record for Station 2 Medication Cart does not contain any signatures for LVN 3 for the 7:00 a.m. shift change on 10/25/2023. The DON stated LVN 1, LVN 2, and LVN 3 failed to follow the facility policy by not including LVN 3's signature on the Controlled Drugs-Count Record on 10/25/2023. The DON stated this increased the risk that controlled medications from medication Cart 2 could have been diverted resulting in it not being available for the residents' medical needs possibly resulting in medical complications. A review of the facility's policy titled, Controlled Substances, dated November 2017, indicated At each shift change, a physical inventory of controlled medications, as defined by state regulation, is conducted by two licensed clinicians and is documented on an audit record. 2. A review of Resident 1's Face Sheet (a document containing demographic and diagnostic resident information), dated 10/26/23, indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and most recently readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified abdominal pain and primary hypertension (high blood pressure.) A review of Resident 1's History and Physical (a physician's note documenting a patient medical exam), dated 11/8/22, indicated Resident 1 had the capacity for medical decision making. A review of Resident 1's Physician Order Report for October 2023 indicated on 5/27/23, Resident 1's physician prescribed lactulose 20 grams (gm - a unit of measure for mass) per 30 ml to take 30 ml by mouth every twelve hours at 9:00 AM and 9:00 PM for bowel management (to maintain regular bowel movements.) During an observation of medication administration and concurrent interview on 10/25/2023 at 9:36 a.m. with LVN 1, LVN 1 was observed preparing seven total medications for administration to Resident 1 including the following: 1. One tablet of amlodipine (a medication used to treat high blood pressure) five milligrams (mg - a unit of measure for mass) 2. One tablet of aspirin (a medication used to prevent blood clots) 81 mg. 3. One multivitamin tablet (a supplement) 4. One tablet of Myrbetriq (a medication used to treat urinary frequency) 50 mg. 5. Two tablets of acetaminophen (a medication used to treat mild pain) 500 mg. 6. Thirty milliliters (ml) of UTI-Stat (a supplement used to help prevent infection in the urinary tract) 7. Two tablets of vitamin c (a supplement) 250 mg. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 also needed lactulose at 9:00 a.m. but he could not administer it because it is currently out of stock and had not been delivered by the pharmacy. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 will not receive lactulose today because there is no other supply available for her in the facility. LVN 1 stated Resident 1's lactulose has been missing for at least two days possibly due to insurance complications with the pharmacy. During an observation and concurrent interview on 10/26/2023 at 8:15 a.m. of Station 2 Medication Cart with LVN 1, Resident 1's lactulose was observed unavailable in the medication cart. LVN 1 stated there has still been no pharmacy delivery for Resident 1's lactulose and there had been no information about why it is not here. LVN 1 stated he will follow up with the pharmacy today. A review of the pharmacy delivery receipt, dated 5/27/23, indicated the pharmacy delivered 946 ml (approximately a 16-day supply or enough to last until around 6/12/23) of lactulose for Resident 1 on 5/27/23. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 10:13 a.m. with the DON, the DON stated she contacted the pharmacy for all delivery receipts for Resident 1's lactulose and stated the record dated 5/27/23 was the only record of delivery for Resident 1's lactulose. The DON stated the facility does not use any other pharmacies to deliver Resident 1's medication. A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR - a record of medications administered to a resident) between 6/13/23 and 10/25/23 indicated LVN 1 and other licensed staff documented a total of 267 administrations of lactulose to Resident 1. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 10:35 a.m. with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated the MAR indicated Resident 1 had been continuously receiving lactulose 30 ml. every 12 hours since 6/13/23 as documented by himself and other licensed staff. LVN 1 stated when his initials are on the MAR, it indicates he administered the medication to the resident per the physician's order. LVN 1 stated if the initials are in parentheses, it means the medication was not administered and usually includes a comment about why it was not administered. LVN 1 stated he could not explain how he administered Resident 1's lactulose so many times after 6/13/23, when the only supply received would have run out around 6/12/23. LVN 1 stated he did not administer lactulose for Resident 1 using any other resident's supply. LVN 1 stated when he completes a medication administration, he is required to document the medication administration in the resident's MAR immediately after it is finished. LVN 1 stated, sometimes he is distracted by other residents needing care, trainings, or other interruptions and charts multiple residents' medication administrations together at one time near the end of his shift. LVN 1 stated it is possible that he inaccurately recorded that lactulose was administered to Resident 1 while charting this way and failed to follow up with the pharmacy regarding medications that were needing to be reordered. LVN 1 stated, if Resident 1 had not received lactulose per the physician's order, it is possible that she could have medical complications from constipation which could result in hospitalization. A review of the facility's policy Ordering and Receiving Non-Controlled medications, dated January 2023, indicated Medications and related products are received from the pharmacy provider on a timely basis . all medications shall be reordered in advance by writing the medication name and prescription number, or applying the peel-off bar-coded label from the prescription label on the reorder sheet and faxing or otherwise transmitting the order to the pharmacy.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the licensed staff checked the expiration date...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the licensed staff checked the expiration date of Humalog insulin (a medication used to treat high blood sugar) before administering 36 doses between 10/14/23 and 10/25/2023 to one randomly observed resident (Resident 61.) (cross-refer F761) The deficient practice of failing to check the expiration date of insulin prior to administration increased the risk that Resident 61 could have experience medical complications such as poor blood sugar control or injection site infections which may have resulted in hospitalization and a decreased quality of life. Findings: A review of Resident 61's Face Sheet (a document containing demographic and diagnostic resident information), dated 10/26/23, indicated Resident 61 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and most recently readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (a medical condition characterized by a loss of blood sugar control.) A review of Resident 61's History and Physical (a physician's note documenting a patient medical exam), dated 5/25/23, indicated Resident 61 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 61's Physician Order Report for October 2023 indicated on 5/25/23, Resident 61's physician prescribed Humalog insulin to be given every six hours by subcutaneous (under the skin) injection per a sliding scale (dosage regimen whereby the dose of insulin depends on the resident's blood sugar reading.) During an observation on 10/25/2023 at 2:03 p.m. of Station 2 Medication Cart, one opened vial of Humalog insulin for Resident 61 was found labeled with an open date of 9/16/23. Further observation revealed there was no other supply of Humalog insulin available for Resident 61 in the medication cart. A review of the manufacturer's product labeling indicated that opened Humalog insulin vials expire 28 days after opening (expired on 10/14/23.) A review of Resident 61's Medication Administration Record (MAR - a record of all medication administered to a resident) between 10/14/23 and 10/25/23 indicated LVN 1 and other licensed staff administered a total of 36 doses of Humalog insulin to Resident 61 during that timeframe. During a concurrent interview, the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) stated Resident 1's current supply of Humalog was opened on 9/16/23 and expired as of 10/14/23 per the manufacturer's specifications. LVN 1 stated there is no other supply of Humalog insulin for Resident 61 currently in the facility. LVN 1 stated, the only routine check of the medication carts for expired medications occurs every three months. LVN 1 stated this would not be sufficient to find medications like Resident 61's Humalog that expired 28 days after opening. LVN 1 stated, Resident 61's expired Humalog insulin should have been removed from the medication cart before 10/14/23 and reordered from the pharmacy. LVN 1 stated it is the responsibility of the licensed nurse to check a medication's expiration date prior to administering a medication to a resident. LVN 1 stated he failed to check whether Resident 61's insulin was expired on multiple occasions prior to administering it to her. LVN 1 stated administering expired insulin to a resident is not safe as it could cause medical complications due to loss of blood sugar control or infections at the injection site possibly resulting in hospitalization. A review of the facility's policy Drug and Biological Storage, dated March 2000, indicated No discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs . may be retained for use. All such drugs must be returned to the issuing pharmacy or destroyed in accordance with the procedure governing the destruction of medication. A review of the facility's policy Medication Administration General Guidelines, dated January 2023, indicated Check expiration date on package/container. No expired medications will be administered to a resident.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure licensed staff did not falsify the Medication ...

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 licensed staff did not falsify the Medication Administration Record (MAR - the record of all medications administered to a resident) by documenting the administration of lactulose (a medication used to maintain regular bowel movements) 267 times when the product was unavailable in the facility between 6/13/23 and 10/26/2023, for one of three residents observed for medication administration (Resident 1). (cross-refer F755) The deficient practice of failing to ensure the medical records accurately reflect care delivered to the resident increased the risk that Resident 1 may not have received her lactulose as ordered and may have received unnecessary dosage adjustments possibly resulting in medical complications leading to an overall diminished quality of life. Findings: A review of Resident 1's Face Sheet (a document containing demographic and diagnostic resident information), dated 10/26/23, indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and most recently readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified abdominal pain and primary hypertension (high blood pressure.) A review of Resident 1's History and Physical (a physician's note documenting a patient medical exam), dated 11/8/22, indicated Resident 1 had the capacity for medical decision making. A review of Resident 1's Physician Order Report for October 2023 indicated on 5/27/23, Resident 1's physician prescribed lactulose 20 grams (gm - a unit of measure for mass) per 30 milliliters (ml - a unit of measurement for volume) to take 30 ml by mouth every twelve hours at 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. for bowel management (to maintain regular bowel movements.) During an observation of medication administration and concurrent interview on 10/25/2023 at 9:36 a.m. with the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1), LVN 1 was observed preparing seven total medications for administration to Resident 1 including the following: 1. One tablet of amlodipine (a medication used to treat high blood pressure) five milligrams (mg - a unit of measure for mass) 2. One tablet of aspirin (a medication used to prevent blood clots) 81 mg 3. One multivitamin tablet (a supplement) 4. One tablet of Myrbetriq (a medication used to treat urinary frequency) 50 mg 5. Two tablets of acetaminophen (a medication used to treat mild pain) 500 mg 6. Thirty milliliters of UTI-Stat (a supplement used to help prevent infection in the urinary tract) 7. Two tablets of vitamin c (a supplement) 250 mg LVN 1 stated Resident 1 also needed lactulose at 9:00 a.m. but he could not administer it because it is currently out of stock and had not been delivered by the pharmacy. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 will not receive lactulose today because there is no other supply available for her in the facility. LVN 1 stated Resident 1's lactulose has been missing for at least two days possibly due to insurance complications with the pharmacy. During an observation and concurrent interview on 10/26/2023 at 8:15 a.m. of Station 2 Medication Cart with LVN 1, Resident 1's lactulose was observed unavailable in the medication cart. LVN 1 stated there has still been no pharmacy delivery for Resident 1's lactulose and there had been no information about why it is not here. LVN 1 stated he will follow up with the pharmacy today. A review of the pharmacy delivery receipt, dated 5/27/23, indicated the pharmacy delivered 946 ml (approximately a 16-day supply or enough to last until around 6/12/23) of lactulose for Resident 1 on 5/27/23. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 10:13 a.m. with the Director of Nursing, the DON stated she contacted the pharmacy for all delivery receipts for Resident 1's lactulose and stated the record dated 5/27/23 was the only record of delivery for Resident 1's lactulose. The DON stated the facility does not use any other pharmacies to deliver Resident 1's medication. A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR - a record of medications administered to a resident) between 6/13/23 and 10/25/23 revealed LVN 1 and other licensed staff documented a total of 267 administrations of lactulose to Resident 1. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 10:35 a.m. with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated the MAR indicated Resident 1 had been continuously receiving lactulose 30 ml every 12 hours since 6/13/23 as documented by himself and other licensed staff. LVN 1 stated when his initials are on the MAR it indicates he administered the medication to the resident per the physician's order. LVN 1 stated if the initials are in parentheses, it means the medication was not administered and usually includes a comment about why it was not administered. LVN 1 stated he could not explain how he administered Resident 1's lactulose so many times after 6/13/23 when the only supply received would have run out around 6/12/23. LVN 1 stated he did not administer lactulose for Resident 1 using any other resident's supply. LVN 1 stated when he completes a medication administration, he is required to document the medication administration in the resident's MAR immediately after it is finished. LVN 1 stated, sometimes he is distracted by other residents needing care, trainings, or other interruptions and charts multiple residents' medication administrations together at one time near the end of his shift. LVN 1 stated it is possible that he inaccurately recorded that lactulose was administered to Resident 1 while charting this way and failed to follow up with the pharmacy regarding medications that were needing to be reordered. LVN 1 stated, if Resident 1 had not received lactulose per the physician's order, it is possible that she could have medical complications from constipation which could result in hospitalization. LVN 1 stated it is important to chart medication administration right after the medications are administered to ensure the accuracy of the charting. LVN 1 stated if the MAR does not accurately reflect the care the resident received, it could result in Resident 1's physician unnecessarily increasing the dose of existing medication orders or adding new medication which may cause additional side effects (unintended effects of medication therapy) leading to a diminished quality of life. A review of the facility's policy Ordering and Receiving Non-Controlled medications, dated January 2023, indicated Medications and related products are received from the pharmacy provider on a timely basis . all medications shall be reordered in advance by writing the medication name and prescription number, or applying the peel-off bar-coded label from the prescription label on the reorder sheet and faxing or otherwise transmitting the order to the pharmacy . A review of the facility's undated policy Medication Pass Guidelines, indicated Record the name, dose, route, and time of medication on the Medication Administration Record . Initial the record after the medication is administered to the resident . A review of the facility's policy Medication Administration General Guidelines, dated January 2023, indicated The individual who administers the medication dose, records the administration on the resident's MAR immediately following the medication being given .
Oct 2022 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise and update the individualized comprehensive care plan after ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise and update the individualized comprehensive care plan after an unsupervised fall for one of 78 sampled residents (Resident 45). This deficient practice had the potential to result in a recurrent unsupervised fall. Findings: A review of Residents 45's Face Sheet (admission record), indicated Resident 45 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis that included a history of falling adult failure to thrive (a declining state with loss of appetite and mobility) and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 45's Care plan titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) dated 7/15/2022, the care plan's listed interventions included to: 1. Provide supervision with most ADLs, bed mobility, transfers, walking and toileting. 2. Keep environment free of hazards, clutter free, call light within reach. 3. Bathing facility with non-slip surface, grab bars for support, adjust toilet seat height, non-skid footwear, well lighted bathroom. 4. Keep personal items within reach. During a review of Resident 45's MDS Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/20/2022, the MDS indicated Resident 45 usually had the ability to understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 45 required one-person assist for bed mobility, transfer, walk in room, locomotion (moving from place to place), dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 45's progress notes (PN) dated 9/1/2022 at 4:51 p.m., the PN indicated resident was found sitting on the floor in the shower room. Resident had laceration to her left knee measuring 0.8 by 0.8 by 0.1 cm and left elbow laceration measuring 0.6 by 0.6 by 0.1 cm and great toe laceration measuring 0.5 by 0.5 by 0.1 cm. During a review of Resident 45's Care Plan titled Falls updated 9/3/2022, the care plan's listed interventions indicated to: 1. Provide first aid as needed. 2. Body and pain assessment. 3. Initiate neuro check. 4. Inform medical doctor (MD) of change of condition. During a review of Resident 45's History and Physical (H/P) dated 9/8/202, the H/P indicated Resident 45 had the capacity to understand and to make decisions During a concurrent interview and record review with Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDS) on 10/3/2022 at 3:11 p.m., MDS stated that the updated care plan did not address the resident's problem. MDS stated that not everyone in the facility had the knowledge to update and create a care plan and that was probably the reason the care plan did not address the problem. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/4/22 at 11:45 a.m., the DON stated all licensed personnel should be trained on how to create and update care plans. Not having licensed personnel who are not trained on how to update and create care plans could lead to unidentified problems and unimplemented interventions which could lead to recurrent problems and inability to reach residents goals. During a review of the facilities and procedure (P&P) title, Comprehensive Plan of Care, dated 11/15/2001, the P&P indicated, that care plan entries are signed and dated as they occur. The policy indicated to re-evaluate and modify care plans as necessary to reflect changes in care, service, and treatment with significant change in status.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was within reach for two of 78 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light was within reach for two of 78 sampled residents (Resident 45 and 15). This deficient practice resulted in a negative impact on the resident's psychosocial well-being, as evidenced by feelings of being forgotten, sadness, abandonment, and anxiety. Deficient practice could have led to falls and accidents. Findings: 1). A review of Residents 45's Face Sheet (admission record), indicated Resident 45 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included a history of falls, adult failure to thrive (a declining state with loss of appetite and mobility) and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 45's MDS Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/20/2022, the MDS indicated Resident 45 usually had the ability to understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 45 required one-person assist for bed mobility, transfers, walking in the room, locomotion (moving from place to place), dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 45's Care plan titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) dated 7/15/2022, the care plan's listed interventions included to: 1. Provide supervision with most ADLs, bed mobility, transfers, walking and toileting. 2. Keep environment free of hazards, clutter free, call light within reach. 3. Bathing facility with non-slip surface, grab bars for support, adjust toilet seat height, non-skid footwear, and a well-lighted bathroom. 4. Keep personal items within reach. During a review of Resident 45's History and Physical (H/P) dated 9/8/2022, the H/P indicated Resident 45 had the capacity to understand and to make decisions. During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 45 on 9/31/2022 at 2:35 p.m., there was water on the floor by Resident 45's bed down to the bathroom entrance. Resident 45 stated she had just returned from hemodialysis and did not notice the floor was wet. When she attempted to use the call light, she could not find it. Resident 45 stated she did not know where her light was, and she usually did not have the call light nearby. Resident 45 stated she usually just yells for help when she needed help. Resident 45 stated she had feelings of sadness, anxiety and felt forgotten at times because she had to yell for help when she did not have her call light. During a concurrent observation and interview with the Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 1) on 9/31/2022 at 2:36 p.m., CNA 1 stated the call light was out of reach from the resident. The call light was hanging from the bed rail towards the floor. CNA 1 stated it was dangerous for Resident 45 not to have it within reach because she could have fallen. 2). A review of Resident 15's Face Sheet, indicated Resident 15 was initially admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Covid- 19 acute respiratory disease (a type of lung damage that can result from a variety of causes, including illness, trauma, or even as a complication that occurs following certain medical procedures), muscle weakness (subjective fatigue or pain-related motor impairment with normal motor strength), abnormalities of gait and mobility (walking abnormality when a person is unable to walk normally due to injuries, underlying conditions, or issues with the legs or feet.), contracture (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints.), dysarthria (difficulty speaking caused by brain damage, which results in an inability to control the muscles used in speech) and anarthria (a rare disorder commonly defined as a total inability to articulate speech in the absence of any deficit both of auditory comprehension and of written language.), cerebral infarction (An ischemic stroke occurs when the blood supply to part of the brain is interrupted or reduced, preventing brain tissue from getting oxygen and nutrients.) During a review of Resident 15's H/P dated 12/3/21, the H&P indicated, Resident 15 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 15's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 15 required total dependence with one person for bed mobility, locomotion on and off unit, dressing, and for toilet use. The MDS also indicated Resident 15 was totally dependent on two or more physical assist for transfer. During a concurrent observation and interview with Certified Nursing Assistant 5 (CNA 5) and Resident 15, on 9/28/2022, at 4:47 p.m., Resident 15 was awake and alert sitting up in bed in supine position and the call light was strapped to Resident 15's left top side rail without a clamp. Resident 15 was unable to move the left extremities due to a contracture to the left arm. Resident 15 stated she felt anxious and sad when she needed help and she couldn't reach the call light. CNA 5 stated the call light should have been within reach because Resident 15 was unable to reach the call light. During a concurrent observation and interview with CNA 5, on 10/4/2022, at 5:01 p.m., Resident 15 was awake and alert sitting up in the bed in supine position. Resident 15 was unable to reach the call light because the call light was strapped to the left top side rail. CNA 5 stated the call light should be on the right side of the resident since the resident has left sided weakness to call the nurse if Resident 15 needed something. CNA 5 stated there are longer cords and not sure why Resident 15 does not have a longer call light to reach Resident 15's right side. During a record review of Resident 15's Care Plan titled, Visual Deficit due to Glaucoma, dated 10/7/2020, the Care Plan indicated, to assist Resident 15 with transfers, mobility and ADL as needed and keep the call light within reach. During a review of the facilities Call Lights - Answering of (P/P) approved 6/11, indicated facility staff would provide an environment that helps meet the resident's needs. It further indicated when leaving the room, to ensure that the call light was placed within the Resident's reach and to maintain residents' safety.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 78 sampled residents (Resident 45) was n...

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 of 78 sampled residents (Resident 45) was not left in the shower unattended and unsupervised. As a result of this failure, Resident 1 suffered a fall while in the shower and sustained skin tears to the left knee, elbow and left great toe, and had the potential to result in severe injuries or a head injury. Findings: A review of Residents 45's Face Sheet (admission record), indicated Resident 45 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included a history of falls, adult failure to thrive (a declining state with loss of appetite and mobility) and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 45's Care plan titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs) dated 7/15/2022, the care plan's listed interventions included to: 1. Provide supervision with most ADLs, bed mobility, transfers, walking and toileting. 2. Keep environment free of hazards, clutter free. 3. Call light within reach. 4. Use bathing facility with a non-slip surface, grab bars for support and adjust toilet seat height. 5. Use non-skid footwear and well lighted bathroom. 6. Keep personal items within reach. During a review of Resident 45's most recent MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 45 usually had the ability to understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 45 required one-person assist for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room, locomotion (moving from place to place), dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 45's progress notes (PN) dated 9/1/2022 at 4:51 p.m., the PN indicated Resident 45 was found sitting on the floor in the shower room. Resident 45 had a laceration (a deep cut or tear in skin or flesh) to her left knee measuring 0.8 centimeters(cm) by 0.8 cm. by 0.1 cm., left elbow laceration measuring 0.6 cm. by 0.6 cm. by 0.1 cm. and a great toe laceration measuring 0.5 cm. by 0.5 cm. by 0.1 cm. During a review of Resident 45's Care plan titled Falls updated 9/3/2022 the care plan's listed interventions indicated to: 1. Provide first aid as needed. 2. Perform body and pain assessment. 3. Initiate neuro check. Inform the medical doctor (MD) of changes of condition During a review of Resident 45's History and Physical (H/P) dated 9/8/2022, the H/P indicated Resident 45 had the capacity to understand and to make decisions. During an interview with Resident 45 on 9/29/2022 at 12:12 p.m., Resident 45 stated she had fallen in the shower while trying to reach for her soap that had fallen off her hands. Resident 45 stated she was in the shower by herself. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN 1) on 10/3/2022 at 11:49 a.m., RN 1 stated she was told Resident 45 had fallen attempting to reach out for the soap the resident had dropped. RN 1 stated she was told resident was left unsupervised; the certified nurse assistant (CNA 2) had stepped out. The CNA should have not left resident unsupervised. During an interview with CNA 2 on 10/13/2022 at 12:17 p.m. CNA 2 stated it was her fault that Resident 45 had fallen because she had dropped the resident's washcloth and did not want to use a dirty washcloth. She told the resident she was going to get her a new washcloth and she stepped out. CNA 2 stated it was a matter of seconds that she left Resident 45 when she returned to the shower Resident 45 was on the floor. CNA 2 stated it was wrong of her to leave the resident by herself because Resident 45 fell. CNA 2 stated the fall could have led to a head injury or worse. During a review of the facilities Fall Management (P/P) revised 5/2/2022, indicated the purpose was to reduce the number of fall incidents and thus reduce the risk of injuries from falls. A review of the facilities Fall Prevention policy and procedure (P/P) revised 8/9/2013, indicated clinical safety rounds were to be conducted by nursing and Rehabilitation staff on various, shifts, which include monitoring of proper transfer technique especially after care was provided for residents with such indication for use, and wet/cluttered floors.
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its diet menu instructions when making corn bread for 67 residents. This deficient practice had the potential to resu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its diet menu instructions when making corn bread for 67 residents. This deficient practice had the potential to result in weight loss due to receipt of inadequate calories for residents who did not receive the correct amount. Findings: During a record review of the facility's Diet Spreadsheet, dated Spring/Summer 2022, the Diet Spreadsheet indicated corn bread square three inches by two inches. During an observation on 9/29/22, at 11:47 a.m., in the Kitchen, when two random sample corn bread squares were measured, the cornbread squares measured one and a half inches by one and a half inches and another measured two and a half inches by two and one- quarter inches. During a concurrent observation and interview with [NAME] 1 in the Kitchen, on 9/29/22 at 11:59 a.m., smaller portions of corn breads were observed. [NAME] 1 stated he cut the corn bread that size because that was what he was told. [NAME] 1 stated bread should be two to three ounces. During a concurrent interview and record review with Registered Dietitian (RD) on 9/29/22 at 12:09 p.m., the Diet Spreadsheet, dated Spring/Summer 2022 was reviewed. RD stated, Diet Spreadsheet indicated cornbread squares should be three by two inches and not one and a half inches by one and a half inches and another two and a half inches by two and one- quarter inches. RD stated corn bread should not be measured by weight but rather by inches. RD stated smaller portions could affect the resident's intake of calories. RD stated in-services are conducted every month but not sure when the last in-service for serving size was done. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Preparation, dated 2018, indicated, Portion control assures correct quantities are served to resident/patients to meet the nutritional specifications as determined by the menu. Standard portions are necessary to control food costs, quality, attractiveness, and appeal of food. Resident/patient satisfaction is highest when expectations about the amount of food received are the same for all resident/patients. Standard portion control equipment will be available and utilized for measuring and serving resident meal portions. the food service director prints recipes for each meal and are to be used to prepare the food items. The P&P also indicated, Portions served are those listed on the menu for each food item. Standard tools are utilized to assure portion control, i.e., scoops, measuring cups, ladles, measuring spoons, standardized recipes, and food scale.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0825 (Tag F0825)

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's rehabilitation department failed to notify nursing of a Physi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's rehabilitation department failed to notify nursing of a Physical Therapy (PT, profession aimed in the restoration, maintenance, and promotion of optimal physical function) Evaluation recommendation for one of five residents (Resident 7), who had hemiplegia (a condition caused by brain damage or spinal cord injury that leads to paralysis on one side of the body). This deficient practice had the potential to result in a decline in range of motion and poor-quality care. Findings: During an observation on 9/28/2022 at 6:07 PM, Resident 7 was able to move all extremities with limited motion worse to the right leg. Resident 7 verbalized she was not able to ambulate. During a review of Resident 7's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 7 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included cerebral infarction (also called ischemic stroke, a cerebral infarction occurs as a result of disrupted blood flow to the brain due to problems with the blood vessels that supply it) metabolic encephalopathy (alteration in consciousness caused by diffuse or global brain ,dysfunction from impaired cerebral metabolism), hemiplegia (a severe or complete loss of strength or paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (mild or partial weakness or loss of strength on one side of the body). During a review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive standardized assessment and screening tool), dated 9/13/2022, indicated Resident 7 had severe cognitive impairment, difficulty communicating some words or finishing thoughts but able if prompted or given time, misses some part of the message but comprehends most conversation. The MDS also indicated Resident 7 had functional limitation in range of motion (ROM) that included impairment on one side of the upper and lower extremity. The MDS further indicated Resident 7 had zero minutes for Occupational Therapy ([OT] a branch of health care that helps people of all ages who have physical, sensory, or cognitive problems) and zero minutes of PT, and zero minutes of Restorative Nursing Program (RNA) was performed. A review of Resident 7's Physical Therapy Screen (PTS), dated, 9/29/2022 indicated, Resident 7 was Wheelchair mobility impaired, bed mobility impaired, transfers impaired, lower extremity strength impaired, lower extremity ROM impaired, ambulation status impaired, and full weight bearing. The PTS also indicated, Resident 45 exhibited decreased ROM to the left knee due to a cerebral Infarction and states she would like to do more. The PT evaluation (examination to examine each person and then develop a treatment plan to improve ability to move, reduce or manage pain, restore function, and prevent disability) recommended to assess bed mobility, sitting balance and tolerance for EOB (Edge of Bed) activity, or sitting activities for greater interaction and environment. During a concurrent interview and record review with Rehabilitation Program Manager (RPM) 1, on 9/30/2022 at 2:23 PM, Resident 7's PT Screen, dated 9/29/2022 4:46 PM was reviewed. The PT Screen indicated recommendation for PT evaluation. RPM 1 stated PT screen was done 9/29/22 and Resident 45 stated he will like to do more. RPM stated the PT screen recommended a PT evaluation. RPM 1 stated a PT screen is done routinely and performed quarterly. During an interview with the Minimum Data Set nurse (MDS) on 10/4/2022 at 9:15 AM, the MDS stated, there is no order for a PT evaluation and the licensed nurse oversees putting the PT evaluation order in after speaking with the doctor and obtaining an order. The MDS nurse stated the rehabilitation department should have communicated the PT evaluation recommendation to the nurse to obtain a PT evaluation order from the doctor. During an interview with RPM 1, on 10/4/2022 at 9:52 AM, RPM stated, they were in the process of obtaining a PT evaluation. RPM 1 stated PT evaluation order should be typically received within 24 hours once PT evaluation is recommended. RPM 1 stated rehabilitation department makes charge nurse aware of PT evaluation. RPM stated the charge nurse was not notified of requiring a PT evaluation order until this morning. RPM stated obtaining a PT evaluation is to make sure there is no further decline and for potential improvement and mobility status for residents. RPM stated Resident 7 does not have any contractures but does have limited ROM to the left knee. RPM stated a PT screen was completed on 9/29/2022. RPM stated, currently there is still no order for a PT evaluation, as charge nurse was just notified today. RPM stated she not sure why there is no order, stated somewhere it was dropped. RPM stated working on PT evaluation order now. During a record review of Resident 7's Joint mobility limitations Care Plan dated and revised on 7/6/2022, the Care Plan indicated, to notify the MD and responsible party of any changes in the resident's joint mobility status. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P), dated 4/2005, titled Rehabilitation admission & Discharge indicated most evaluations should be performed within 24 hours of receiving the physician's order. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P), dated 2/2013, titled Rehabilitation Therapy Screens indicated, a physician's order is mandatory for admission to rehabilitation services including physical therapy occupational therapy and speech therapy pathology. If appropriate for intervention, the treating therapy discipline(s) will develop treatment plans in consultation with the referring physician.
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement an individualized person-cen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and/or implement an individualized person-centered plan of care with measurable objectives, timeframe, and interventions to meet the residents' needs for three of 20 sampled residents (Residents 17, Resident 64 and Resident 70) by failing to: 1. Develop an individualized/person-centered care plan with goals and interventions for Resident 17's diagnosis of Schizophrenia (Disorder that affects the ability to think, feel, and behave clearly). 2. Develop an individualized person-centered care plan to address Resident 64's refusal of being transferred from the bed to a wheelchair. 3. Develop an individualized person-centered care plan to address Resident 70's refusal of Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) services. These deficient practices had the potential to result in inconsistent implementation of the care plan which could lead to a delay or lack of delivery of care and services. Findings: a. A review of Residents 17's Face Sheet (admission record), indicated Resident 17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (mental disorder demonstrating disruption in thought process, perceptions, emotional responsiveness and social interactions), adult failure to thrive (a declining state with loss of appetite and mobility) and seizures (a sudden, uncontrolled electrical disturbance in the brain). During a review of Resident 17's History and Physical (H/P) dated 7/22/2022, the H/P indicated Resident 17 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 17's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/6/2022, the MDS indicated Resident 17 usually had the ability to understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 17 required one-person assist for bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilette use and personal hygiene and set up help only for locomotion (moving from place to place) and eating. During an interview with the Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDS) on 10/3/2022 at 3:27 p.m., the MDS stated they did not have a care plan for Resident's 17 schizophrenia diagnosis. The MDS stated they should have had a care plan for Resident 17's diagnosis to effectively monitor Resident 17 for anger, hallucinations and agitation. MDS further stated failing to develop a care plan for Resident 17 would put Resident 17 at risk of not being monitored or fail to prevent danger or injury to patient or others. b. During a review of resident 64's medical records, the face sheet indicated Resident 64 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included cerebral infarction (lack of adequate blood supply to the brain cells depriving cells of oxygen), hemiplegia and hemiparesis (Muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body) and aphasia (A language disorder that affects a person's ability to communicate). During a review of Resident 64's medical records, the initial History and Physical dated 4/7/2022, indicated Resident 64 has the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of residents 64's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and screening tool) dated 8/26/2022, indicated Resident 64 was usually understood and misses some part or intent of a message but comprehend most conversations. The MDS indicated Resident 64 needed extensive assistance in bed mobility and was totally dependent on staff assistance to or from the bed, chair, wheelchair. During a review of Resident 64's undated Point of Care History, the history indicated Resident 64's was not transferred from bed to wheelchair, from 9/1/2022 through 10/3/2022, except for 9/17/2022. During an interview on 9/29/2022 at 1:08 p.m. with Resident 64, Resident 64 stated, before I used to go to the wheelchair, but now I do not want it. I like to stay on my bed. During an interview on 9/30/2022 at 2:48 p.m. with CNA 3, CNA3 stated, Resident 64 required assistance to get up. Two people assistance is required for Resident 64, with a Hoyer lift. Resident 64 sometimes refused to get up. When Resident 64 is out of bed in the wheelchair, it is documented under Activity of Daily Living (ADL) and will show Resident 64 was transferred with two persons via a Hoyer lift, but if Resident 64 refused to go to the wheelchair, it is documented as Activity did not occur. CNA3 further stated we then must inform the charge nurse, then the charge nurse will come and talk to the resident. During an interview on 10/03/2022 at 11:07 a.m. with Resident 64, Resident 64 stated, I refused to get up today. Resident 64 stated, I like to get up sometimes. not every day, the nurse asked me today and I did refuse. During an interview on 10/03/2022 at 11:10 a.m. with CNA 4. CNA4 stated, Resident 64 refused, to get out from bed to the wheelchair today. CNA4 informed LVN 1. During an interview and record review on 10/03/2022 at 3:03 p.m. with the Unit Manager (UM), the UM stated, when any Resident refused to get out from bed, we encourage the resident to get out from bed and explain the risk and benefits. If Residents are not out of bed, they are at risk of developing wounds, lack of socialization with other residents and participation in activities. Nurses must inform the family and the resident's doctor. The UM stated, we need to develop a care plan for refusing to get out from bed and document the refusal in the progress notes. Resident 64's documentation under ADL transfer indicated Activity did not occur. The UM stated that means Resident 64 did not transfer from the bed to the wheelchair. During a review of progress notes, there was no documentation that Resident 64 refused and none to indicate that a care plan of Resident 64's refusal to be transferred from the bed to the wheelchair. The UM stated, it is very important to develop a care plan because it means we are aware of the problem, addressing and creating a plan to assist Resident 64 to receive the best care. During an interview on 10/03/2022 at 3:32 p.m. with the Assistance of Director of nursing (ADON), the ADON stated, if there is any change of condition in a resident's care, we will discuss the situation and develop a care plan. It is very important to develop a care plan because, it is a guide of the progress or decline of residents and creates a goal to help the residents. The nurses must follow a care plan for each resident. The risk of being in bed all the time can result in the residents decline in function and the resident could develop a skin ulcer and have a lack in socialization. The ADON stated, I was not aware of Resident 64's refusing to be transferred to the wheelchair. If Resident 64 was refusing to get out from bed we needed to document and develop a care plan. c. A review of Residents 70's Face Sheet, indicated Resident 70 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included muscle weakness, adult failure to thrive (a declining state with loss of appetite and mobility) and osteoarthritis (pain, stiffness, loss of flexibility to affected joints). During a review of Resident 70's History & Physical, (H/P) dated 5/31/2022, the H/P indicated Resident 70 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 70's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 70 usually had the ability to understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 70 required one-person assist for bed mobility, transfer, for locomotion (moving from place to place), dressing, eating, toilette use and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident's 70's progress notes (PN) dated 9/24/2022 at 4:03 p.m. the notes indicated Resident 70 was difficult to motivate and had refusals. On 9/17/2022, the PN indicated Resident 70 had two refusals. During an interview with the MDS on 10/4/2022 at 9:16 a.m., the MDS stated Resident 70 usually had excuses and refused RNA. The MDS stated the facility did not have a care plan for Resident 70's refusal for RNA and he did not know why he did not have a care plan. The MDS stated it was important for Resident 70 to have a care plan to address the issue of Resident 70 refusing RNA. The MDS further stated without a care plan they wouldn't be able to identify the problem and wouldn't be able to provide solutions and interventions to assist the resident reach optimal recovery. The facility's policy titled Comprehensive care Plan dated 11/15/2001, indicated each resident will have a comprehensive care plan developed that included goals, measurable objectives, and timetables to meet their medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs identified during the comprehensive assessment. Reflects the facility's effort to provide alternative methods when a resident wishes to refuse certain treatments or services. Care plan evaluation must occur in response to changes in the resident's physical, emotional, functional, psychosocial, or communicative status as they occur.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement its Controlled Medication Storage policy by failing to: 1. Ensure that the change of shift narcotics reconciliation...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement its Controlled Medication Storage policy by failing to: 1. Ensure that the change of shift narcotics reconciliation records, for one (1) out of three (3) medication carts at the facility, were not missing a total of seventeen (17) licensed nurse signatures in the designated nurse signature boxes over a four (4) month period. 2. To retain a signed copy of the receipt of narcotics received This deficient practice had the potential for loss of accountability, which affected the controls against drug loss, diversion, or theft. During a review of the Controlled Drugs- Count Record for station two (2), dated June 2022- September 2022, the record indicated there were missing licensed nurse signatures in the signature boxes for the morning, evening, and night shifts for the outgoing nurse and on-coming nurses as follows: a). For Station Two: 1) 6/6/22, 7 a.m., out-going nurse. 2) 6/25/22 7a.m., out-going nurse. 3 )6/26/22 11 p.m., on-coming. 4) 6/27/22, 7 a.m., out-going nurse. b). For Station one (1A) 1) 7/6/22, 11 p.m., on-coming nurse. 2) 7/13/22, 3 p.m., on-coming nurse. c). For Station one (1)B: 1) 7/22/22, 11 p.m., on-coming nurse. 2) 7/23/22 7 a.m., out-going nurse. d). For Station two (2) 1) 8/26/22, 11 p.m., out-going nurse. e) For station one (1) B. 1) 9/30/22, 3 p.m., 3 p.m., oncoming and out-going nurses. 2) 9/30/22, 11 p.m., on-coming and out-going nurses. f) For Station two (2) 1) 9/30/22, 3 p.m., on-coming and out-going nurses. 2) 9/30/22, 11 p.m., on-coming and out-going nurses. During an interview on 9/29/22, at 1:32 p.m., the Director of Nursing, (DON), acknowledged the missing licensed nurses' signatures by stating, Yes, the licensed nurse signatures are missing. A review of the facility's (undated), policy and procedure titled, Medication Storage Controlled Medication Storage, indicated, at each shift change or when keys are surrendered, a physical inventory of all Schedule II, including refrigerated items, is to be conducted by two licensed nurses or per state regulation and is documented on the controlled substance accountability record or verification of controlled substances count report. 2. During a review of the shipping manifest (Schedules CII- CV), dated 9/25/22, for Resident 38, the shipping manifest indicated the facility received a quantity of 30 Hydrocodone- acetaminophen 5-325 mg. During an interview on 9/29/22, at 2 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated, when narcotics such as Hydrocodone is received for a resident, the process is that a licensed nurse and the driver from the pharmacy both sign the original receipt. The driver takes the original receipt back to the pharmacy and keeps it on file and the facility keeps a copy of the receipt (shipping manifest). The signed copy of the shipping manifest goes with the driver, and we keep a copy but its not signed. If I want to know who received the narcotics, I can call the pharmacy and the pharmacy can provide me a copy that is kept on file there. I don't have a signed a receipt or shipping manifest with both signatures at this facility. If the pharmacy misplaces their copy, we wouldn't have one. We must do a better job of keeping track of receipts with both signatures. I will make a binder with the signatures. The importance of keeping track of who is receiving the narcotics or a receipt for the residents, is so that we know who is receiving the narcotics on the premises so that there is no theft or diversion of the narcotic and to ensure the residents receive their medications. During a review of the shipping manifest, dated 9/25/22, the shipping manifest indicated, for Resident 38, no signatures or date was received or noted on the shipping manifest that the Hydrocodone was received by the facility. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Storage, Controlled Medication Storage, it indicated medications included in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) classification as controlled substances are subject to special handling, storage, disposal, and record keeping in the nursing care center in accordance with federal, state, and other applicable laws and regulations. A controlled medication accountability record is prepared when receiving inventory of a Schedule II medication. The following information is completed a) name of resident b) prescription number c) Name, strength (if designated), and dosage form of medication d) date received e) Quantity received f) Name of person receiving medications.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five (5) percent, due to improper medication administration for one (1) out of...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the medication error rate was less than five (5) percent, due to improper medication administration for one (1) out of 2 randomly selected residents (Resident 53) during medication administration. The deficient practice resulted in two (2) medication errors out of twenty (27) medication opportunities for errors, which resulted in a medication administration error rate of 7.41 percent (%), that exceeded the five (5) percent threshold and had the potential to result in ineffective treatment for Resident 53. Findings: During an observation of the medication pass on September 30, 2022, the two (2) errors included: (1) not waiting 3-5 minutes between brimonidine- timolol (medication used to treat increased pressure in the eye) 0.2-0.5% drops and dorzolamide (medication used to treat increased pressure in eye) 2% drops in the right eye for Resident 53 and (2) brimonidine- timolol drops 0.2-0.5% drops and dorzolamide 2% drops due at 9am given at 11:40 a.m. During a review of the Resident Face Sheet, dated 10/4/22, the face sheet indicated, Resident 53 had vision loss in the left eye. During a review of the History and Physical Examination (H&P), dated 5/27/22, the H&P indicated Resident 53 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of the Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 8/5/22, the MDS indicated Resident 53 had the ability to understand others. The functional status of the MDS indicated Resident 53 required a one-person physical assist with dressing, eating, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 53 required extensive assistance for dressing and personal hygiene. During a review of the physician order report, dated 9/1/22- 9/30/22, the physician orders indicated, Resident 53 had an order for brimonidine- timolol eye drops 0.2-0.5 percent (%), apply 1 drop, in the right eye, twice a day, for glaucoma (a group of diseases that cause vision loss) at 9 a.m. and at 5 p.m. The physician orders indicated, Resident 53 had an order and dorzolamide, eye drops 2%, apply 1 drop, twice a day, in the right eye, for glaucoma, at 9 a.m. and at 5 p.m. During an observation on 9/28/22, at 11:40 a.m., at Resident 53 bedside, LVN 2 administered brimonidine-timolol eye drop in Resident 53 right eye, and immediately after, LVN 2 administered the dorzolamide eye drop in Resident 53 right eye. During an interview on 9/28/22, at 11:40 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, LVN 2 stated the medication was administered by wait five minutes between putting the second eye drop in, but I'm not sure. The reason to wait is to help each medication absorb into the eye. I didn't wait for five minutes because both drops were due at 9 a.m.; medications are due two (2) hours before and 2 hours after 9 a.m. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Medication Pass Guidelines dated 3/00, indicated to administer medications within sixty (60) minutes of the scheduled time unless otherwise specified by a physician. Routine medications were administered according to the established medication administration schedule for the facility.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure the storage of a narcotic in a separate locked compartment for a discharged resident. This deficient practice had ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure the storage of a narcotic in a separate locked compartment for a discharged resident. This deficient practice had the potential for diversion, drug loss, or theft of a narcotic. 2. Ensure that one expired medication was removed from the medication storage room and properly disposed. This deficient practice had the potential to harm residents due to potential loss of strength of the medication and ineffective medication dosages. 3. Ensure Fifteen (15) expired Covid 19 test devices, and one expired package of COVID-19 extraction vials were properly discarded in one (1) out of 1 medication storage rooms. This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm to residents and result in inaccurate results and potentially spread Covid 19 throughout the facility. 4. Ensure thirty (30) expired closed IV catheters were removed from the medication storage room and discarded for thirty (30) out of 30 residents. This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm to residents by potentially spreading infection by using expired medical equipment. 5. Ensure that an unlabeled seven (7) day pill box and a quart sized bag of medications for a discharged resident was properly stored in one (1) out of One (1) medication storage room at the facility. This deficient practice had the potential for diversion, improper use of drugs, drug loss, or theft of a medications. Findings: 1). During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/30/22, at 9:33 a.m., with the unit manager (UM) and Director of Nursing (DON) in the medication storage room, there was a quart size plastic bag with Hydrocodone- Acetaminophen 5-325 mg on the cabinet on the top shelf. The UM and DON stated, Hydrocodone should not have been there. It should have been removed, counted by two licensed nurses, wrapped in a paper with two signatures, stored in a locked narcotic drawer, and endorsed to the next shift. The day shift nurse gives the narcotic to the DON, counts a second time, and stores it in the DON's office in the locked cabinet. The DON and the pharmacist, verify the count and checks again and the family is called, if no return phone call is received, then the narcotic is disposed of. The reason for counting the Hydrocodone and the number of tablets, is so there will not be possible theft of the drug or diversion of the drug by staff. A review of the facility's (undated), policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Storage Controlled Medication Storage, indicated, controlled medications are not surrendered to anyone, including the resident's prescriber other than releasing controlled medications for a resident on pass or therapeutic leave, to a resident or responsible party upon discharge from the nursing care center. Controlled medications remaining in the nursing care center in a securely double locked area with restricted access until destroyed as outlined by state regulation. 2). During an interview on 9/30/22, at 10:29 a.m. with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS 1), the RNS 1 stated, one (1) bottle of expired Magnesium Citrate which expired 2/2022. RNS 1 further stated for expired medications and for patients that were discharged , discontinued, or expired, RNS 1 logged the medication in the expired medication logbook. RNS 1 stated the medication was discarded in the disposable medication container. Every night the charge nurse is responsible for checking the medications to make sure they are not expired. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Drug and Biological Storage, dated 3/00, indicated, No discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals may be retained for use. All such drugs must be returned to the issuing pharmacy or destroyed in accordance with the procedure governing the destruction of medication. 3). During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/30/22, at 3:38 p.m. with the UM in the medication room, observed 15 Covid antigen test devices with the expiration date of 3/2021 and one package of Covid-19 antigen extraction vials with an expiration date of 4/2022. The UM stated, expired items should not be in this room, it should have been discarded, so that it will not be used. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Drug & Biological Storage, dated 3/00, indicated, No discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals may be retained for use. All such drugs must be returned to the issuing pharmacy or destroyed in accordance with the procedure governing the destruction of medication. 4). During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/30/22, at 10:29 a.m. with the RN supervisor, we observed 30 expired Introcan Safety closed (intravenous) IV 22-gauge catheters with an expiration date as follows: a). 1/1/22- one b). 4/1/22- one c). 5/1/22-one d). 6/1/22-two e). 7/1/22-one f). 9/1/22- four g). 3/2021- one h). 8/2021-one i). 12/1 21-two j). 10/1/22- one k). 10/1/21-two l). 5/2020-one m). 6/2020-one n). 11/2020-six o). 8/2020-two p). 1/2019-one q). 7/2019-one r) 9/2017- one The RN supervisor stated, the safety closed 22-gauge IV catheters were expired and should not be there in the medication room. The catheters should have been discarded because the IV catheters could cause and possibly spread infection to the residents and staff. RN supervisor further stated they don't use these and don't know why they are here. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Disposal of Medications, syringes and needles Syringe and Needle Disposal, dated 10/07, indicated, Whatever the location (e.g., medication room, affixed to the medication cart), the disposal containers are fitted with a lid that prohibits reaching into the container. When containers are two-thirds full, they are sealed and disposed of in the same manner as hazardous waste. 5). During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/30/22, at 10:42 a.m., with the UM in the medication room, the UM stated, the non-narcotic medications belonging to a resident is labeled with the resident's information, name, room number, medication name, dosage, quantity, and date from the bottle is written down in a log, given to the DON, and stored in the DON office. The responsible party is notified to pick up the medications and if the responsible party does not pick up the medications, then they are discarded in the medication disposal bin. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Disposal of Medications, dated, 12/12 indicated, a non- controlled medication disposition log or form shall be used for documentation and shall be retained as per federal privacy and state regulations. The log shall contain the following information: Resident's name, medication name and strength, prescription number if applicable, quantity/ amount disposed, date of disposition, and signatures of the required witnesses. Medications brought into the nursing care center that are not used and cannot be returned to the family shall be destroyed according to the above policy. Outdated medications contaminated or deteriorated medications, and the contents of containers with no label shall be destroyed according to their P&P.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to store and prepare, food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when: 1. One container of cottage ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record reviews the facility failed to store and prepare, food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when: 1. One container of cottage cheese, and one open container of dill pickles stored in the refrigerator exceeding storage periods for ready to eat food. 2. Stored foods remained unlabeled, and no open dates or best by dates. 3. Open foods, disposable utensils and plates remained uncovered free from exposure to open to air. These deficiencies had the potential to result in food borne illness in medically vulnerable resident population of 67 residents who consume the food prepared by the facility kitchen. Findings: 1. During an observation in the kitchen on 9/28/2022, at 9:01 a.m., of the reach-in refrigerator one, there was a container of cottage cheese with a written open date of 9/25/2022 and a manufacture best by date of 9/21/2022. During an observation in the kitchen on 9/28/2022, at 9:46 a.m., an open container of dill pickles with an open date of 2/4/2022 with a use by date of 8/1/2022 was noted in the reach-in refrigerator two. During a concurrent observation and interview with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), the DS stated the facility's policy is to discard foods before the manufactures best by date. The DS also stated that he nor his staff checked for expired foods, but everybody in the kitchen must look for expired foods. DS removed and discarded the expired items. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Food Storage Principles, revised date 10/2017, the P&P indicated to discard foods that have exceeded the expiration date. A review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code 2017, dated 2017, indicated, The day or date marked by the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT may not exceed a manufacturer's use-by date if the manufacturer determined the use-by date based on FOOD safety. 2. During an observation in the kitchen on 9/28/2022, at 9:07 a.m., three turkey sandwiches, one ham sandwich out of the original packaging were noted in the reach-in refrigerator one with no dates or label to identify the products. During an observation in the kitchen on 9/28/2022, at 9:46 a.m., the following was observed in the reach-in refrigerator two: 1. An open container labeled jelly with a date of 9/23/2022, with no specification of open date or best by date. 2. An open box of oranges and lemons with no dates or label to identify products. 3. Five unopened bags. 4. One open bag of corn tortillas on top of a tray dated 9/24/2022 with no specification of open date or best by date or label to identify product. During an observation in the kitchen on 9/28/2022, at 10:51 a.m., the following was observed on top of the kitchen counter: 1. Open container labeled vegetable oil with no open date or best by date. 2. Open container labeled beef flavored base with a delivery date of 8/2/2022 with no specification of open date or best by date. During an observation in the kitchen on 9/28/2022, at 11:03 a.m., three unopened unlabeled tater tots with no dates were observed inside the reach-in freezer one. During an observation in the kitchen on 9/28/2022, at 11:15 a.m., the following was observed in reach-in freezer two: 1. One open unlabeled biscuit bag dated 9/23/2022 with no specification of open date or best by date or label to identify products. 2. One unopened labeled pork loin with no dates. During a concurrent observation and interview with the DS, the DS stated it is the facility's policy to label food items, and date food items with an expiration date to know when to use it by to prevent food borne illnesses. A review of facility Policy & Procedure (P&P) titled Food Storage Principles, dated 10/2017, indicated, to label each package, box, can, etc. with the expiration date, date of receipt, or when the item was stored after preparation. A review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code 2017, dated 2017, indicated, FOOD PACKAGED in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, shall be labeled as specified in LAW, including 21 CFR 101 -Food labeling, and 9 CFR 317 Labeling, marking devices, and containers. (B) Label information shall include: (1) The common name of the FOOD, or absent a common name, an adequately descriptive identity statement; (2) If made from two or more ingredients, a list of ingredients and sub-ingredients in descending order of predominance by weight, including a declaration of artificial colors, artificial flavors, and chemical preservatives, if contained in the FOOD. 3. During an observation in the kitchen's dry food storage room on 9/28/2022, at 11:49 a.m., there was a spaghetti pasta bag, disposable trays, disposable flat plates, disposable spoons, disposable plastic knives, and disposable plastic forks that were not sealed, and were open to air. During a concurrent observation and interview with the DS, the DS stated items in the dry food storage room should never have open bags with exposed food. The DS stated food can become spoiled and not safe to cook. DS also stated items should be closed to prevent cross contamination. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Storing Dry Foods, dated 4/15/2001, P&P indicated to reseal the open products after use. A review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code 2017, dated 2017, indicated, The possibility of product contamination increases whenever food is exposed.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

  • "What changes have you made since the serious inspection findings?"
  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
  • • 36% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 63 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade F (38/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 38/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Inglewood Health's CMS Rating?

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

How is Inglewood Health Staffed?

CMS rates INGLEWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 36%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Inglewood Health?

State health inspectors documented 63 deficiencies at INGLEWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 62 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Inglewood Health?

INGLEWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by MARINER HEALTH CARE, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 99 certified beds and approximately 95 residents (about 96% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in INGLEWOOD, California.

How Does Inglewood Health Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, INGLEWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (36%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Inglewood Health?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Inglewood Health Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, INGLEWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in California. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Inglewood Health Stick Around?

INGLEWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 36%, 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 Inglewood Health Ever Fined?

INGLEWOOD HEALTH CARE CENTER has no federal fines on record. CMS issues fines when nursing homes fail to meet care standards or don't correct problems found during inspections. The absence of fines suggests the facility has either maintained compliance or corrected any issues before penalties were assessed. This is a positive indicator, though families should still review recent inspection reports for the full picture.

Is Inglewood Health on Any Federal Watch List?

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