VISTA PACIFICA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL

3662 PACIFIC AVENUE, JURUPA VALLEY, CA 92509 (951) 682-4833
For profit - Corporation 49 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
48/100
#502 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital has received a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some concerns about care quality. It ranks #502 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half of state options, and #19 out of 53 facilities in Riverside County, where it is one of the better local choices. The facility is showing improvement, reducing issues from 14 in 2024 to 5 in 2025, but still faces significant challenges, including $52,611 in fines, which is higher than 92% of California facilities, pointing to ongoing compliance problems. Staffing is rated at 4 out of 5 stars, indicating a strength, although the 42% turnover rate is average for the state. However, the RN coverage is concerning, being lower than 98% of facilities in California, which may impact the quality of care. Specific incidents from inspections are troubling; for example, the facility failed to monitor and manage residents with limited range of motion, which is critical for their mobility and comfort. Additionally, there were issues with cleanliness, such as overflowing dumpsters that could attract pests, and lapses in infection control, including improperly stored oxygen equipment and delays in tuberculosis testing, which could jeopardize the health of residents. While there are some strengths in staffing and recent improvements, potential residents and their families should weigh these factors carefully against the noted deficiencies.

Trust Score
D
48/100
In California
#502/1155
Top 43%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
14 → 5 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
42% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$52,611 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 11 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
30 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 14 issues
2025: 5 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (42%)

    6 points below California average of 48%

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 42%

Near California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $52,611

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 30 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Feb 2025 5 deficiencies
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS - a stan...

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 comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized resident assessment tool) assessment was conducted after a significant change in status assessment (SCSA- an assessment that indicates a major decline or improvement in the resident's status), for one of two residents reviewed for resident assessments (Resident 24), when Resident 24 was admitted and discharged from hospice (a specialized form of medical care provided to individuals who are nearing the end of their life and have a prognosis of six months or less to live) care. This failure had the potential for Resident 24 to not receive the care and services necessary to maintain her highest possible level of care. Findings: On February 25, 2025, at 1:59 p.m., Resident 24 was observed lying in her bed. On February 27, 2025, Resident 24's record was reviewed. Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included dementia (memory loss). A review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set, dated January 3, 2025, indicated Resident 24 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status - a tool used to assess cognition) score of 00, which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A review of Resident 24's Family Notification of Room and Board, dated September 18, 2024, indicated Resident 24 was admitted to hospice with diagnosis of senile degeneration of brain (a decline in mental abilities that occurs with aging) under routine level of care on September 18, 2024. A review of Resident 24's Progress Notes, dated September 18, 2024, at 6:36 p.m., indicated Resident 24 was admitted to hospice services effective September 18, 2024. A review of Resident 24's Progress Notes, dated January 6, 2025, at 2;58 p.m., indicated Resident 24 was no longer on hospice services and the facility would resume full care of resident, effective January 6, 2025. Further review of Resident 24's record indicated there was no documented evidence of an MDS Assessment was conducted for a significant change in status assessment for Resident 24 when the resident was admitted to hospice services on September 18, 2024 and discharged from hospice on January 6, 2025. On February 26, 2025, at 9 a.m., during a concurrent interview and record review with the MDS Nurse (MDSN). The MDSN stated if a resident gets admitted or discharged from hospice care, it would be considered a significant change. The MDSN also stated if a significant change was identified, a SCSA should have been completed within 14 days. The MDSN stated a SCSA should have been done for Resident 24 when the resident was admitted and discharge from hospice care. The MDSN further stated, I should have asked my DON (Director of Nursing) if I needed to do SCSA for Resident 24. On February 27, 2025, at 7:43 a.m., during an interview with the DON, the DON stated she expected the MDS nurses to follow the facility's policy and procedure for resident assessment. The DON stated the MDS nurses should have conducted a significant change in status assessment for residents who were admitted and discharged from hospice care. The DON further stated if there was no significant change assessment, the staff would not identify appropriate interventions and services necessary to maintain the highest possible level of care. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure titled, Resident Assessments Policy & Procedure, indicated, .A comprehensive assessment of every resident's needs is made at intervals designated by OBRA (Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act-an act that improve care in nursing homes) and PPS (Prospective Payment System-type of assessment) requirements .The Resident Assessment Coordinator is responsible for ensuring that the Interdisciplinary Team conducts timely and appropriate resident assessment and reviews according to the following requirements .Significant Change in Status Assessment (Comprehensive) .Conducted when there has been a significant change in the resident's condition .A Significant Change in Status Assessment (SCSA) is completed within 14 days of the interdisciplinary team determining that the resident meets the guidelines for major improvement or decline .A SCSA is required when a resident .Enrolls in a hospice program .Discontinues hospice services .
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 Midodrine (a blood pressure medication used to ...

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 Midodrine (a blood pressure medication used to increase the blood pressure) was administered according to the physician's orders, for one of 17 residents reviewed (Resident 34). This failure had the potential to inadequately control Residents 34's blood pressure, which could affect overall health condition. Findings: On February 27, 2025, Resident 34's record was reviewed. A review of Resident 34's admission Record, indicated, Resident 34 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included hypertension (elevated blood pressure). A review of Resident 34's Physicians Order, dated October 8, 2024, indicated, Midodrine HCL Oral tablet 10 mg (milligrams - unit of measurement), give one tablet via G-tube (gastrostomy tube - tube inserted through the abdomen that brings nutrition directly to the stomach) three times a day for hypotension, hold if SBP is greater than 110. A review of Resident 34's, Medication Administration Record (MAR), for February 2025, indicated, Midodrine HCL was not administered to Resident 34, according to the physician's order on the following dates: - February 3, 2025, at 12 p.m.; Midodrine was administered when the SBP was 121 (above 110 - Midodrine should have been held); - February 9, 2025, at 5 p.m.; Midodrine was administered when the SBP was 139 (above 110 - Midodrine should have been held); - February 20, 2025, at 8 a.m.; Midodrine was administered when the SBP was 126 (above 110 - Midodrine should have been held); - February 20, 2025, at 12 p.m.; Midodrine was administered when the SBP was 121 (above 110 - Midodrine should have been held); and - February 23, 2025, at 8 a.m.; Midodrine was administered when the SBP was 132 (above 110 - Midodrine should have been held). Further review of Resident 34's MAR, indicated Midodrine was administered to Resident 34 on February 21, 2025, at 8 a.m., when the SBP was 89. On February 27, 2025, at 12:28 p.m., a concurrent observation of Resident 34's Midodrine bubble pack and interview was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1. Resident 34's bubble pack for the AM dose of Midodrine was observed to have one tablet still present on the slot for February 21, 2025. LVN 1 stated, it looks like it got stuck in the bubble pack, LVN 1 stated, Midodrine should have been given to Resident 34 on February 21, 2025, at 8 a.m. On February 27, 2025, at 12:37 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON acknowledged the Midodrine HCL should have been administered according to the physician's order. A review of the facility's undated policy and procedure titled, Administering Medications, indicated, .Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders .the following information must be checked /verified for each resident prior to administering medications .vital signs .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was scheduled for eight consecutive hours in a 24-hour period on January 12, 2025. This failure had the pote...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was scheduled for eight consecutive hours in a 24-hour period on January 12, 2025. This failure had the potential to adversely affect oversight and direction regarding residents' quality of care and quality of life directly impacting overall health and well-being. Findings: On February 27, 2025, at 9:26 a.m., during a review of the Licensed Nurse Schedule, dated January 2025, indicated there was no RN coverage for January 12, 2025. A review of the facility's nursing staffing assignment and sign-in sheet indicated there was no RN coverage on January 12, 2025. On February 27, 2025, at 10:12 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated there was no RN scheduled to cover the facility on January 12, 2025. The DON stated there should have been RN coverage for January 12, 2025. The DON further stated an RN was essential for a higher level of expertise in assessing, planning, implementing and evaluating nursing care for residents. A review of facility's undated policy and procedure titled, Staffing Policy & Procedure, indicated, .Our facility provides adequate staffing to meet needed care and services for our resident population .Our facility maintains adequate staffing on each shift to ensure that our resident's needs and services are met. License nursing staff are available to provide and monitor the delivery of resident care services . A review of the undated facility's policy titled, Staffing Policy & Procedure, had no verbiage stating, a licensed registered nurse will be onsite at least eight consecutive hours a day, seven days a week to provide and monitor the delivery of resident care services.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement infection control and prevention program when: 1. For one of three residents reviewed (Resident 12), the facility did not ensure the oxygen nasal cannula (a plastic device that delivers oxygen through a tube and into the nose) was stored in an appropriate container or bag when not in use; and 2. For 16 of 47 residents reviewed (Residents 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 16, 20, 26, 28, 30, 31, 36, 39, 40, 46, and 47), annual TB (tuberculosis-a type of contagious respiratory infection) skin test (test used to diagnosed TB) was not conducted timely. These failures increased the potential for the spread of infection to an already medically compromised resident population of 47 residents. Findings: 1. On February 25, 2025, at 9:51 a.m., a concurrent observation and interview was conducted with Resident 12 in her room. Resident 12's oxygen cannula was placed inside an open white translucent unlabeled bag and was tied on an oxygen concentrator (medical device that delivers oxygen). In a concurrent interview, Resident 12 stated she used the plastic bag as her trash bag. Resident 12 further stated, I tossed my trash into the bag. On February 26, 2025, at 9:47 a.m., during a concurrent observation and interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2. Resident 12's oxygen cannula was placed inside the white translucent bag and was widely opened to air. LVN 2 stated the facility used similar plastic bags for oxygen tube storage and trash bag. LVN 2 stated, It could potentially misidentify a trash bag and not an oxygen bag. LVN 2 further stated, the plastic bag currently used to store Resident 12's nasal cannula should be changed with a better container bag to prevent infection. On February 27, 2025, Resident 12's record was reviewed. Resident 12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (lung disease). A review of Resident 12's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a tool for assessment), dated March 6, 2024, indicated Resident 12 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status - a tool used to assess cognition) score of 6 which indicated severe cognitive impairment. A review of Resident 12's Order Summary, included a physician's order, dated September 23, 2024, which indicated, .Administer oxygen @(at) 2-4L (Liter - unit of measurement) via (through) NC (nasal cannula) as needed related to CHRONIC OBSTRUCTIVE PULMONARY DISEASE (lung disease) . On February 27, 2025, at 7:44 a.m., an interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP) was conducted. The IP stated the bag to store the nasal cannula for Resident 12 should have been replaced with a clear respiratory set up bag. The IP stated if the bag appeared similar to a trash bag, there could be a possibility a resident would put trash in the bag and contaminate the oxygen cannula inside the bag. On February 27, 2025, at 7:44 a.m., during an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated she expected for all nurses to follow the policy of the infection control program. The DON stated the oxygen cannula should have been stored in an appropriate respiratory bag and should not been left open to air to prevent contamination. A review of facility's undated policy and procedure titled, Respiratory Care-Prevention of infection Policy & procedure, indicated, .The purpose of this procedure is to guide prevention of infection associated with respiratory therapy tasks and equipment, including ventilators, among residents and staff .Infection Control Considerations Related to Oxygen Administration .Keep the oxygen cannulae and tubing used PRN (as needed) in a plastic bag when not in use .store .in plastic bag .marked with date and residents name . 2. On February 26, 2025, at 2:20 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review with the IP was conducted. The IP stated he conducted surveillance of all immunizations which included influenza (a highly contagious respiratory illness), pneumonia (lung disease) and TB test. The IP stated the process of administering TB test included a two-step TB skin test to be administered upon admission of a resident. The IP further stated, for long term residents, an one-step TB skin test would be administered annually thereafter. During a concurrent resident's record review and the facility's Immunization Report, with the IP, the following were found: - Resident 2, Step 1 TB test administered on March 18, 2023, missing TB test for 2024; - Resident 5, Step 2 TB test administered on July 21, 2023, missing TB test for 2024; - Resident 6, Step 1 TB test administered on March 18, 2023, missing TB test for 2024; - Resident 8, Step 1 TB Test administered on August 15, 2023, missing TB test for 2024; - Resident 13, Step 1 TB test administered on September 27, 2023, missing TB test for 2024; - Resident 16, Step 2 TB test administered on March 23, 2023, missing TB test for 2024; - Resident 20, Step 1 TB test administered on September 13, 2022, missing TB test for 2023 and 2024; - Resident 26, Step 1 TB test administered on May 1, 2023, missing TB test for 2024; - Resident 28, Step 1 TB test administered on March 31, 2022, missing TB test for 2023 and 2024; - Resident 30, Step 1 TB test administered on December 12, 2023, missing TB test for 2024; - Resident 31, Step 1 TB test administered on December 12, 2022, missing TB test for 2023 and 2024; - Resident 36, Step 2 TB test administered on February 2, 2024, missing TB test for 2025; - Resident 39, Step 2 TB test administered on December 2, 2022, missing TB test for 2023 and 2024; - Resident 40, Step 2 TB test administered on February 2, 2024, missing TB test for 2025; - Resident 46, Step 1 TB test administered on May 19, 2023, missing TB test for 2024; and - Resident 47, Step 2 TB test administered on June 23, 2023, missing TB test for 2024. In a concurrent interview, the IP stated there was no documentation in the electronic medication administration record (eMAR) of Residents 2, 5, 6, 8, 13, 16, 20, 26, 28, 30, 31, 36, 39, 40, 46, and 47 received the required TB skin test as ordered. The IP stated the TB skin test was required to all residents to screen and make sure they were not exposed or had active TB disease. The IP stated TB test should have been administered as part of the screening and prevention of tuberculosis infection. The IP further stated, If not tested, TB infection would spread like a wildfire and facility would have a TB outbreak. On February 27, 2025, at 7:41 a.m., an interview was conducted with the DON. The DON stated she expected the IP and the nurses to follow facility's infection control program in TB screening and infection prevention. The DON stated the nurses should have administered the TB test and should have followed the schedule of administration of TB skin test upon admission and annually to the residents. A review of facility's undated policy and procedure titled, Screening Residents for Tuberculosis Policy & Procedure, indicated, .This facility shall screen all residents for tuberculosis infection and disease (TB) .admission and readmission for information regarding exposure to, or symptoms of TB and will check results of recent (within 12 months) tuberculin skin tests (TST) .or chest X-rays .Any resident without documented TST .within the previous 12 months will receive a baseline (two-step) TST or (one step) .upon admission .If the first TST is negative, a follow up TST will be administered 1 to 3 weeks after the initial test is read .Screening of new admissions or readmissions for Tuberculosis infection and disease will be in compliance with State regulations .
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the required 80 square feet for each resident was met, for 6 of 25 resident bedrooms (Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 26). ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the required 80 square feet for each resident was met, for 6 of 25 resident bedrooms (Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 26). This failure had the potential to limit the movements of the residents in their rooms, potentially affecting their health and safety. Findings: On February 24, 2025, at 1:08 p.m., during the entrance conference, the Administrator (ADM) was interviewed regarding the room sizes for resident rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 26. The ADM acknowledged the rooms did not meet the space requirement of at least 80 square feet per resident in the above-mentioned rooms. Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 26 had been set up as two-bed bedrooms. The facility document titled, Client Accommodations Analysis, undated, was provided by the ADM. The document indicated the rooms set up as two-bed bedrooms measured 143 square feet or 71.5 square feet per resident (143/2 = 71.5). During the survey dates of February 24, 25, 26, and 27, 2025, the above listed rooms were observed at different times of the day. All care and services provided to the residents residing in the listed rooms were able to be conducted without restrictions. Residents who were able to be interviewed stated they were comfortable in the space provided. Health record reviews did not indicate the health and safety of the residents residing in these rooms were compromised, based on the room measurements. The facility requested a continued waiver for Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 26. Approval of the waiver was recommended. Granting this waiver will not adversely affect the resident health and safety and is in accordance with the special needs of the residents. A review of the policy and procedure titled, Bedroom Policy and Procedure, undated, indicated, .bedrooms measure at least 80 squre feet (sq ft - a unit of measurement) of space per resident in double rooms, and at least 100 square feet of space in single rooms. (Note: Individual variations on this may be permitted by federal authorities if it is demonstrated that the variation is in accordance with special needs of the resident and will not adversely affect the resident's health and safety.) .
Feb 2024 14 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure, for seven of seven residents (Residents 1, 16...

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, for seven of seven residents (Residents 1, 16, 21, 22, 28, 29, and 151) reviewed for range of motion (ROM the full movement potential of a joint), a system or process was in place to: 1. Identify, assess, evaluate, and monitor residents with limited ROM and contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to (abnormality and stiffness of the joints); and 2. Provide an appropriate care and treatment to improve, maintain, or prevent contractures and/or limitation with ROM. On February 9, 2024, at 7:20 p.m., the Administrator (ADM), the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), and the Director of Staff Development (DSD) were verbally notified of the Immediate Jeopardy (IJ situation in which the provider's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused or likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident), due to the facility failure to identify, assess, evaluate, monitor, and provide appropriate care and treatment, for seven residents (Residents 1, 16, 21, 22, 28, 29, and 151) with limited ROM and/or contractures. These failures resulted in delayed identification of residents with limited ROM and/or contractures which delayed the provision of care and treatment for Residents 1, 16, 21, 22, 28, 29, and 151. This delayed in provision of care and treatment had placed the residents at risk for further decline in ROM and/contractures. On February 11, 2023, at 3:03 p.m., the ADM presented an acceptable plan of actions which included the following: - The seven residents identified to be affected by the deficient practice will be evaluated/screened by therapy on Monday 2/12/24, to determine if they are candidates for therapy services, or if restorative nursing (nursing interventions that promote the resident's ability to adapt and adjust to living as independently and safely as possible) services are required; - The results of the screening will be communicated to the physician on Monday 2/12/24 and the facility will obtain therapy/restorative nursing orders for all residents affected by the deficient practice to identify what interventions to implement to improve, maintain, or prevent further decline in range of motion; - Care Plans were initiated and will be updated after the therapy evaluation and subsequent Physician orders for the seven residents affected by the deficient practice; to address what interventions, equipment, services, and orders are in place to improve, maintain, or prevent further decline in range of motion; - All residents in the facility were assessed by the Registered Nurse for limited range of motion and/or contractures. Additional residents were identified as having some degree of limited range of motion; - All residents identified as having limited range of motion and/or contractures will be evaluated/screened by Therapy on Monday 2/12/24, to determine if they are candidates for therapy services, or if restorative nursing services are required; - A range of motion assessment will be completed by a Registered Nurse and documented on all new admissions entering the facility to identify residents with limited range of motion and/or contractures. Residents identified as having limited range of motion and/or contractures will be reported to the Physician for potential therapy screening or Restorative Nursing Program; - The range of motion assessment will be completed and documented quarterly by a Registered Nurse in conjunction with the comprehensive assessment, to evaluate and monitor any progress or decline in range of motion; - The interdisciplinary team will review the quarterly range of motion assessment at Care Plan meetings and update the care plan as needed/indicated. The interdisciplinary team includes the following members: Director of Staff Development (DSD), Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), MDS Coordinator, Behavioral Specialist, Social Services Designee (SSD), Medical Records Director, Director of Nursing (DON), Infection Preventionist (IP), and Restorative Nursing Aide (RNA); - The facility Behavioral Specialist has been designated to oversee the facility Restorative Nursing Program; - All staff involved in the revised process for identifying, assessing, evaluating, monitoring, and implementing appropriate treatment for residents with limited ROM and/or contractures will be in serviced by the Director of Staff Development on 2/10 and 2/11/24; - Monthly QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement data driven and proactive approach to quality improvement) meetings will now include evaluations of our system and process for identifying, assessing, evaluating, and monitoring residents with limited range of motion and/or contractures as well as the treatment and services provided to improve, maintain, or prevent further decline in range of motion; - Monthly QAPI meetings will now include evaluations of our system and process for identifying, assessing, evaluating, and monitoring residents with limited range of motion and/or contractures as well as the treatment and services provided to improve, maintain, or prevent further decline in range of motion; - This will include reports from the RNAs on treatment and services provided to residents with limited range of motion and/or contractures; - This will include reports from the Restorative Nursing Supervisor (Behavioral Specialist) on the quarterly and admission Range of Motion assessments completed; - This will include ongoing tracking and data analysis of residents whose Range of Motion has improved or declined; and - The Director of Nursing will report to the Administrator and Medical Director at the QAA (Quality Assessment and Assurance) committee quarterly on the activities of the QAPI committee with regard to range of motion and contractures. On February 12, 2024, at 5:50 p.m., the immediate jeopardy was removed in the presence of the ADM, the ADON, and the DSD, upon onsite verification of the implementation of the plan of actions. The facility was notified an extended survey would be conducted due to substandard quality of care issues. Findings: 1. On February 8, 2024, at 12:26 p.m., a concurrent observation and interview was conducted with Resident 1. Resident 1 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in the hallway with both hands flexed (bent) at the wrist and all fingers on both hands were clenched. Resident 1 was observed to be able to extend both hands with minimal effort but unable to open all her fingers except the right index finger. There was no adaptive device (any tool used to help people with disabilities or impairments) observed on Resident 1's bilateral hand. Resident 1 stated she used a device for both hands but only had one of them. She stated she did not receive any ROM exercises for both hands. On February 8, 2024, Resident 1's admission record was reviewed. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included venous insufficiency (occurs when leg veins do not allow blood to flow back up to the heart). A review of Resident 1's History and Physical, documented by the physician on October 16, 2022, indicated contractures of the left hand. In further review of Resident 1's medical record, there was no documented evidence interventions were initiated to address Resident 1's left hand contracture as identified by the physician on October 16, 2022. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS an assessment tool), dated July 27, 2023, indicated the following: - Resident 1 had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) of 7 (moderately impaired); and - Resident 1 had limitation in ROM to both upper extremities (part of the body that includes the arm, forearm, wrist and hand). In further review of Resident 1's medical record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 1's limitation in ROM and/or contractures on both upper extremities were conducted by the facility. There was no documented evidence Resident 1's limitations in ROM on both upper extremities identified in the MDS assessment dated [DATE], were addressed for appropriate care and treatment. On February 9, 2024, at 12:08 p.m., Resident 1 was observed in the hallway with the Certified Restorative Nursing Assistant (CRNA) and Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3. Resident 1 was observed sitting on her wheelchair with a hand roll (used to prevent the fingers of the hand from being in a tight fist which could cause contracture) placed inside her right hand. There was no other device observed on Resident 1's left hand. In a concurrent interview with the CNRA, she stated Resident 1 was unable to extend both hands and fingers. She stated Resident 1 did not have an order for ROM exercises. In a concurrent interview with LVN 3, she stated Resident 1 had contractures of both hands and fingers. She stated she was not aware when Resident 1 developed the contractures on both hands. 2. On February 6, 2024, at 3:16 p.m., a concurrent observation and interview was conducted with Resident 16. Resident 16 was observed sitting in his wheelchair inside his room. Resident 16 was observed with both hands flexed at the wrist in a downward position with all fingers clenched. There was no adaptive device in place on both hands for Resident 16. Resident 16 was able to extend the left hand at the wrist but unable to open up his fingers on the left hand. Resident 16 was unable to extend the right hand and open his fingers. Resident 16 stated that he was not receiving exercises for his left or right hand and would like to get further treatment and care. On February 8, 2024, Resident 16's admission record was reviewed. Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body), neuralgia (nerve damage), and neuritis (inflammation of the nerve). A review of Resident 16's care plan dated October 2016, indicated, .has limited physical mobility r/t (related to) contractures of left hand .he will maintain current level of function through next review .Resident will receive ROM exercises as ordered by MD (MedicalDoctor/physician) .Encourage resident to wear hand rolls as tolerated . In further review of Resident 16's medical record, there was no documented evidence a physician order for ROM exercises and hand roll were initiated as indicated on the care plan. A review of History and Physical, documented by the physician, dated May 18, 2022, indicated Resident 16 had contractures of the left upper extremities. A review of Resident 16's MDS, dated October 8, 2022, indicated the following: - Resident 16 had a BIMS of 15 (no cognitive impairment); and - Resident 16 had limitation in ROM on one side of the upper and lower extremities (part of the body the includes the hip, thigh, knee, leg, ankle, and foot). A review of Resident 16's MDS, dated October 13, 2023, indicated Resident 16 had impairment on both side of the upper extremities and one side of the lower extremities. In further review of Resident 16's medical record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 16's limitation in ROM on both side of the upper extremities and one side of the lower extremities was conducted by the facility. There was no documented evidence Resident 16's limitation in ROM identified on the resident's MDS assessment on October 13, 2023, was addressed for appropriate care and treatment. On February 9, 2024, at 12:08 p.m. Resident 16 was observed in the hallway with the CRNA and LVN 3. Resident 16 was observed sitting in his wheelchair with both hands flexed at the wrist in downward position with all fingers clenched. Resident 16 was able to extend the left hand at the wrist in upward motion but unable to extend fingers. Resident 16 was observed unable to extend the right hand at the wrist nor extend the fingers. In a concurrent interview with the CRNA, she stated she provided daily ROM exercises for both Resident 16's hands without a specific ROM order. She stated nobody had been evaluating the RNA services she provided to the residents with limitation in ROM. She stated there were no instructions on which specific exercises were needed based on the status of Resident 16's ROM. In a concurrent interview with LVN 3, she stated Resident 16 had range of motion limitations on both hands since admission. 3. On February 6, 2024, at 3:31 p.m., Resident 21 was observed lying in bed with both hands flexed at the wrist and all fingers on both hands were clenched. Resident 21 was observed with a hand roll placed inside the palm of the right hand. On February 8, 2024, Resident's 21's admission record was reviewed. Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included polyosteoarthritis (pain and stiffness affecting five or more joints). A review of Resident 21's Order Summary Report, indicated the following: - Order Date: 9/14/2020 .ROM exercises to Right hand 5x (five times) a week as tolerated .; and - Order Date: 9/21/2020 .Administer right hand brace (a device designed to keep a specific joint or area of your body from moving too much) for 8 hours per day as tolerated one time a day for hand contractures and remove per schedule . A review of Resident 21's MDS, dated July 7, 2023, indicated Resident 21 had no limitation in ROM on both upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 21's History and Physical, documented by the physician on July 10, 2023, indicated no limitation in ROM on both lower and upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 21's MDS, dated January 7, 2024, indicated Resident 21 had limitation in ROM on one side of the upper extremities. A review of Resident 21's Monthly Physician Progress Notes, documented by the physician on February 5, 2024, indicated no limitation in ROM of the bilateral upper and lower extremities. In further review of Resident 21's medical record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 21's limitation in ROM on one side of the upper extremities was conducted by the facility. On February 9, 2024, at 11:45 a.m., Resident 21 was observed in her room with the CRNA and LVN 4. Resident 21 was observed lying in bed with her lower legs flexed at the knee towards her chest. Resident 21 was observed with both hands flexed at the wrist and all fingers clenched. In a concurrent interview with the CNRA, she stated Resident 21 was unable to extend her right hand at the wrist nor open her fingers. She stated Resident 21 was able to extend and open her fingers on the left hand. She further stated Resident 21 had difficulty extending her knees on both sides. The CRNA stated Resident 21 was the only resident in the facility with an order for ROM exercises for her right hand. However, she stated she performed daily ROM exercises for both hands, and ROM exercises on knees without a specific order or instructions on how to perform it. She stated nobody had been evaluating the RNA services she provided to the residents with limitation in ROM. In a concurrent interview with LVN 4, he stated Resident 21 had contractures on the right hand and fingers. LVN 4 stated Resident 21 had difficulty extending both knees and required assistance. 4. On February 6, 2024, at 10:13 a.m., Resident 22 was observed in her room, side lying in bed with both knees flexed towards her chest. On February 8, 2024, Resident 22's admission record reviewed. Resident 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included chronic (long term) pain syndrome ( broad term that covers long-lasting pain and inflammation that can happen after an injury or a medical event). A review of Resident 22's MDS, indicated the following: - April 3, 2022; Resident 22 had no limitation in ROM on upper and lower extremities; and - July 5, 20223, October 3, 2023, and January 3, 2024; Resident 22 had limitation in ROM on both lower extremities. In further review of Resident 22's medical record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 22's limitations in ROM on both lower extremities was conducted by the facility. There was no documented evidence Resident 22's limitations in ROM on both lower extremities identified on multiple MDS assessments (April 3, 2022; July 5, 2023; October 3, 2023; and January 3, 2024) were addressed for appropriate care and treatment. On February 9, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 22 was observed in her room with the CRNA and LVN 4. Resident 22 was observed lying in bed on her right side with both lower legs flexed at the knee towards her chest. The CRNA was observed performing passive (requires assistance from staff) ROM to both lower extremities, but resident was unable to fully extend both legs. In a concurrent interview with the CRNA, she stated she provided daily ROM exercises for Resident 22 without specific order or instructions on how to perform it. She further stated nobody had been evaluating the RNA services she provided to the residents. In a concurrent interview with LVN 4, he stated Resident 22 had limitations in ROM on both lower extremities. LVN 4 stated he was not sure how long and when resident developed limitations on both lower extremities. 5. On February 8, 2024, Resident 28's admission record was reviewed. Resident 28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included contractures of the right hand, hemiplegia, and hemiparesis of the right side. A review of Resident 28's care plan, dated November 1, 2016, indicated, .has right side hemiplegia and contracture of right hand and right ankle .will remain free from complication r/t (related to) hemiplegia and contracture through next review .monitor/document/report PRN (as needed) any (sic) of immobility: contractures forming or worsening .Resident will receive ROM exercises as ordered by MD . A review of Resident 28's MDS, dated August 6, 2023, indicated Resident 28 had limitations in ROM on one side of the upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 28's Monthly Physician Progress Notes, documented by the physician, dated January 9, 2024, indicated Resident 28 had contractures of the right upper extremities. In further review of Resident 28's medical record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 28's limitations in ROM on one side of upper and lower extremities was conducted by the facility. There was no documented evidence Resident 28's limitations in ROM on one side of upper and lower extremities identified on the MDS assessment was addressed for appropriate care and treatment. On February 9, 2024, at 11:50 a.m., Resident 28 was observed in her room with the CRNA and LVN 4. Resident 28 was observed lying in bed asleep. In a concurrent interview with the CRNA, she stated Resident 28 had contractures of her right hand and right ankle but was unable to provide the extent of her ROM limitations. She stated she provided daily ROM exercises for Resident 28's right hand and ankle without a specific order or instructions on how to perform it. She stated nobody had been evaluating the RNA services she provided to the residents with limitation in ROM. In a concurrent interview with LVN 4, he stated Resident 28 had contractures of the right hand and ankle but not sure when she developed the contractures. 6. On February 9, 2024, at 12:04 p.m., Resident 29 was observed in his room with the CRNA and LVN 4. Resident 29 was observed lying in bed with both hands flexed at the wrist and fingers clenched. The CRNA was observed attempting to perform ROM exercises to both hands for Resident 29, but the resident refused. In a concurrent interview with the CRNA, she stated Resident 29 was unable to extend both hands at the wrist and open all fingers. She stated she provided ROM exercises to Resident 29 on both hands and fingers without a specific order or instructions on how to perform it. She stated nobody had been evaluating the RNA services she provided to the residents with limitation in ROM. In a concurrent interview with LVN 3, Resident 29 had contractures of both hands and fingers and was not sure when the resident developed the contractures. On February 9, 2024, Resident 29's record was reviewed. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included dementia (cognitive impairment). A review of Resident 29's History and Physical, documented by the physician on May 18, 2022, indicated no limitations in ROM on both upper extremities. A review of Resident 29's MDS, dated March 3, 2023, indicated Resident 29 had no limitations in ROM on upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 29's MDS, dated June 2, 2023, indicated Resident 29 had limitations in ROM on one side of the upper extremity. In further review of Resident 29's medical record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 29's limitations in ROM on both upper extremities was conducted by the facility. There was no documented evidence Resident 29's limitations in ROM on both upper extremities identified on the MDS assessment was addressed for appropriate care and treatment. 7. On February 6, 2024, at 3:30 p.m., an observation and concurrent interview was conducted with Resident 151. Resident 151 was observed sitting in her wheelchair inside her room. Resident 151 was observed with both ankles extended in downward position. Resident 151 was observed not able to flex both ankles upward. In a concurrent interview with Resident 151, she stated she had foot drop (difficulty lifting the front part of the foot) on both of her feet and would like to have therapy. She further stated she would like to walk again. She stated she did not receive any exercises and therapy for her foot drop since admission to the facility. On February 8, 2024, Resident 151's admission record was reviewed. Resident 151 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included difficulty walking, and muscle wasting. A review of Resident 151's History and Physical, documented by the physician, on January 22, 2024, indicated Resident 151 had weakness and bilateral (both) foot drop. In further review of Resident 151's medical record, there was no documented evidence the physician addressed Resident 151's bilateral foot drop for further care and treatment. A review of the Resident 151's MDS, dated February 1, 2024, indicated the following: - Resident 151 had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 12 (moderate cognitive impairment); and - Resident 151 had limitations in ROM on both lower extremities. In further review of Resident 151's medical record, there was no documented evidence Resident 151's bilateral foot drop was addressed for appropriate care and treatment. On February 9, 2024, at 12:01 p.m. Resident 151 was observed in the hallway with the CRNA and LVN 4. Resident 151 was observed sitting in her wheelchair with both feet extended in a downward position. In a concurrent interview with the CRNA, she stated Resident 151 had bilateral foot drop since admission. She further stated Resident 151 did not have an order for any ROM exercises. In a concurrent interview with LVN 3, she stated Resident 151 had bilateral foot drop and was unable to flex both ankles upward. She further stated Resident 151 had this condition since admission. On February 9, 2024, at 4:50 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the ADON and the DSD. The ADON and the DSD stated all residents were to be assessed for any contractures and/or limitation with their ROM upon admission. The ADON and the DSD stated any contractures and/or limitation with ROM noted would be documented in the resident's record and referred to the physician for further care and treatment. The ADON and the DSD stated residents with contractures and/or limitations with ROM were discussed during care plan meeting quarterly. The ADON stated any decline in the resident's ROM would be discussed at least during their weekly stand up meeting. She stated the CRNA maintains the list of residents receiving RNA services for limitations in ROM. She stated she did not provide oversight of the RNA services being provided to the residents. The ADON and the DSD stated only Resident 21 had an order for ROM exercises. However, she stated CRNA provided daily ROM exercises for other residents even without specific order or instructions on how to perform it. The ADON and the DSD stated the IDT would determine the necessary care and treatment each resident with contractures and/or with limitation with ROM would receive. The ADON and the DSD were not able to provide documentation of any ongoing assessment, evaluation, monitoring, and provision of care and treatment for the contractures and/or limitations with ROM for Residents 1, 16, 21, 22, 28, 29, and 151. The DSD stated the facility had been trying to develop a program to address resident's limitation with ROM and/or contractures for several years but it never happened. On February 12, 2024, at 9:55 a.m., an interview with the facility Medical Doctor was conducted. He stated all residents with contractures or limitation with their ROM should be documented in the resident's medical record. He stated resident with contractures or limitation with their ROM should be assessed, evaluated, and monitored regularly to ensure appropriate treatment and care was provided. He further stated routine assessment and evaluation was important to maintain or prevent further decline and/or to identify any new onset of contractures or limitation with ROM for the residents. He stated the seven residents identified were not assessed or evaluated routinely and it should have been done and documented. The facility's policy and procedure titled Restorative Nursing Policy & Procedure, dated November 04, 2016, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Restorative Nursing Shall include nursing interventions that promotes the resident's ability to adapt and adjust to living as independently as possible. This concept activity focuses on achieving and maintain optimal physical, mental and psychological functioning .Licensed Nurse shall implement, coordinate and supervise the activities in the restorative nursing program .The restorative program has to be an integrated part of resident's plan of care with clearly measurable goals and interventions and periodically evaluated by a licensed nurse .Restorative aide's will chart weekly in residents EMR (electronic medical record) .Restorative aide will chart weekly in residents EMR .track the daily minutes .Monitor Weekly Progress .Summaries overall achievements weekly .Restorative aide supervisor must review notes on a weekly basis .resident progress or setbacks evaluated weekly .Goals of care plan must be evaluate (sic) and revised as needed .The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) quarterly assess/evaluates the resident restorative nursing program .
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

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 nasal cannula (a tube used to deliver oxyg...

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 nasal cannula (a tube used to deliver oxygen through the nose) was replaced after seven days for two of two residents reviewed for oxygen use. (Residents 19 and 22). This failure had the potential to result in deterioration of the nasal cannula which would allow infectious organisms to grow causing an infection to Residents 19 and 22. Findings: On February 5, 2024, Resident 22's record was reviewed. Resident 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a lung disease that blocks the airflow and makes it difficult to breathe) and schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel and behave clearly). On February 5, 2024, at 10:05 a.m., Resident 22 was observed in bed using a nasal cannula (NC) for oxygen. The nasal cannula had no label to indicate the date when it was last changed. On February 5, 2024, at 10:08 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 2) was interviewed. LVN 2 stated the nasal cannula should be changed once a week. LVN 2 confirmed there was no label indicating the date on the NC and there should be one. LVN 2 further stated she did not know when Resident 22's NC was last changed. On February 5, 2024, Resident 19's record was reviewed, Resident 19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and schizophrenia. On February 5, 2024, at 10:39 a.m., Resident 19 was observed in bed using a nasal cannula (NC) for oxygen. The nasal cannula had no label to indicate the date when it was last changed. On February 5, 2024, at 10:40 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) was interviewed. CNA 1 stated there was no label on the NC and the nasal cannula should be labeled on a weekly basis. On February 5, 2024, at 10:44 a.m., the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) was interviewed. The ADON stated all nasal cannulas should be labeled with a date every Sunday night, and there should have been a date on the nasal cannula. A review of the policy and procedure titled, Oxygen Equipment, dated May 2010, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .cannulas should be replaced every 7 days or as often as necessary
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

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 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 21) was free from unneces...

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 1 of 5 sampled residents (Resident 21) was free from unnecessary medications when Resident 21 received apixaban (brand name Eliquis, an anti-coagulant, or blood thinning medication) without a clear indication for its use; and the nursing staff did not monitor for signs and symptoms of adverse effects related to the use of apixaban. These failures had the potential to result in unnecessary use of medications for Resident 21 and had the potential for side effects of this medication (such as bleeding, excessive bruising, etc.) to go undetected or recognized for timely intervention. Findings During a review of Resident 21's admission Records, dated February 9, 2024, the admission Records indicated, Resident 21 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, hypertension (high blood pressure), and schizoaffective disorder. A review of Resident 21's hospital record's Emergency Provider Report, dated January 4, 2022, indicated Resident 21 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. A review of Resident 21's hospital record's Hospitalist Progress Note, dated February 5, 2022, indicated a medication list which included apixaban. A review of Resident 21's hospital record's Medication Administration Record, dated February 5, 2022, indicated the resident received Eliquis, Apixaban 5 milligram [mg, unit of measurement] (1 tablet) per feeding tube twice daily for maintenance treatment of DVT [deep vein thrombosis, a blood clot in a deep vein]/PE [pulmonary embolism, blockage the blood vessels that send blood to the lungs] .start 01/21/22 . During a review of Resident 21's Prescriber Order, dated September 29, 2022, the Prescriber Order indicated, Apixaban Tablet 5 mg Give 5 mg by mouth two times a day for hypervention. During a telephone interview on February 9, 2024 at 10:41 a.m. with the Consultant Pharmacist (CP), regarding Resident 21's apixaban indication hypervention, the CP stated, I am not sure what that is. The CP acknowledged the apixaban indication was unclear and should have been clarified. When asked if adverse effects should have been monitored during the use of apixaban, the CP stated, should have been monitored for bleeding and should have had a care plan. During an interview on February 9, 2024 at 4:44 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated the facility did not have a policy and procedure for anticoagulant therapy monitoring. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 9, 2024 at 6:16 p.m. with the ADON, in the presence of the Director of Staff Development (DSD), Resident 21's medical record, including the physician's order for apixaban dated September 29, 2022 was reviewed. The ADON acknowledged the apixaban indication hypervention was unclear and should have been clarified. Additionally, the ADON acknowledged Resident 21's diagnosis list did not include any diagnoses related to DVT or PE. When asked if this resident had been monitored for adverse effects such as bleeding during apixaban use, the ADON stated, No, not monitored. Both the ADON and the DSD acknowledged the resident should have been monitored for bleeding during apixaban use. A review of the Prescribing Information (PI, detailed description of a drug's uses, dosage range, side effects, drug-drug interactions, and contraindications that is available to clinicians) for apixaban tablets, dated June 2021, retrieved from DailyMed (a website operated by the U.S. National Library of Medicine to publish up-to-date and accurate drug labels to health care providers and the general public. The contents of DailyMed is provided and updated daily by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.), the apixaban tablet PI indicated, Indications and usage .to reduce the risk of stroke .in patients with nonvalvular [not related to heart valve] atrial fibrillation [irregular heart rhythm], for the prophylaxis [prevention] of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) .for the treatment of DVT and PE .Warnings and precautions .Apixaban can cause serious, potentially fatal, bleeding. Promptly evaluate signs and symptoms of blood loss.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility had a medication error rate of 8% when two medication errors occurred out of 25 opportunities during the medication administration for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility had a medication error rate of 8% when two medication errors occurred out of 25 opportunities during the medication administration for two out of seven residents (Residents 24 and 31). The failures resulted in medications not given according to the physician's orders, had the potential for Resident 24 not receiving the full therapeutic effects the medication, and put Resident 31 at risk of receiving more medication than intended by the physician. Findings: 1. During a medication pass observation on February 6, 2024, at 8:16 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 was observed preparing and administering 8 medications to Resident 24. The medications included one levothyroxine (to treat low thyroid levels) tablet. During a review of Resident 24's Prescriber Order, dated December 29, 2023, the Prescriber Order indicated, Levothyroxine sodium oral tablet Give 75 micrograms (mcg, unit of measurement) by mouth one time a day for a condition with low thyroid hormone levels in the morning before breakfast. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 6, 2024, at 9:50 a.m.,, with LVN 3, Resident 24's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated February 6, 2024 and physician's order for levothyroxine tablet dated December 29, 2023 were reviewed. LVN 3 verified the MAR indicated levothyroxine was given after breakfast on February 6, 2024 at 8 a.m. LVN 3 stated, [Resident 24's] breakfast tray came 6:45 a.m., [Resident 24] ate around 7 [a.m.], [Resident 24] should have had this [medication] before breakfast. LVN 3 added, Would need to talk to doctor to change order to be given at a time before breakfast .currently scheduled for 8 a.m. LVN 3 stated, the it is important to give levothyroxine before breakfast in order for the medication to be absorbed. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 7, 2024, at 10:37 a.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), in the presence of the Director of Staff Development (DSD), Resident 24's MAR dated February 6, 2024 and physician's order for levothyroxine tablet dated December 29, 2023 were reviewed. The ADON verified the MAR indicated levothyroxine was given after breakfast on February 6, 2024 instead of before breakfast as indicated on the physician's order. The ADON stated, the expectation is for nurses to review the order and contact the doctor for clarification to change the administration time of levothyroxine to be scheduled before breakfast. The ADON stated, If levothyroxine is not given before breakfast, the medication might not get absorbed, and the Resident might not get the full therapeutic effect of the medication. During a telephone interview on February 9, 2024, at 10:41 a.m., with the Consultant Pharmacist (CP), the CP stated, levothyroxine should be given on an empty stomach to enhance absorption. A review of the Prescribing Information (PI, detailed description of a drug's uses, dosage range, side effects, drug-drug interactions, and contraindications that is available to clinicians) for levothyroxine tablets, dated January 2023, retrieved from DailyMed (a website operated by the U.S. National Library of Medicine to publish up-to-date and accurate drug labels to health care providers and the general public. The contents of DailyMed is provided and updated daily by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The levothyroxine tablet PI indicated, Administer once daily, preferably on an empty stomach, one-half to one hour before breakfast. 2. During a medication pass observation on February 6, 2024, at 8:43 a.m., LVN 3 was observed preparing and administering 4 medications to Resident 31. The medications included two Tylenol (to treat pain) tablets. During a review of Resident 31's Prescriber Order, dated January 22, 2024, the Prescriber Order indicated, Tylenol (brand name for acetaminophen) Oral Tablet 325 milligram (mg, unit of measurement) Give 325 mg by mouth every 12 hours as needed for pain management NTE [not to exceed] 3 grams (gm, unit of measurement) from all sources of APAP [acetaminophen]. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 6, 2024, at 10:00 a.m., with LVN 3, Resident 31's MAR dated February 6, 2024 and physician's order for Tylenol tablet dated January 22, 2024 were reviewed. LVN 3 stated, [Resident 31] Should be [given] one tablet but I gave two . During a concurrent interview and record review on February 7, 2024, at 10:40 a.m., with the ADON, in the presence of the DSD, Resident 31's MAR dated February 6, 2024 and physician's order for Tylenol tablet dated January 22, 2024 were reviewed. The ADON verified the Tylenol order indicated one tablet and stated, the expectation is for the nurse to Check the 5 rights, and one of the 5 rights is to give the right dose. [nurse] should have given one tablet, instead of two tablets. The ADON added, If given more Tylenol than ordered, the resident might get over medicated which can lead to liver side effects. During a telephone interview on February 9, 2024, at 10:41 a.m., with the CP, regarding Resident 31 being administered two tablets of Tylenol rather than one tablet as ordered, the CP stated, If a medication is not given as ordered, the concern is the nurse did not properly give the medication and was not reading the order. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Administration of Drugs, dated February 2010, the P&P indicated, .the physician's order must be verified before the medication is administered.
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 implement and maintain infection control procedures w...

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 and maintain infection control procedures when the facility staff failed to clean and disinfect a shared glucometer (blood glucose meter to measure and display the amount of sugar [glucose] in your blood) according to manufacturer's instructions during observation for one resident (Resident 1). The failure had the potential for the development and the spread of infection. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Records, dated February 7, 2024, the admission Records indicated, Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes. During a review of Resident 1's Prescriber Order, dated December 20, 2022, the Prescriber Order indicated, Novolog (brand name for Insulin Aspart) Solution 100 units/milliliter (ml, unit of measurement) per sliding scale subcutaneously (under the skin) four times a day for DM (diabetes) 2 . During a medication pass observation on February 6, 2024, at 11:08 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 5, LVN 5 was observed using a shared glucometer to check Resident 1's concentration of blood glucose without cleaning or disinfecting the glucometer before and after use of the glucometer. During an interview on February 6, 2024, at 2:59 p.m., with LVN 5, LVN 5 stated, [The] Glucometer is used for anyone with [blood glucose] check on insulin for the hall, each cart has own glucometer. When asked to describe the process for cleaning and disinfecting a shared glucometer, LVN 5 stated, I need to disinfect [the glucometer] with sanitizing wipe 'purple top' before use, and after .every time. LVN 5 added, I did not do that earlier .I forgot. When asked to describe the importance of proper cleaning and disinfecting of shared glucometers between residents, LVN 5 stated, For infection control. If not followed we can cause cross contamination, spreading germs. During an interview on February 7, 2024, at 10:07 a.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), in the presence of the Director of Staff Development (DSD), when asked to describe the process for cleaning and disinfecting of shared glucometers, the ADON stated, nurses are expected to clean and disinfect glucometers with Sani Wipes [in] purple top [container] between residents before and after each use. She said, not cleaning and disinfecting glucometers can spread infections. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P), titled Decontaminating Equipment, dated August 3, 2017, the P&P indicated, Reusable resident care equipment/instruments/devices will be maintained and decontaminated according to the manufacturer's instructions to prevent resident to resident transmission of infections .Reusable resident care equipment will be decontaminated between residents according to manufacturer's instructions .Nursing will decontaminate equipment .between use by different residents . According to the online publication titled Infection Prevention during Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Administration by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), dated March 2, 2011, it indicated, If blood glucose meters must be shared, the device should be cleaned and disinfected after every use, per manufacturer's instructions, to prevent carry-over of blood and infectious agents. During a review of the manufacturer's instructions for cleaning and disinfecting of the glucometer provided by the facility, it indicated, Cleaning Procedure .clean and disinfect the meter [glucometer] between patient tests .
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 ensure a comprehensive care plan (specific interventi...

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 comprehensive care plan (specific interventions to provide effective and person-centered care to meet the resident's needs) was initiated, for five of seven residents (Residents 1, 21, 22, 29, and 151) when: 1. Residents 1, 21, 22, 29, and 151 had limited range of motion (ROM- the full movement potential of a joint) and/or contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to abnormality and stiffness of the joints); and 2. Resident 21 had Apixaban (medication that helps prevent blood clots) These failures had the potential to result in the delay in treatment and care for Residents 1, 21, 22, 29, and 151. Findings: 1. On February 8, 2024, at 12:26 p.m., Resident 1 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in the hallway with both hands flexed at the wrist and all fingers on both hands were clenched. Resident 1 was observed to be able to extend both hands with minimal effort but unable to open all her fingers except the right index finger. On February 8, 2024, Resident 1's record was reviewed. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included venous insufficiency (occurs when leg veins do not allow blood to flow back up to the heart). A review of Resident 1's History and Physical, documented by the physician on October 16, 2022, indicated contractures of the left hand. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool), dated July 27, 2023, indicated the following: - Resident 1 had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) of 7 (moderately impaired); and - Resident 1 had limitation in ROM to both upper extremities. In further review of Resident 1's record, there was no documented evidence a care plan was developed to address Resident 1's left hand contractures after it was identified by the physician on October 16, 2022. In addition, there was no care plan developed to address Resident 1's limitation in ROM on both upper extremities after it was identified in the MDS on July 27, 2023. 2. On February 6, 2024, at 3:31 p.m., Resident 21 was observed lying in bed with both hands flexed at the wrist and all fingers on both hands were clenched. On February 8, 2024, Resident's 21's record was reviewed. Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included polyosteoarthritis (pain and stiffness affecting five or more joints). A review of Resident 21's Summary Order, dated September 29, 2022, indicated Resident 21 was on Apixiban 5 mg (milligram -unit of measurement) twice a day. A review of Resident 21's MDS, dated January 7, 2024, indicated Resident 21 had limitation in ROM on one side of the upper extremities. In further review of Resident 21's record, there was no documented evidence a care plan was developed to address Resident 21's limitation in ROM on one side of the upper extremities after it was identified on the MDS record on January 7, 2024. In addition, there was no documented evidence a care plan was developed for the use of Apixaban medication. 3. On February 6, 2024, at 10:13 a.m., Resident 22 was observed side-lying in bed with both knees flexed towards her chest. On February 8, 2024, Resident 22's record was reviewed. Resident 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included chronic (long-term) pain syndrome ( broad term that covers long-lasting pain and inflammation that can happen after an injury or a medical event). A review of Resident 22's MDS, dated October 3, 2023, and January 3, 2024, indicated Resident 22 had limitation in ROM on both lower extremities. In further review of Resident 22's record, there was no documented evidence a care plan was developed to address Resident 22's limitation in ROM on both lower extremities after it was identified on the MDS record on October 3, 2023, and January 3, 2024. 4. On February 9, 2024, at 12:04 p.m., Resident 29 was observed with the Certified Restorative Nursing Assistant (CRNA) and Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4, lying in bed with both hands flexed at the wrist and fingers clenched. In a concurrent interview with the CRNA, she stated Resident 29 was unable to extend both hands at the wrist and open all fingers. In a concurrent interview with LVN 4, she stated Resident 29 had contractures of both hands and fingers and she was not sure when the resident developed the contractures. On February 9, 2024, Resident 29's record was reviewed. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included dementia (cognitive impairment). A review of Resident 29's MDS, dated June 2, 2023, indicated Resident 29 had limitations in ROM on one side of the upper extremity. In further review of Resident 29's record, there was no documented evidence a care plan was developed to address Resident 29's limitation in ROM on both upper extremities and/ or when it was initially identified on the MDS record on February 15, 2018. 5. On February 6, 2024, at 3:30 p.m., an observation and concurrent interview was conducted with Resident 151. Resident 151 was observed sitting in her wheelchair inside her room. Resident 151 was observed with both ankles extended in a downward position. Resident 151 was observed not able to flex both ankles upward. In a concurrent interview with Resident 151, she stated she had foot drop (difficulty lifting the front part of the foot) on both of her feet. On February 8, 2024, Resident 151's record was reviewed. Resident 151 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included difficulty walking, and muscle wasting (a weakening, shrinking, and loss of muscle caused by disease or lack of use). A review of Resident 151's History and Physical, documented by the physician, on January 22, 2024, indicated Resident 151 had weakness and bilateral (both) foot drop. In further review of Resident 151's record, there was no documented evidence a care plan was developed to address Resident 151's to bilateral foot drop after it was identified on the History and Physical on January 22, 2024. On February 9, 2024, at 4:50 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) and the Director of Staff Development (DSD). The ADON and the DSD stated all residents were to be assessed for any contractures and/or limitation with their ROM upon admission. The ADON and the DSD stated residents with contractures and/or limitations with ROM were discussed during care plan meeting quarterly. The ADON and the DSD stated there was no documentation of a comprehensive care plan was developed for Residents 1, 21, 22, 29, and 151 to address residents' limitation in ROM and/or contractures. On February 9, 2024, at 6:16 p.m. a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the ADON and the DSD. The ADON and the DSD stated Resident 21's had an order for apixaban started on September 29, 2022. The DSD stated there should have been a care plan developed for Resident 21's use for Apixaban. The facility's policy and procedure titled Care Plans, dated April 17, 2017, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .A comprehensive care plan shall be developed for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's medical, nursing, and psychological needs .care plan is developed within seven (7) days of the completion of the resident assessment or within twenty-one (21) days after the resident's admission, whichever occurs first .a preliminary care plan is developed upon the resident's admission. The preliminary care plan is used only until the comprehensive care plan has been developed .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0710 (Tag F0710)

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 medical supervision of the care of each re...

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 medical supervision of the care of each resident by a physician and that orders for the resident's immediate care and needs were provided for seven of seven residents (Residents 1, 16, 21, 22, 28, 29, and 151 ) with limited range of motion (ROM- the full movement potential of a joint), and or contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to abnormality and stiffness of the joints). These failures resulted in the delay in treatment and care for Residents 1, 16, 21, 22, 28, 29, and 151. Findings: 1. On February 8, 2024, at 12:26 p.m., a concurrent observation and interview was conducted with Resident 1. Resident 1 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in the hallway with both hands flexed at the wrist and all fingers on both hands were clenched. Resident 1 was observed to be able to extend both hands with minimal effort but unable to open all her fingers except the right index finger. There was no adaptive device observed on Resident 1's bilateral hands. In a concurrent interview with Resident 1, she stated she used a device for both hands but only had one of them. She stated she did not receive any ROM exercises for both hands. On February 8, 2024, Resident 1's record was reviewed. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included venous insufficiency (occurs when leg veins do not allow blood to flow back up to the heart). A review of Resident 1's History and Physical, documented by the physician on October 16, 2022, indicated contractures of the left hand. In further review of Resident 1's record, there was no documented evidence interventions were initiated to address Resident 1's left hand contractures as identified by the physician on October 16, 2022. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool). dated July 27, 2023, indicated the following: - Resident 1 had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) of 7 (moderately impaired); and - Resident 1 had limitation in ROM to both upper extremities. In further review of Resident 1's record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 1's limitation in ROM and/or contractures on both upper extremities was conducted by the facility. There was no documented evidence Resident 1's limitations in ROM on both upper extremities identified on July 27, 2023's MDS assessment were addressed for appropriate care and treatment. 2. On February 6, 2024, at 3:16 p.m., a concurrent observation and interview was conducted with Resident 16. Resident 16 was observed sitting in his wheelchair inside his room. Resident 16 was observed with both hands flexed at the wrist in a downward position with all fingers clenched. There was no adaptive device in place on both hands for Resident 16. Resident 16 was able to extend the left hand at the wrist but unable to open up his fingers on the left hand. Resident 16 was unable to extend the right hand and open his fingers. Resident 16 stated that he was not receiving exercises for his left or right hand and would like to get further treatment and care. On February 8, 2024, Resident 16's record was reviewed. Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body), neuralgia (nerve damage) and neuritis (inflammation of the nerve). A review of Resident 16's care plan dated October 2016, indicated, .has limited physical mobility r/t (related to) contractures of left hand .he will maintain current level of function through next review .Resident will receive ROM exercises as ordered by MD (Medical Doctor/physician) .Encourage resident to wear hand rolls as tolerated . A review of History and Physical, documented by the physician, dated May 18, 2022, indicated Resident 16 had contractures of the left upper extremities. A review of Resident 16's MDS, dated October 8, 2022, indicated the following: - Resident 16 had a BIMS of 15 (no cognitive impairment); and - Resident 16 had limitation in ROM on one side of the upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 16's MDS, dated October 13, 2023, indicated Resident 16 had impairment on both side of the upper extremities and one side of the lower extremities. In further review of Resident 16's record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 16's limitation in ROM on both side of the upper extremities and one side of the lower extremities were conducted by the facility. There was no documented evidence Resident 16's limitation in ROM for both lower and upper extremities were addressed for appropriate care and treatment. 3. On February 6, 2024, at 3:31 p.m., Resident 21 was observed lying in bed with both hands flexed at the wrist and all fingers on both hands were clenched. Resident 21 was observed with a hand roll placed inside the palm of the right hand. On February 8, 2024, Resident's 21's record was reviewed. Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included polyosteoarthritis (pain and stiffness affecting five or more joints). A review of Resident 21's Order Summary Report, indicated the following: - Order Date: 9/14/2020 - .ROM exercises to Right hand 5x (five times) a week as tolerated .; and -Order Date: 9/21/2020 - .Administer right hand brace for 8 hours per day as tolerated one time a day for hand contractures and remove per schedule . A review of Resident 21's MDS, dated July 7, 2023, indicated Resident 21 had no limitation in ROM on both upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 21's History and Physical, documented by the physician on July 10, 2023, indicated no limitation in ROM on both lower and upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 21's MDS, dated January 7, 2024, indicated Resident 21 had limitation in ROM on one side of the upper extremities. A review of Resident 21's Monthly Physician Progress Notes, documented by the physician on February 5, 2024, indicated no limitation in ROM of the bilateral upper and lower extremities. In further review of Resident 21's record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 21's limitation in ROM on one side of the upper extremities was conducted by the facility. There was no documented evidence Resident 21's limitation in ROM of the upper extremities was addressed for appropriate treatment and care. 4. On February 6, 2024, at 10:13 a.m., Resident 22 was observed side-lying in bed with both knees flexed towards her chest. On February 8, 2024, Resident 22's record was reviewed. Resident 22 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included chronic (long-term) pain syndrome (occur together and characterize a particular abnormality or condition). A review of Resident 22's MDS, indicated the following: - April 3, 2022; Resident 22 had no limitation in ROM on upper and lower extremities; and - July 5, 2023, October 3, 2023, and January 3, 2024; Resident 22 had limitation in ROM on both lower extremities. In further review of Resident 22's record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 22's limitations in ROM on both lower extremities were conducted by the facility. There was no documented evidence Resident 22's limitations in ROM on both lower extremities were addressed for appropriate care and treatment. 5. On February 8, 2024, Resident 28's record was reviewed. Resident 28 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included contractures of the right hand, hemiplegia and hemiparesis of the right side. A review of Resident 28's care plan, dated November 1, 2016, indicated, .has right side hemiplegia and contracture of right hand and right ankle .will remain free from complication r/t hemiplegia and contracture through next review .monitor/document/report PRN (as needed) any (sic) of immobility: contractures forming or worsening .Resident will receive ROM exercises as ordered by MD . A review of Resident 28's MDS, dated August 6, 2023, indicated Resident 28 had limitations in ROM on one side of the upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 28's Monthly Physician Progress Notes, documented by the physician, dated January 9, 2024, indicated Resident 28 had contractures of the right upper extremities. In further review of Resident 28's record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 28's limitations in ROM on one side of upper and lower extremities was conducted by the facility. There was no documented evidence Resident 28's limitations in ROM on one side of upper and lower extremities were addressed for appropriate care and treatment. 6. On February 9, 2024, at 12:04 p.m., Resident 29 was observed with the CRNA and LVN 4, lying in bed with both hands flexed at the wrist and fingers clenched. In a concurrent interview with the CRNA, she stated Resident 29 was unable to extend both hands at the wrist and open all fingers. In a concurrent interview with LVN 4, she stated Resident 29 had contractures of both hands and fingers and was not sure when the resident developed the contractures. On February 9, 2024, Resident 29's record was reviewed. Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included dementia (cognitive impairment). A review of Resident 29's History and Physical, documented by the physician on May 18, 2022, indicated no limitations in ROM on both upper extremities. A review of Resident 29's MDS, dated March 3, 2023, indicated Resident 29 had no limitations in ROM on upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 29's MDS, dated June 2, 2023, indicated Resident 29 had limitations in ROM on one side of the upper extremity. A review of Resident 29's Monthly Physician Progress, dated February 5, 2024, indicated no limitations on both upper extremities. In further review of Resident 29's record, there was no documented evidence an ongoing assessment, evaluation, and monitoring of Resident 29's limitations in ROM on both upper extremities was conducted by the facility. There was no documented evidence Resident 29's limitations in ROM on both upper extremities identified on MDS assessment were addressed for appropriate care and treatment. 7. On February 6, 2024, at 3:30 p.m., an observation and concurrent interview was conducted with Resident 151. Resident 151 was observed sitting in her wheelchair inside her room. Resident 151 was observed with both ankles extended in downward position. Resident 151 was observed not able to flex both ankles upward. Resident 151 stated she had foot drop (difficulty lifting the front part of the foot) on both of her feet and would like to have therapy. On February 8, 2024, Resident 151's record was reviewed. Resident 151 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included difficulty walking, and muscle wasting (A weakening, shrinking, and loss of muscle caused by disease or lack of use). A review of Resident 151's History and Physical, documented by the physician, on January 22, 2024, indicated Resident 151 had weakness and bilateral (both) foot drop. In further review of Resident 151's record, there was no documented evidence the physician addressed Resident 151's bilateral foot drop for further care and treatment. A review of Resident 151's MDS, dated February 1, 2024, indicated the following: - Resident 151 had a BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status) score of 12 (moderate cognitive impairment); and - Resident 151 had limitations in ROM on both lower extremities. In further review of Resident 151's record, there was no documented evidence Resident 151's bilateral foot drop was addressed for appropriate care and treatment. On February 9, 2024, at 4:50 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the ADON and DSD. The ADON and the DSD stated all residents were to be assessed for any contractures and/or limitation with their ROM upon admission. The ADON and the DSD stated any contractures and/or limitations with ROM noted would be documented in the resident's record and referred to the physician for further care and treatment. The ADON and DSD stated residents with contractures and/or limitations with ROM were discussed during care plan meetings quarterly. The ADON stated any decline in the resident's ROM would be discussed at least during their weekly stand-up meetings. The ADON and the DSD was not able to provide documentation of any ongoing assessment, evaluation, monitoring, and provision of care and treatment for the contractures and/or limitations with ROM for Residents 1, 16, 21, 22, 28, 29, and 151. On February 12, 2024, at 9:55 a.m., an interview with the facility's Medical Doctor was conducted. He stated all residents with contractures or limitations with their ROM should be documented in the resident's medical record. He stated resident with contractures or limitations with their ROM should be assessed, evaluated and monitored regularly to ensure appropriate treatment and care was provided. He further stated routine assessment and evaluation was important to maintain or prevent further decline and/or to identify any new onset of contractures or limitations with ROM for the residents. He stated the seven residents identified were not assessed or evaluated routinely and it should have been done and documented. The facility's policy and procedure titled Physician Services, dated April 2018, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .The resident's attending physician participates in the resident's assessment, monitoring changes in resident's medical status, providing consultation or treatment when called by the facility, and overseeing a relevant plan of care for the resident. The attending physician will determine the relevance of any recommended interventions from any discipline .The physician will perform pertinent, timely medical assessments, prescribe an appropriate medical regimen; provide adequate, timely information about the resident's condition and medical needs; visit the resident at appropriate intervals; and ensure adequate alternative coverage .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0727 (Tag F0727)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was scheduled for eight consecutive hours in a 24-hour period for January 26, 2024, and Februa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Registered Nurse (RN) was scheduled for eight consecutive hours in a 24-hour period for January 26, 2024, and February 1, 2024. This failure had the potential to adversely effect the oversight and direction regarding the quality of care and quality of life, directly impacting overall health and wellbeing of all residents. Findings: During a review of the Licensed Nurse monthly schedule for the dates indicated: - On January 26, 2024, there was no RN coverage. -On February 1, 2024, there was no RN coverage. On February 5, 2024, at 3:26 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Staff Development (DSD). The DSD stated there should have been RN coverage for January 26, 2024, and February 1, 2024. A review of the facility's policy titled, Staffing dated June 2015, had no verbiage stating, a licensed registered nurse will be onsite at least eight consecutive hours a day, 7 days a week to provide and monitor the delivery of resident care services.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate accountability of controlled medications (those with high potential for abuse or addiction) when random controlled medication ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate accountability of controlled medications (those with high potential for abuse or addiction) when random controlled medication use audits did not reconcile for three out of four residents (Residents 16, 22, and 30). The medications were signed out of the Narcotic and Hypnotic Record (NHR, an inventory sheet that keeps record of the usage of controlled medications) but not documented on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) to indicate they were given to the residents. There was a total of 5 controlled medications unaccounted for. This failure had the potential for misuse or abuse of controlled medications. Findings: The Narcotic and Hypnotic Record (NHR) for four (4) random residents receiving PRN (meaning as-needed) controlled medications were requested for review during the survey. 1. Resident 30 had a physician's order, dated September 23, 2022, for tramadol (a potent controlled medication for pain) 25 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement) by mouth every 12 hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 5, 2024, at 9:44 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, Resident 30's NHR for tramadol 25 mg and the MAR dated January 2024 were reviewed. The NHR for tramadol 25 mg indicated the nursing staff removed one tablet on January 31, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., from the medication cart and documented on the NHR (meaning they removed the medication from the locked controlled medication compartment in the medication cart). The MAR indicated, on January 31, 2024, for the 9:30 a.m. administration, there were no nursing staff initials in the box for Resident 30's tramadol 25 mg, to demonstrate the medication was administered. LVN 2 stated, there was no documentation on the MAR that indicated Resident 30 received the tramadol 25 mg on January 31, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 7, 2024, at 10:11 a.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), a review of Resident 30's NHR for tramadol 25 mg and the MAR dated January 2024 reflected the nursing staff signed tramadol 25 mg out of the NHR but did not document the respective administration on the MAR on January 31, 2024, at 9:30 a.m. The ADON verified this finding and acknowledged one tramadol tablet was not accounted. 2. Resident 22 had a physician's order, dated November 1, 2023, for tramadol 50 mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for pain management moderate to severe. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 5, 2024, at 9:44 a.m., with LVN 2, Resident 22's NHR for tramadol 50 mg and the MAR dated January 2024 were reviewed. The NHR for tramadol 50 mg indicated the nursing staff removed one tablet on January 26, 2024, at 9:00 p.m., January 29, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., and January 30, 2024, at 9:00 p.m., from the medication cart and documented on the NHR (meaning they removed the medication from the locked controlled medication compartment in the medication cart). The MAR indicated, on January 26, 2024, for the 9:00 p.m., administration, January 29, 2024, for the 5:00 p.m., ,administration, and January 30, 2024, for the 9:00 p.m., administration, there were no nursing staff initials in the box for Resident 22's tramadol 50 mg, to demonstrate the medication was administered. LVN 2 stated, there was no documentation on the MAR that indicated Resident 22 received the tramadol 50 mg on January 26, 2024, at 9:00 p.m., January 29, 2024, at 5:00 p.m., and January 30, 2024, at 9:00 p.m. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 7, 2024 at 10:14 a.m. with the ADON, a review of Resident 22's NHR for tramadol 50 mg and the MAR dated January 2024 reflected the nursing staff signed tramadol 50 mg out of the NHR but did not document the respective administration on the MAR on January 26, 2024 at 9:00 p.m., January 29, 2024 at 5:00 p.m., and January 30, 2024 at 9:00 p.m. The ADON verified this finding and acknowledged 3 tramadol tablets were not accounted. 3. Resident 16 had a physician's order, dated September 30, 2023, for tramadol ER (extended release 24 hour) 100 mg by mouth every 12 hours as needed for general body pain. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 5, 2024, at 12:12 p.m., with LVN 5, Resident 16's NHR for tramadol ER 100 mg and the MAR dated February 2024 were reviewed. The NHR for tramadol ER 100 mg indicated the nursing staff removed one tablet on February 3, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., from the medication cart and documented on the NHR (meaning they removed the medication from the locked controlled medication compartment in the medication cart). The MAR indicated, on February 3, 2024, for the 9:00 a.m., administration, there were no nursing staff initials in the box for Resident 16's tramadol ER 100 mg to demonstrate the medication was administered. LVN 5 stated, there was no documentation on the MAR that indicated Resident 30 received the tramadol ER 100 mg on February 3, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 7, 2024, at 10:19 a.m., with the ADON, a review of Resident 16's NHR for tramadol ER 100 mg and the MAR dated February 2024 reflected the nursing staff signed tramadol ER 100 mg out of the NHR but did not document the respective administration on the MAR on February 3, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. The ADON verified this finding and acknowledged one tramadol ER tablet was not accounted. The ADON stated, if controlled medications are not documented when given the concern is the risk of theft and residents not getting adequate pain control. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P), titled Controlled Substances, revised January 2018, the P&P indicated, Accurate accountability of inventory of all controlled drugs is maintained at all times. When a controlled substance is administered, the licensed nurse administering the medication immediately enters .information on the accountability record and the medication administration record (MAR). During a review of the facility's P&P, titled Administration of Drugs, dated February 2010, the P&P indicated, Medications must be charted immediately following the administration by the person administering the drugs. The date, time administered, dosage, etc., must be entered in the medical record and signed by the person entering the data.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported irre...

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 Consultant Pharmacist (CP) identified and reported irregularities during the monthly medication regimen review (MRR) when: 1. a. Resident 19 was administered lurasidone (an anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia and bipolar depression) without adequate behavioral monitoring documented during use of lurasidone; b. Resident 21 was administered Risperdal (an anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) without adequate behavioral monitoring documented during use of Risperdal; c. Resident 39 was administered Zyprexa (an anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) and Haldol (an anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia) without potential adverse effect monitoring documented during use of Zyprexa and Haldol. 2. Resident 21 received apixaban (brand name Eliquis, an anti-coagulant, or blood thinning medication) without a clear indication for its use; and the nursing staff did not monitor for signs and symptoms of adverse effects related to the use of apixaban. These failures had the potential for medications not being optimized for best possible health outcome, and unnecessary or prolonged use of medications which could lead to medication adverse effects for the residents. Findings 1. a. During a review of Resident 19's admission Records, dated February 8, 2024, the admission Records indicated, Resident 19 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia. During a review of Resident 19's Prescriber Order, dated June 30, 2023, the Prescriber Order indicated, Lurasidone HCL Oral Tablet 20 milligram (mg, unit of measurement) Give 0.5 tablet via PEG-Tube (tube in the stomach to provide food and medications) three times a day for schizophrenia. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 8, 2024, at 2:23 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1/Behavioral Specialist (LVN 1/BS), Resident 19's medical records were reviewed. LVN 1/BS acknowledged Resident 19 was not monitored for behaviors during lurasidone use. LVN 1/BS stated, target behaviors should have been identified and monitored during lurasidone use. When asked why it would be important to identify and monitor behaviors, LVN 1/BS stated, To know if it [the medication] is effective. b. During a review of Resident 21's admission Records, dated February 9, 2024, the admission Records indicated, Resident 21 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, hypertension (high blood pressure), and schizoaffective disorder. During a review of Resident 21's Prescriber Order, dated April 27, 2023, the Prescriber Order indicated, Risperdal Oral Solution Give 2 mg by mouth two times a day for Schizoaffective disorder . During a concurrent interview and record review on February 8, 2024, at 2:23 p.m., with LVN 1/BS, Resident 21's medical records were reviewed. LVN 1/BS acknowledged Resident 21 was not monitored for behaviors during Risperdal use. LVN 1/BS stated, target behaviors should have been identified and monitored during Risperdal use. c. During a review of Resident 39's admission Records, dated February 8, 2024, the admission Records indicated, Resident 39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia with other behavioral disturbance and major depressive disorder. A review of Resident 39's medical record indicated the following physician's orders: - Zyprexa oral tablet 2.5 mg (Olanzapine) Give 2 tablet by mouth at bedtime for psychosis m/b [manifested by] agitation, dated March 23, 2023; - Haldol Injection Solution (Haloperidol Lactate) Inject 3 mg intramuscularly every 24 hours as needed for if resident refuses Remeron [medication used to treat depression], dated January 16, 2023. This order exceeded 14 days. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 8, 2024, at 2:58 p.m., with LVN 1/BS, Resident 39's medical record was reviewed. LVN 1/ BS acknowledged potential adverse effects were not monitored during Zyprexa and Haldol use. LVN 1/BS stated, adverse effects should have been monitored. During an interview on February 8, 2024, at 4:38 p.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), in the presence of the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the ADON stated, any antipsychotic order needs an indication for use including manifestations of behaviors or target behaviors to monitor, in order to make sure the medication is effective. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 8, 2024, at 4:55 p.m., with the ADON, in the presence of the DSD, the medical records for Residents 19, 21, and 39 were reviewed. When asked to locate documentation of behavior monitoring for the above residents, the ADON acknowledged behaviors were not monitored for the above residents. The ADON and DSD both acknowledged monitoring for behaviors should have been done for the above residents. Additionally, the ADON acknowledged Resident 39 was not monitored for potential adverse effects during Zyprexa and Haldol use and stated, it should have been monitored. The ADON verified there were no recommendations by the Consultant Pharmacist (CP) during monthly MRRs between January 1, 2023 to January 31, 2024 related to related to behavior monitoring for Residents 19 and 21 or potential adverse effect monitoring for Resident 39. During a telephone interview on February 9, 2024, at 10:41 a.m., with the CP, when asked to describe the process for antipsychotic use and monitoring, the CP stated, orders need a diagnosis, behavioral monitoring, and monitoring for adverse effects such as movement disorders. Regarding behaviors not being monitored for Residents 19 and 21 during antipsychotic use, the CP acknowledged the identified behaviors should have been monitored. When asked whether he identified and reported in the monthly MRRs regarding behavior monitoring for the above residents, the CP stated, no and acknowledged it should have been identified and reported. Additionally, the CP acknowledged potential adverse effects during Zyprexa and Haldol use should have been monitored for Resident 39. When asked if he identified and reported in the monthly MRRs regarding potential adverse effects not monitored for Resident 39 during Zyprexa and Haldol use, the CP stated, no and acknowledged it should have been identified and reported. A review of the CP's monthly MRRs for Resident 19, 21, and 39 from January 1, 2023 to January 31, 2024 indicated there were no recommendations from the CP related to the need for behavioral monitoring for Residents 19 and 21 during antipsychotic use, and no recommendations from the CP related to the need for potential adverse effect monitoring during use of Zyprexa and Haldol for Resident 39. During a follow-up interview on February 9, 2024, at 4:44 p.m., with the ADON, the ADON stated, the facility did not have a policy and procedure for antipsychotic behavioral monitoring. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P), titled Antipsychotic Drugs, dated June 21, 2012, the P&P indicated, Charge Nurse, Physician, and Pharmacist will monitor the response psych medication for any adverse consequences. The facility's P&P did not mention behavioral monitoring. A review of the Prescribing Information (PI, detailed description of a drug's uses, dosage range, side effects, drug-drug interactions, and contraindications that is available to clinicians) for Zyprexa tablets, dated February 2021, retrieved from DailyMed (a website operated by the U.S. National Library of Medicine to publish up-to-date and accurate drug labels to health care providers and the general public. The contents of DailyMed is provided and updated daily by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration). The Zyprexa tablet PI indicated, Most common adverse reactions .hypotension [low blood pressure], constipation, weight gain, dizziness, personality disorder, akathisia [inability to remain still] . A review of PI for Haldol injection, dated , retrieved from DailyMed. the Haldol injection PI indicated, Adverse Reactions .Warnings .Cardiovascular Effects .Stroke . Tardive Dyskinesia (irreversible, involuntary movements) .Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS, a life-threatening neurologic emergency) .falls . 2. During a review of Resident 21's admission Records, dated February 9, 2024, the admission Records indicated, Resident 21 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes, hypertension (high blood pressure), and schizoaffective disorder. A review of Resident 21's hospital record's Emergency Provider Report, dated January 4, 2022, indicated Resident 21 was admitted to the hospital on [DATE]. A review of Resident 21's hospital record's Hospitalist Progress Note, dated February 5, 2022, indicated a medication list which included apixaban. A review of Resident 21's hospital record's Medication Administration Record, dated February 5, 2022, indicated the resident received Eliquis, Apixaban 5 milligram [mg, unit of measurement] (1 tablet) per feeding tube twice daily for maintenance treatment of DVT [deep vein thrombosis, a blood clot in a deep vein]/PE [pulmonary embolism, blockage the blood vessels that send blood to the lungs] .start 01/21/22 . During a review of Resident 21's Prescriber Order, dated September 29, 2022, the Prescriber Order indicated, Apixaban Tablet 5 mg Give 5 mg by mouth two times a day for hypervention. During a telephone interview on February 9, 2024, at 10:41 a.m., with the CP, regarding Resident 21's apixaban indication hypervention, the CP stated, I am not sure what that is. The CP acknowledged the apixaban indication was unclear and should have been clarified. When asked if adverse effects should have been monitored during the use of apixaban, the CP stated, should have been monitored for bleeding and should have had a care plan. When asked if he identified and reported in the monthly MRRs regarding unclear apixaban indication and potential adverse effects not monitored during use of apixaban for Resident 21, the CP stated, no and acknowledged it should have been identified and reported. A review of the CP's monthly MRRs for Resident 21 from January 1, 2023 to January 31, 2024 indicated there were no recommendations from the CP related to the unclear apixaban indication hypervention and no recommendations from the CP related to the need for potential adverse effect monitoring during use of apixaban Resident 21. During an interview on February 9, 2024, at 4:44 p.m., with the ADON, the ADON stated the facility did not have a policy and procedure for anticoagulant therapy monitoring. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 9, 2024, at 6:16 p.m., with the ADON, in the presence of the DSD, Resident 21's medical record, including the physician's order for apixaban dated September 29, 2022 was reviewed. The ADON acknowledged the apixaban indication hypervention was unclear and should have been clarified. Additionally, the ADON acknowledged Resident 21's diagnosis list did not include any diagnoses related to DVT or PE. When asked if this resident had been monitored for adverse effects such as bleeding during apixaban use, the ADON stated, No, not monitored. Both the ADON and the DSD acknowledged the resident should have been monitored for bleeding during apixaban use. The ADON verified there were no recommendations by the CP during monthly MRRs between January 1, 2023 to January 31, 2024 related to unclear apixaban indication and potential adverse effects not monitored during use of apixaban for Resident 21. A review of the PI for apixaban tablets, dated June 2021, retrieved from DailyMed, the apixaban tablet PI indicated, Indications and usage .to reduce the risk of stroke .in patients with nonvalvular [not related to heart valve] atrial fibrillation [irregular heart rhythm], for the prophylaxis [prevention] of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) .for the treatment of DVT and PE .Warnings and precautions .Apixaban can cause serious, potentially fatal, bleeding. Promptly evaluate signs and symptoms of blood loss. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P), titled Medication Regimen Reviews, revised May 2019, the P&P indicated, The Consultant Pharmacist performs a medication regimen review (MRR) for every resident in the facility receiving medication .The MRR involves a thorough review of the resident's medical record to prevent, identify, report and resolve medication related problems, medication errors and other irregularities, for example .medications ordered .without clinical indication .inadequate monitoring for adverse consequences .other medication errors, including those related to documentation .An irregularity refers to the use of a medication that is inconsistent with accepted pharmaceutical services standards of practice .it may also include the use of medication without indication, without adequate monitoring .
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

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 three of five sampled residents (Residents 19, 21, and 39) w...

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 three of five sampled residents (Residents 19, 21, and 39) were free from unnecessary psychotropic (drugs that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) medications when: 1. Resident 19 was administered lurasidone (an anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia and bipolar depression) without adequate behavioral monitoring documented during use of lurasidone; 2. Resident 21 was administered Risperdal (an anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) without adequate behavioral monitoring documented during use of Risperdal; 3. a. Resident 39 was administered Zyprexa (an anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) without adequate behavioral monitoring documented during use of Zyprexa; and without potential adverse effect monitoring documented during use of Zyprexa and Haldol (an anti-psychotic medication for schizophrenia); b. Resident 39 received an as-needed Haldol without prescriber-documented rationale and specified duration for extended use beyond 14 days. These failures had the potential to result in unnecessary use of medications for Residents 19, 21, and 39, which increased the potential for medication interactions, adverse reactions, and unidentified risks associated with the use of psychotropic medications that included but not limited to sedation, respiratory depression, constipation, anxiety, agitation, and memory loss. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 19's admission Records, dated February 8, 2024, the admission Records indicated, Resident 19 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia. During a review of Resident 19's Prescriber Order, dated June 30, 2023, the Prescriber Order indicated, Lurasidone HCL Oral Tablet 20 milligram (mg, unit of measurement) Give 0.5 tablet via PEG-Tube (tube in the stomach to provide food and medications) three times a day for schizophrenia. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 8, 2024, at 2:23 p.m., ,with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1/Behavioral Specialist (LVN 1/BS), Resident 19's medical records were reviewed. LVN 1/BS acknowledged Resident 19 was not monitored for behaviors during lurasidone use. LVN 1/BS stated, target behaviors should have been identified and monitored during lurasidone use. When asked why it would be important to identify and monitor behaviors, LVN 1/BS stated, To know if it [the medication] is effective. 2. During a review of Resident 21's admission Records, dated February 9, 2024, the admission Records indicated, Resident 21 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder. During a review of Resident 21's Prescriber Order, dated April 27, 2023, the Prescriber Order indicated, Risperdal Oral Solution Give 2 mg by mouth two times a day for Schizoaffective disorder . During a concurrent interview and record review on February 8, 2024, at 2:23 p.m., with LVN 1/BS, Resident 21's medical records were reviewed. LVN 1/BS acknowledged Resident 21 was not monitored for behaviors during Risperdal use. LVN 1/BS stated, target behaviors should have been identified and monitored during Risperdal use. 3. During a review of Resident 39's admission Records, dated February 8, 2024, the admission Records indicated, Resident 39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia with other behavioral disturbance and major depressive disorder. A review of Resident 39's medical record indicated the following physician's orders: - Zyprexa oral tablet 2.5 mg (Olanzapine) Give 2 tablet by mouth at bedtime for psychosis m/b [manifested by] agitation, dated March 23, 2023; - Haldol Injection Solution (Haloperidol Lactate) Inject 3 mg intramuscularly every 24 hours as needed for if resident refuses Remeron [medication used to treat depression], dated January 16, 2023. This order exceeded 14 days. a. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 8, 2024, at 2:58 p.m., with LVN 1/BS, Resident 39's medical record was reviewed. LVN 1/BS acknowledged Resident 39 was not monitored for behaviors during Zyprexa use. Additionally, LVN 1/ BS acknowledged potential adverse effects were not monitored during Zyprexa and Haldol use. LVN 1/BS stated, adverse effects should have been monitored. During an interview on February 8, 2024 at 4:38 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), in the presence of the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the ADON stated, any antipsychotic order needs an indication for use including manifestations of behaviors or target behaviors to monitor, in order to make sure the medication is effective. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 8, 2024, at 4:55 p.m., with the ADON, in the presence of the DSD, the medical records for Residents 19, 21, and 39 were reviewed. When asked to locate documentation of behavior monitoring for the above residents, the ADON acknowledged behaviors were not monitored for the above residents. The ADON and DSD both acknowledged monitoring for behaviors should have been done for the above residents. Additionally, the ADON acknowledged Resident 39 was not monitored for potential adverse effects during Zyprexa and Haldol use and stated, it should have been monitored. During a telephone interview on February 9, 2024, at 10:41 a.m., with the Consultant Pharmacist (CP), when asked to describe the process for antipsychotic use and monitoring, the CP stated, orders need a diagnosis, behavioral monitoring, and monitoring for adverse effects such as movement disorders. Regarding behaviors not being monitored for Residents 19, 21, and 39 during antipsychotic use, the CP acknowledged the identified behaviors should have been monitored. Additionally, the CP acknowledged potential adverse effects during Zyprexa and Haldol use should have been monitored for Resident 39. During a follow-up interview on February 9, 2024, at 4:44 p.m., with the ADON, the ADON stated, the facility did not have a policy and procedure for antipsychotic behavioral monitoring. A review of the Prescribing Information (PI, detailed description of a drug's uses, dosage range, side effects, drug-drug interactions, and contraindications that is available to clinicians) for Zyprexa tablets, dated February 2021, retrieved from DailyMed (a website operated by the U.S. National Library of Medicine to publish up-to-date and accurate drug labels to health care providers and the general public. The contents of DailyMed is provided and updated daily by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration). The Zyprexa tablet PI indicated, Most common adverse reactions .hypotension [low blood pressure], constipation, weight gain, dizziness, personality disorder, akathisia [inability to remain still] . A review of PI for Haldol injection, dated , retrieved from DailyMed. the Haldol injection PI indicated, Adverse Reactions .Warnings .Cardiovascular Effects .Stroke . Tardive Dyskinesia (irreversible, involuntary movements) .Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS, a life-threatening neurologic emergency) .falls . b. Review of Resident 39's medical record indicated there was no documented evidence to show the physician documented the rationale why the resident needed the Haldol beyond 14 days, and the end date on the as-needed Haldol order indicated indefinite. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 8, 2024 at 2:58 p.m. with LVN 1/BS, Resident 39's medical record, including the physician's order for as-needed Haldol dated January 16, 2023 and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated January 2023 through February 2024 were reviewed. MAR indicated, as-needed Haldol was used on January 16, 2023, January 17, 2023, January18, 2023 and January 20, 2023, and was not used after January 20, 2023. LVN 1/BS verified as-needed Haldol had been ordered over one year ago. LVN 1/BS stated, as-needed Haldol should have been reevaluated and reordered by the doctor after 14 days. LVN 1/BS was unable to locate documentation by the doctor that indicated as-needed Haldol was reevaluated after 14 days. During a concurrent interview and record review on February 8, 2024 at 5:01 p.m. with the ADON, in the presence of the DSD, Resident 39's medical record, including the physician's order for as-needed Haldol dated January 16, 2023, was reviewed. The ADON and the DSD both verified the end date on the as-needed Haldol order indicated indefinite. The ADON stated, after the 14 day limit, the doctor needed to re-evaluate to determine if it was appropriate to continue and document the rationale. The ADON stated, the end date should have been 14 days. During a telephone interview on February 9, 2024 at 10:41 a.m. with the CP, when asked to describe the process for as-needed antipsychotic use, the CP stated, as-needed antipsychotics need a 14 day evaluation with intent of discontinuing especially with non-use to make sure use is not indefinite, after 14 days can discontinue, continue, or order routine depending on doctor's evaluation of the resident. During a follow-up interview on February 9, 2024 at 6:47 p.m. with the ADON, the ADON stated, there was no documentation by the doctor in Resident 39's medical record regarding as-needed Haldol use beyond 14 days or documentation of reevaluation for continuation every 14 days. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P), titled Antipsychotic Drugs, dated June 21, 2012, the P&P indicated, Charge Nurse, Physician, and Pharmacist will monitor the response psych medication for any adverse consequences. The facility's P&P did not mention behavioral monitoring or as-needed antipsychotic use beyond 14 days.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure storage, preparation, and distribution of food were in accordance with professional standards for food service safety,...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure storage, preparation, and distribution of food were in accordance with professional standards for food service safety, when: 1. Food items inside the kitchen refrigerator were not labeled accordingly; 2. Cooking utensil was not in good repair and/or condition; 3. Food containers were not stored properly from a clean environment; and 4. A Dietary Aide did not perform hand hygiene in between tasks. These failures had the potential to result in cross contamination (the physical movement or transfer of harmful bacteria from one person, object or place to another) and foodborne illness (stomach illness acquired from ingesting contaminated food) in a medically vulnerable population of 47 residents who consumed food from the kitchen out of a facility census of 48 residents. Findings: On February 5, 2023, starting at 9:20 a.m., an observation of the facility kitchen and concurrent interview with the Dietary Service Director (DSD/CDM) was conducted. The following were observed: a. There were four turkey sandwiches stored inside a plastic bag in the refrigerator that were unlabeled and undated. In a concurrent interview, the DSD/CDM stated the four turkey sandwiches inside a plastic bag found in the refrigerator were unlabeled and undated. He stated the plastic bag containing the four turkey sandwiches should have been labeled and dated. b. There was one rubber spatula stored in the drawer located in the preparation/tray line table that was cracked and chipped. In a concurrent interview, the DSD/CDM stated the rubber spatula should not be chipped and/ or cracked as it can harbor bacteria and could cause cross-contamination. c. Three metal food containers and two plastic bins stored on an uncovered shelf, underneath the dishwashing sink, readily available for use. In a concurrent interview, the DSD/CDM stated the three metal food containers and two plastic bins that were stored under the dishwashing sink were clean and readily available for use. He stated the dishwashing sink is used for washing the used/dirty pots and pans. He stated the clean food containers should not be placed under the sink and should be placed in a clean environment that protects them from splashes and contamination. On February 5, 2024, at 3:40 p.m., an observation and concurrent interview with Dietary Aide (DA) was conducted. DA was observed in the kitchen wearing gloves preparing a food tray with clean napkins and utensils at a preparation table. Then, DA was observed to walked to another preparation table and grabbed the red sanitizer bucket (a bucket containing a solution to disinfect dirty surfaces) where he dipped a solution test strips (to test the solution for proper concentration). After DA completed testing the solution from the red sanitizer bucket, DA continued with prepping the food tray at the preparation table without performing hand hygiene or changing his gloves in between tasks. In a concurrent interview with DA, he stated he was preparing the food tray with clean napkins and utensil for the residents. He stated he should have washed his hands and changed gloves after testing the solution from the red sanitizer bucket before he continued with prepping the food tray for residents. On February 6, 2024, at 9:52 a.m., an interview with the Registered Dietitian (RD) was conducted. RD stated the four preprepared turkey sandwiches that were found inside the kitchen refrigerator should have been labeled and dated accordingly. She stated the rubber spatula that were cracked and chipped should have been discarded as it can harbor bacteria and cause food-borne illnesses to residents. She stated the metal food containers and plastic bins stored on an uncovered shelf underneath the dishwashing sink should have been stored in a location free from dust or splashes to prevent cross-contamination. Lastly, she stated the DA should have washed his hands and changed gloves after handling the red sanitizing bucket before he continued with preparing the food tray for residents. According to the Food Code, published by the United States Food & Drug Administration, dated 2022, .refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and held in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES .Cleaned EQUIPMENT and UTENSILS .Shall be store: .Where they are not exposed to splash, dust, or other contamination .UTENSILS shall be maintained in a state of repair or condition .or shall be discarded . The facility's policy and procedure titled Handling Clean Equipment and Utensil, dated 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Clean equipment and utensils will be stored in a clean, dry location in a way that protects them from splashes, dust, or other contamination . The facility's policy and procedure titled Hand Washing, dated 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Employee will wash hands as frequently as needed throughout the day using proper hand washing procedure .when to wash hands .after handling soiled equipment or utensils .after engaging in other activities that contaminate the hands .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI- group of staff working in the facility that helps the facility to self-identify i...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI- group of staff working in the facility that helps the facility to self-identify issues, plan to correct, and improve the lives of the residents in nursing home) program was developed to identify, assess, evaluate, and monitor residents with limitations in Range of Motion (ROM- the full movement potential of a joint ) and/or contractures (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to abnormality and stiffness of the joints). In addition, there were no preventive measures in place to provide appropriate care and treatment to improve, maintain or prevent limitations with ROM and/or contractures for residents who were at risk. (See findings under F688). This failure resulted in the delay and treatment for residents identified with limitation with ROM and or contractures and had the potential to cause all other residents residing in facility to not achieve their highest physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings: On February 12, 2024, at 3:03 p.m., an interview with the Administrator (ADM) was conducted. The ADM stated he is the Governing Body (individual responsible to establish and implement policies regarding the management and operations of the facility) for the facility. The ADM further stated, prior to immediate jeopardy (IJ) identified on February 9, 2024, there was no quality-of-care and/or preventative measures in place to identify, asses, evaluate and/or monitor residents with limited range of motion (ROM - measure of joint functionality and flexibility) and/or Contractures (fixed tightening of muscle, tendons, ligaments, or skin). The facility's policy and procedure titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) plan, dated April 26, 2018, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Our purpose is to provide excellent quality resident care and services. Quality is defined as meeting or exceeding the needs, expectations and requirements of the patients cost-effectively while maintaining good resident outcomes and perceptions of patient care .Our facility has a Performance Improvement Program which systematically monitors, analyzes and improves its performance to improve resident outcomes. It recognizes that value in healthcare is the appropriate balance between good measures, excellent care and services and cost .We will identify areas of improvement and rank them by factors such as prevalence, risk, cost, relevance, responsiveness, feasibility, and continuity .Our focus will also be on how we can create innovative best practices while making sure resident's autonomy is maintained .The Administrator is responsible and accountable for developing, leading, and closely monitoring the QAPI Program . According to CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services) Nursing Home Quality Initiatives, dated August 29, 2017, Nursing home QAPI is the coordinated application of two mutually-reinforcing aspects of a quality management system: Quality Assurance (QA) and Performance Improvement (PI). QAPI takes a systematic, comprehensive, and data-driven approach to maintaining and improving safety and quality in nursing homes while involving residents, families, and all nursing home caregivers in practical and creative problem-solving.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the required 80 square feet was met for 6 of 25 resident bedrooms (Rooms 1,9,11,12,14 and 26). This failure had the p...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the required 80 square feet was met for 6 of 25 resident bedrooms (Rooms 1,9,11,12,14 and 26). This failure had the potential to negatively affect the quality of life of the resident. Findings: On February 5, 2024, at 9:00 a.m., the Administrator (ADM) was interviewed regarding the room sizes for resident Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14 and 26. He stated the rooms did not meet the space requirement of at least 80 square feet in the above listed bedrooms. Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 26 had been set up as two-bed bedrooms. The facility document titled, Client Accommodations Analysis, dated February 12, 2024, was provided by the ADM. The document indicated the rooms set up as two-bed bedrooms measured 143 square feet or 71.5 square feet per resident (143/2 = 71.5). During the survey dates of February 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 12, the above listed rooms were observed at different times of the day. All care and services provided to the residents residing in the listed rooms were able to be conducted without restrictions. Residents who were able to be interviewed stated they were comfortable in the space provided. Health record reviews did not indicate the health and safety of the residents residing in these rooms were compromised, based on the room measurements. The facility requested a continued waiver for Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 26. Approval of the waiver was recommended. Granting this waiver will not adversely affect the residents health and safety and is in accordance with the special needs of the residents.
Oct 2023 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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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 pharmacy services were provided to meet the needs of the 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 ensure pharmacy services were provided to meet the needs of the residents, when several psychotropic medications (used to treat mental illness) were not administered in accordance with the physician's orders, for one of three residents reviewed (Resident 2). This failure had the potential for Resident 2 to have adverse reactions and changes in behaviors related to not receiving the prescribed medications. Findings: On June 2, 2023, at 2:17 p.m., an unannounced visit was conducted at the facility to investigate an altercation involving Resident 2, who was hit in the head by her peer, but no injuries were incurred. On June 2, 2023, Resident 2's record was reviewed. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included paranoid schizophrenia (a severe mental health condition where a person feels distrustful and suspicious of others) and schizoaffective disorder (persistent mental health condition characterized by delusions and hallucinations). On September 19, 2023, Resident 2's record was further reviewed. The Order Review Report, included the following physician's orders: - .clonazePAM (medication used to treat panic and anxiety, calms the brain and nerves) Oral (by mouth) Tablet 0.5 MG (milligram- unit of measurement) (Clonazepam) Give 1 (one) tablet by mouth at bedtime for PARANOID SCHIZOPHRENIA ., date ordered April 11, 2023; - .Paliperidone ER (extended release - medication used to treat schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder) Oral Tablet Extended Release 24 Hour 3 MG (Paliperidone) Give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for SCHIZOAFFECTIVE DISORDER .; date ordered April 11, 2023; and - .Haloperidol (medication used to treat mood disorders) Tablet 10 MG Give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for paranoia MB (manifested by) verbal aggression ., date ordered May 1, 2023. A review of Resident 2's Medication Administration Record, for the months of May and June 2023, indicated the following: - There were 21 days in May 2023 which indicated documentation to refer to progress notes for clonazepam. Resident 2's Progress Notes, indicated clonazepam was not available to be administered and awaiting pharmacy delivery on May 15, 26, 27, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25, 2023 (nine days). There was no documented evidence a progress note was created on the other days (12 days) to reflect status of medication administration for clonazepam; - There were five days in May 2023 which indicated documentation to refer to progress notes for haloperidol. Resident 2's Progress Notes, indicated haloperidol was not available to be adminsitered and awaiting pharmacy delivery on May 22, 24, and 25, 2023 (three days). There was no documented evidence a progress note was created on the other days (two days) to reflect status of medication administration for haloperidol; - Paliperidone was documented to refer to progress notes on May 20 and 21, 2023. Resident 2's Progress Notes, indicated paliperidone was not available to be administered and awaiting pharmacy delivery on those days; and - Clonazepam was documented to refer to progress notes on June 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, 15, and 21, 2023 (11 days). Resident 2's Progress Notes, indicated clonazepam was not available to be administered and awaiting pharmacy delivery for 11 days. There was no documented evidence the physician was notified when the clonazepam, haloperidol, and paliperidone were not administered to Resident 2 for multiple days. There was no documented evidence the facility followed up with the pharmacy regarding the supply for clonazepam, haloperidol, and paliperidone when it was not available to be administered fo Resident 2. On September 25, 2023, at 2:30 p.m., during a follow up onsite visit, a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON confirmed the medications clonazepam, haloperidol, and paliperidone were not administered to Resident 2 on multiple days in May 2023, and the clonazepam was not administered to Resident 2 on multiple days in June 2023. The DON stated the facility's practice was to notify the physician anytime a medication was not given to a resident. The DON confirmed there was no documentation in the progress notes the physician was notified when the medications were not given to Resident 2, nor was there documentation the staff followed up with the pharmacy to obtain Resident 2's medications. The DON stated the physician should have been notified regarding the multiple instances the medications were not administered, and when the medications were not available from the pharmacy. The DON further stated she should have been notified by staff regarding their challenges in obtaining medication supplies from the pharmacy so she could assist them with the pharmacy issue. On September 27, 2023, the pharmacy delivery receipts and the pharmacy's delivery log were reviewed. There was no documented evidence the medication clonazepam for Resident 2 was delivered to the facility after April 17, 2023 until June 24, 2023. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Administration - General Guidelines, dated August 1, 2010, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with good nursing principles and practices . The facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Orders, revised January 2018 was reviewed. The policy indicated, .The prescriber is contacted by nursing for direction when delivery of a medication will be delayed or the medication is not or will not be available .
Sept 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain and administer medications as ordered by the physician, for...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to obtain and administer medications as ordered by the physician, for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1), when Trulicity injection (medication to treat high blood sugar) was not available to be administered on the scheduled dose. This failure had the potential for Resident 1's blood sugar to not be controlled and could lead to decline in overall health condition. Findings: On August 2, 2023, at 9:44 a.m., an unannounced visit was conducted at the facility to investigate a facility reported incident. On August 2, 2023, Resident 1's record was reviewed. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included diabetes mellitus (abnormal blood sugar). A review of the physician orders for July 2023, Resident 1 had a physician order, dated August 22, 2022, to administer Trulicity 0.75mg (milligram - unit of measurement)/0.5ml (milliliter - unit of measurement) inject subcutaneously (under all the layers of the skin), one time a day every Monday for diabetes. A review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR), for the month of July 2023, indicated Trulicity was marked not administered to Resident 1 on July 24, 2023, or on any other day of the week. A review of the Progress Notes, dated July 24, 2023, at 9:17 p.m., indicated Trulicity was not available to be administered. There was no documented evidence the medication Trulicity injectable was administered to Resident 1 on July 24, 2023, or any other day of the week. There was no documented evidence the licensed nurse followed up with the pharmacy or the physician was notified the medication was not administered to Resident 1. On August 2, 2023, at 1:13p.m., Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. She stated Trulicity was not available and had not been administered to Resident 1. She stated the pharmacy had difficulty with the supply of the medication. She stated if a medication was not available to be administered to the resident, the licensed nurse should have followed up with the pharmacy for the medication supply. She stated the physician should have been notified of the unavailability of the medication for further orders. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Medication Administration – General Guidelines, dated August 1, 2010, indicated, .Medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with good nursing principles and practices .Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the attending physician .If a dose regularly scheduled is withheld, refused, or given at other than the scheduled time .An explanatory note is entered on the reverse side of the record provided .
Jun 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 notify the responsible party (RP) for two of three residents 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 notify the responsible party (RP) for two of three residents reviewed (Residents 1 and 2), when the residents had the change in condition and had to be transferred to the hospital. Resident 1 was transferred to the acute care hospital on April 29, 2023 and Resident 2 was transferred to the acute care hospital on May 6, 2023. This failure to notify the RP had the potential to delay the RP to advocate on behalf of Residents 1 and 2. Findings: On May 18, 2023, at 11:50 a.m., an unannounced visit was conducted to investigate an admission, transfer, and discharge issue. A review of Resident 1's record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included dementia. The record further indicated the resident has a conservator (an individual who handles the financial or daily life affairs of a conservatee, or a party deemed incompetent by a court). A review of Resident 2's record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included dementia. The record further indicated the resident has a conservator. On May 18, 2023, Residents 1 and 2's records were reviewed. The Nursing Progress Note record indicated: a. For Resident 1, on April 29, 2023, at 8:35 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN) wrote, Resident sent to (name of hospital) .after calling 911 . , and b. For Resident 2, on May 6, 2023, at 1:00 p.m., LVN 1 wrote, .resident not acting her normal self .911 called at 13:11 .transferred resident .transported to (name of hospital) .at 13:36 . On May 18, 2023, at 2:20 p.m. a concurrent interview and record review were conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). During review of the documentation made by LVN 1 for Resident 1 on 04/29/2023, and Resident 2 on 05/06/2023, the DON verified there was no documentation indicating the RP was informed of the change in condition and hospital transfer for both Resident 1and Resident 2. The DON stated the RP had to be contacted and notified of any resident's change in condition, need for treatment, and hospital transfer. In addition,the DON stated the RP (conservator) had a 24 hour hot line. A review of the undated facility document titled Resident Rights , indicated, The resident has a right to a dignified existence, self-determination, and communication with and access to persons and services inside and outside the facility. A facility must protect and promote the rights of each resident, including each of the following rights .(a) Exercise of rights .(3) In the case of a resident adjudged incompetent under the laws of a State by a court of competent jurisdiction, the rights of the resident are exercised by the person appointed under State law to act on the resident's behalf .(b) Notice of rights and services .(2) The resident or his or her legal representative has the right .to be fully informed in language that he or she can understand or his or her total health status, including but not limited to, his or her medical condition .(11) Notification of changes. (i) A facility must immediately inform the resident; consult with the resident's physician; and if known, notify the resident's legal representative or an interested family member when there is- (B) A significant change in the resident's physical, mental or psychosocial status (i.e., a deterioration in health, mental, or psychosocial; status in either life-threatening conditions or clinical complications) .((D) A decision to transfer or discharge the resident from the facility .
Feb 2022 8 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the blood pressure was obtained prior to admin...

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 blood pressure was obtained prior to administering the blood pressure medication according to the physician's order, for one of five residents observed during the medication administration (Resident 45). This failure had the potential for Resident 45 to experience low blood pressure. Findings: On February 9, 2022, at 8:03 a.m., during the medication administration observation with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1. LVN 1 was observed to prepare Clonidine (medication to treat high blood pressure) for Resident 45. The bubble pack was labeled, Clonidine 0.1 mg (milligrams) 1 (one) tablet by mouth twice a day for Hypertension (high blood pressure) hold for sbp (systolic blood pressure - pressure exerted against blood vessels when the heart pumps the blood to the rest of the body) < (less than) 120. LVN 1 was observed not to have taken the blood pressure before administering Clonidine to Resident 45. During a concurrent interview with LVN 1, he stated he did not obtain Resident 45's blood pressure prior to administering Resident 45's blood pressure medication. On February 9, 2022, at 11:56 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Infection Preventionist (IP) and the Director of Nursing (DON). They stated the resident's blood pressure should be obtained prior to administering the blood pressure medications according to the physician's order. On February 9, 2022, Resident 45's record was reviewed. Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included hypertension. The Medication Administration Record (MAR), for February 2022, included a physician's order, dated January 29, 2021, which indicated, .cloNIDine HCl Tablet Give 0.1 mg by mouth two times a day for Hypertension hold for sbp <120 . The facility's policy and procedure titled, Hypertension - Clinical Protocol Policy and Procedure, revised 2017, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .It is the policy of this facility to monitor the administration of blood pressure medication .The nurse shall assess and document in EMR (electronic medical record) prior to administration of antihypertensive medication, the residents blood pressure .If blood pressure .are outside of physician specified parameters medication shall be held .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure expired wound care medications and supplies were not readily available for use. This failure had the potential for th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure expired wound care medications and supplies were not readily available for use. This failure had the potential for the residents to receive wound care medications and supplies with decreased efficacy. Findings: On February 9, 2022, at 10:16 a.m., a medication storage area inspection was conducted with the Infection Preventionist (IP). The following wound care medications and supplies were observed expired and readily available for use: - 25 packs of a Puracol Microscaffold Collagen Wound Dressing (medicated dressing applied to treat wounds) with an expiration date of June 2021; - One packet of AD (Vitamin A and D) Skin Protectant Ointment with an expiration date of March 2021; - One package of Kerra Max Care Super-absorbent dressing (a non adhesive dressing to cover wounds) with an expiration date of December 2020; - One packet of Triple Helix Collagen Powder Wound Dressing (medicated dressing applied to treat wounds) with an expiration date of August 2020; and - Two packets of Hydrogel absorbent sheet wound dressing (medicated dressing applied to treat wounds) with an expiration date of October 25, 2020. On February 9, 2022, at 10:46 a.m., an interview was conducted with the IP. She stated she reviewed the medication storage in January 2022 and restocked it last week. She stated it is the responsibility of each staff member to ensure the medication supplies they are using have not expired. On February 9, 2022, at 11:55 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). She stated the medication storage area should not have expired medications and supplies readily available for use. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Storage of Medications, revised 2017, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .The facility shall not use discontinued, outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals. All such drugs shall be returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed .
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed, for two of 44 residents observed during meal observation (Residents 8 and 41). This failure ha...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed, for two of 44 residents observed during meal observation (Residents 8 and 41). This failure had the potential for Residents 8 and 41 to not receive the prescribed diet which could compromise their overall medical condition. Findings: 1. During lunch observation on February 7, 2022, at 12:09 p.m., Resident 8 was observed to have the following food items on his lunch meal tray: - One sandwich of peanut butter and jelly (PBJ); - One small cup of apple sauce; - One (4 oz [ounce - unit of measurement]) cup of canned fruit; - Two 4 oz carton of milk; and - One cup of ice cream. A review for the facility's planned menu, titled, Week 3 - Winter Cycle Menu, indicated the following food items was to be served on February 7, 2022, during lunch: - Three beans salad; - Turkey and cheese sandwich; - Tomato slice; and - Ice cream. In a concurrent interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she verified Resident 8 received one PBJ sandwich. On February 8, 2022, Resident 8's record was reviewed. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease (kidney disease). The physician's order, dated May 10, 2021, indicated, .Renal diet Regular texture, Served double protein lunch and dinner . On February 8, 2022, a review of the Week 3 Winter Alternate Menu, indicated, .Lunch .Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich, Starch, Veggies, Dessert as per menu .THIS MENU CAN NOT BE USED FOR .RENAL (kidney) DIETS . On February 10, 2022, at 10:31 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated Resident 8 should have not received a PBJ sandwich according to the alternate menu and the physician's order. 2. During lunch observation on February 8, 2022, at 12:20 p.m., Resident 41 was observed to have the following food items on her lunch meal tray: - Roast pork with gravy; - One small cup of noodles or pasta; - One small cup of carrots; - One small cup of canned fruit ; and - One 4 oz carton of low fat milk. Resident 41's diet card indicated, .Diabetic, Mechanical, Low Potassium . In a concurrent interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), she verified Resident 41 received a low potassium diet. On February 8, 2022, Resident 41's record was reviewed. The physician's order, dated November 5, 2021, indicated, CCHO (Consistent Carbohydrate) diet Mechanical Soft diet texture .avoid high potassium foods . A review for the facility's planned menu titled, Week 3 - Winter Cycle Menu, indicated the following food items was to be served during lunch on February 8, 2022 for CCHO diet: - Roast pork with gravy; - Mashed potatoes; - Seasoned broccoli; - Dinner roll with margarine; - Diet chocolate delight; and - Low fat milk. On February 8, 2022, at 3:35 p.m., the Dietary Service Supervisor (DSS) was interviewed. The DSS stated Resident 41 was served a low potassium diet. The DSS stated the physician's diet order should have been written correctly on the diet card of Resident 41. On February 10, 2022, at 1:40 p.m., the DON was interviewed. The DON stated the diet order was not followed for Resident 41 according tot the physician's order. The facility policy and procedure titled, Menu Planning, dated 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Nutritional needs of individuals will be provided in accordance with the established national standards adjusted to age, gender, activity level and disability, through nourishing, well-balanced diets, unless contraindicated by medical needs .Regular and therapeutic menus will be written to provide a variety of foods served on different days of the week .in adequate amounts at each meal to satisfy recommended daily allowances .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

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 a variety of food substitutes and meal alterna...

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 variety of food substitutes and meal alternatives were offered, for five of 44 residents (Residents 8, 39, 10, 44, and 48) who received food from the facility kitchen. This failure had the potential for Residents 8, 10, 39, 44, and 48's dietary intake to be inadequate by not making reasonable effort of adjusting resident's food plan and preference. Findings: 1. On February 7, 2022, at 12:09 p.m., Resident 8 was observed eating one peanut butter and jelly sandwich, one cup of apple sauce, one cup of canned fruit and two cartons of four-ounce [oz - unit of measurement]) milk. In a concurrent interview with Resident 8, he stated he had peanut butter and jelly sandwich as substitute for lunch as there was no other choices the facility offered as meal alternative. Resident 8 stated the facility only offered sandwiches and there were no variety of choices for meal substitutes or alternatives. On February 8, 2022, Resident 8's record was reviewed. Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included end stage renal disease (the kidneys no longer able to filter blood and make urine) The Minimum Data Set, dated November 2, 2021, indicated Resident 8 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status - an assessment for cognitive status) score of 12 (cognitively intact). 2. On February 7, 2022, at 12:25 p.m., Resident 39 was observed eating one peanut butter and jelly sandwich, tomato slice, three beans salad, ice cream and two cartons of four oz milk. In a concurrent interview with Resident 39, he stated he did not request a peanut butter and jelly sandwich for lunch. Resident 39 stated, I don't like peanut butter and jelly sandwich, it's mushy and it's too sweet. Resident 39 further stated the facility did not offer a variety of food substitutes. Resident 39's record was reviewed. Resident 39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included hypertension (high blood pressure). The MDS, dated January 5, 2022, indicated Resident 39 had a BIMS score of 13 (cognitively intact). 3. During Resident Council Meeting conducted on February 8, 2022, at 9:55 a.m., four residents (Residents 10, 39, 44, and 48), they stated there were one or two choices the facility would offer for meal alternative, if they did not like the food served, or they have food allergies, or if on a diabetic (abnormal blood sugar) diet. They stated they wanted more variety of meal substitutes. On February 8, 2022, a review of the facility's document titled, Week 3 Winter Alternate Menu, for lunch and dinner, indicated the facility would offer one choice of sandwich, or fruit plate with cottage cheese for lunch or dinner as a meal substitute. On February 8, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., the Dietary Service Supervisor (DSS) was interviewed. He stated he was not aware multiple residents did not like the food alternatives or meal substitutes. The facility policy and procedure titled, Menu Planning, dated 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, Nutritional needs of individuals will be provided in accordance with the established national standards adjusted to age, gender, activity level and disability, through nourishing, well-balanced diets, unless contraindicated by medical needs .Menus will include at least three meals daily at regular times comparable to the normal mealtimes in the community or in accordance with the individual's needs and preference .
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food safety requirements for food storage and preparation were followed when multiple food items stored in the refrige...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food safety requirements for food storage and preparation were followed when multiple food items stored in the refrigerator and freezer were not labeled with opened dates or use-by dates. This failure had the potential to place the residents of the facility at risk for food-borne illnesses in a medically vulnerable resident population of 44 residents who consumed food in the facility. Findings: On February 7, 2022, at 8:50 a.m., during the initial kitchen tour with the Dietary Service Supervisor (DSS), the following food items were observed inside the facility refrigerator and freezer undated and with no use-by-date: - Two peanut butter and jelly (PBJ) sandwiches; One PBJ sandwich was observed to be stained with liquid; - Six small cups of fruit; - Nine eight ounces (oz - unit of measurement) of protein shakes; - One four oz cranberry juice; - One large container of mixed vegetables; and - Two large containers of pre-mixed peanut butter and jelly. In a concurrent interview with the DSS, he stated the food items in the refrigerator and freezer were not labeled with the date they were prepared or with a use-by date. He stated the food items should have been labeled with appropriately with the date it was prepared or with the use-by date. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Food Storage, dated 2008, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Refrigeration .All foods should be covered, labeled and dated .Frozen Foods .Foods should be covered, labeled, and dated . According to the Food Code, published by the United States Food & Drug Administration, dated 2017, .refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and held in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT for more than 24 hours shall be clearly marked to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES .refrigerated, READY-TO-EAT, TIME/TEMPERATURE CONTROL FOR SAFETY FOOD prepared and PACKAGED by a FOOD PROCESSING PLANT shall be clearly marked, at the time the original container is opened in a FOOD ESTABLISHMENT and if the FOOD is held for more than 24 hours, to indicate the date or day by which the FOOD shall be consumed on the PREMISES .
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control were implemented when...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper infection control were implemented when the facility staff did not wear the proper PPE (Personal Protective Equipment - mask, gown, gloves, face shield or goggles) while inside the PUI (Person Under Investigation - a resident suspected of having or exposed to COVID-19 [coronavirus-an illness caused by a virus that can spread from person to person]) room when: 1. One Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was observed not wearing gloves while feeding Resident 11; and 2. One housekeeper (HSKP) was observed not wearing gloves or a gown while cleaning the PUI room. This failure had the potential to result in the transmission of infection to an already vulnerable population of residents and staff in the facility. Findings: 1. On February 7, 2022, at 12:24 p.m., CNA 1 was observed feeding Resident 11 inside room [ROOM NUMBER] (PUI room). CNA 1 was observed not wearing gloves while feeding Resident 11. In a concurrent interview with CNA 1, he stated he should be wearing gloves while feeding Resident 11. 2. On February 8, 2022, at 9:58 a.m., the HSKP was observed cleaning room [ROOM NUMBER] (PUI room). The HSKP was observed not wearing an isolation gown and gloves while cleaning the PUI room. In a concurrent interview with the HSKP, she was not aware she had to wear an isolation gown and gloves while cleaning a PUI room. On February 9, 2022, at 11:56 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Infection Preventionist (IP) and the Director of Nursing (DON). They stated proper infection control prevention measures should be implemented. The facility's policy and procedure, titled, Covid-19 Mitigation Plan, revised August 9, 2021, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) .Staff have been trained on selecting, donning and doffing appropriate PPE and demonstrate competency of such skills during resident care .Signs are posted immediately outside of resident rooms indicating appropriate infection control and prevention precautions and required PPE in accordance with CDPH (California Department of Public Health) guidance .All staff will wear recommended PPE while in the building per current CDPH (California Department of Public Health) PPE guidance . According to the web article titled, Interim Infection Prevention and Control Recommendations for Healthcare Personnel during the Coronavirus Disease (COVID - 19) Pandemic, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), dated February 2, 2022, .If SARS-CoV-2 infection is not suspected in a patient presenting for care (based on symptoms and exposure history), HCP (Healthcare Personnel) should follow Standard Precautions (and Transmission-Based Precautions if required based on the suspected diagnosis) . According to the web article titled, Isolation Precautions, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), dated July 22, 2019, .Wear gloves when it can be reasonably anticipated that contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials, mucous membranes .Wear gloves with fit and durability appropriate to the task .Wear disposable medical examination gloves for providing direct patient care .Wear a gown .to protect the skin and prevent soiling or contamination of clothing during procedures and patient-care activities when contact with blood, bloody fluids, secretions, or excretions is anticipated .
CONCERN (F)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a clean environement for the residents and visitors was provided when the dumpster was observed overflowing and was no...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a clean environement for the residents and visitors was provided when the dumpster was observed overflowing and was not securely closed with the dumpster lids. This failure had the potential to attract pests, insects, and vermin which could create an unsanitary environment for vulnerable residents residing in the facility. Findings: On February 8, 2022, at 2:30 p.m., four dumpsters were observed outside the facility. One dumpster was observed to be open with garbage overflowing over the top and the dumpster lid was not completely closed. On February 8, 2022, at 2:33 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS). The DSS verified the dumpster was overflowing with trash and not completely closed. He stated the dumpster lid should be completely closed. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Waste Disposal, dated 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Prior to disposal, all waste shall be kept in leak-proof, non-absorbent, fireproof container, that are kept covered when not in use . According to Federal Food Code 2017, published by the United States Food & Drug Administration, .Proper storage and disposal of garbage and refuse are necessary to minimize the development of odors, prevent such waste from becoming an attractant and harborage or breeding place for insects and rodents, and prevent the soiling of food preparation and food service areas .Outside receptacles must be constructed with tight-fitting lids or covers to prevent scattering of the garbage or refuse by birds, the breeding of flies, or the entry of rodents .
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the required 80 square feet (sq ft) per resident was met for six of 25 resident bedrooms (Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, and ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the required 80 square feet (sq ft) per resident was met for six of 25 resident bedrooms (Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 26). This failure had the potential to negatively affect the quality of life of the residents. Findings: On February 7, 2022, at 9:02 a.m., the Administrator (ADM) was interviewed regarding the room sizes for resident Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 26. He stated the rooms did not meet the space requirement of at least 80 square feet per resident in the above listed bedrooms. Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 26 had been set up as two-bed bedrooms. The facility document titled, Client Accommodations Analysis, dated February 10, 2021, was provided by the Director of Nursing (DON). The document indicated the rooms set up as two-bed bedrooms measured 143 square feet or 71.5 square feet per resident (143/2 = 71.5). During the survey dates of February 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, the above listed rooms were observed at different times of the day. All care and services provided to the residents residing in the listed rooms were able to be conducted without restrictions. Residents who were able to be interviewed stated they were comfortable in the space provided. Health record reviews did not indicate the health and safety of the residents residing in these rooms were compromised, based on the room measurements. The facility requested a continued waiver for Rooms 1, 9, 11, 12, 14, and 26. Approval of the waiver is recommended. Granting this waiver will not adversely affect the residents' health and safety and is in accordance with the special needs of the residents.
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
  • • 42% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $52,611 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 30 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $52,611 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in California. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade D (48/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 48/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital's CMS Rating?

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

How is Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital Staffed?

CMS rates VISTA PACIFICA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 42%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital?

State health inspectors documented 30 deficiencies at VISTA PACIFICA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL during 2022 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 26 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital?

VISTA PACIFICA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 49 certified beds and approximately 48 residents (about 98% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in JURUPA VALLEY, California.

How Does Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, VISTA PACIFICA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (42%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "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 Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, VISTA PACIFICA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL 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 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital Stick Around?

VISTA PACIFICA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL has a staff turnover rate of 42%, 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 Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital Ever Fined?

VISTA PACIFICA CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL has been fined $52,611 across 1 penalty action. This is above the California average of $33,605. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Vista Pacifica Convalescent Hospital on Any Federal Watch List?

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