EDGEWATER SKILLED NURSING CENTER

2625 EAST FOURTH STREET, LONG BEACH, CA 90814 (562) 434-0974
For profit - Corporation 81 Beds THE ENSIGN GROUP Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
13/100
#1018 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center in Long Beach, California, has a Trust Grade of F, indicating poor performance with significant concerns. It ranks #1018 out of 1155 facilities in California, placing it in the bottom half, and #297 out of 369 in Los Angeles County, highlighting that there are many better options nearby. The facility is improving, having reduced its issues from 40 in 2024 to only 10 in 2025, but it still faces serious challenges. Staffing is average with a rating of 3 out of 5 stars, but the turnover rate is concerning at 54%, which is higher than the state average. There are also significant fines totaling $65,656, which is higher than 88% of other California facilities, indicating ongoing compliance issues. Specific incidents have raised alarm bells: a critical finding noted that several residents did not receive their prescribed medications, which is a serious oversight. Additionally, a resident at high risk for falls was not properly monitored, resulting in a fall due to the bed being too high and lacking safety mats, leading to injury. Furthermore, there were concerns regarding the facility's failure to address delays in responding to call lights, affecting the care of all residents. While there are some strengths, such as improvements in overall issues and average RN coverage, these significant deficiencies raise serious concerns for families considering this nursing home.

Trust Score
F
13/100
In California
#1018/1155
Bottom 12%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
40 → 10 violations
Staff Stability
⚠ Watch
54% turnover. Above average. Higher turnover means staff may not know residents' routines.
Penalties
✓ Good
$65,656 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
74 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 40 issues
2025: 10 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 54%

Near California avg (46%)

Higher turnover may affect care consistency

Federal Fines: $65,656

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: THE ENSIGN GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 74 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 1 actual harm
Jul 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0627 (Tag F0627)

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:1. Re-admit one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) to the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to:1. Re-admit one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) to the facility after Resident 1 was evaluated and cleared by the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) to return to the facility.2. Ensure the facility followed its policy and procedure (P&P), titled Bed Holds which indicated if the resident's hospitalization or therapeutic leave exceeds the bed-hold period of (7) days, the resident may return to the facility to their previous room, if available, or immediately upon the first availability of a bed, if the resident requires the services provided by the facility.This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 being unable to return to the skilled nursing facility (SNF) that has been considered their home, for about 12 months after being deemed appropriate for transfer to the SNF. As a result, Resident 1 was transferred to another SNF, and both the Resident 1 and Family Member (FM) 1 experienced unnecessarily psychosocial harm, including emotional distress and dissatisfaction.Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on [DATE] with diagnoses including psychotic disorder (severe mental illnesses where people lose touch with reality) with hallucinations ( a sensory experience that feels real but is not based on an external stimulus) and major depressive disorder( a serious mental health condition characterized by persistent feelings of sadness, loss of interest in activities, and a lack of energy that significantly impact daily life). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical Examination (H&P), dated [DATE], the H&P indicated, Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive (functions your brain uses to think, pay attention, process information, and remember things) was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required setup assistance (helper sets up or cleans up) with eating, oral hygiene, moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort to complete the task) with toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort to complete task) with showering, and dressing. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, dated [DATE], the Order Summary Report indicated the facility may transfer Resident 1 to a GACH for psych evaluation and bed-hold for seven days. During a review of Resident 1's Notice of Transfer/Discharge, dated [DATE], the Notice of Transfer indicated the facility transferred Resident 1 to the GACH. During a review of Resident 1's Nursing Life Cyle (NLC) at the GACH, dated [DATE], the NLC indicated the physician at the GACH ordered to discharge Resident 1 back to the facility on [DATE]. During a review of Resident 1's Discharge Planning note at the GACH, dated [DATE], at 3:07 p.m., the Discharge Planning note indicated, Director of Community Liaison (DCL) 1 at the facility informed the Discharge Care Planner (DCP) 1 at GACH that the facility did not have a bed available for the patient but they will refer to a sister facility who can accommodate Resident 1 until a bed becomes available. The Discharge Planning note indicated, DCP1 spoke to Resident 1's family member (FM) 1 and FM 1 did not want Resident 1 moved to a new facility, stating Resident 1 had been there for about a year. DCP 1 informed the facility that the patient needs to be discharged back to the facility. During a review of Resident 1's Discharge Planning note at the GACH, dated [DATE], at 3:28 p.m., the Discharge Planning note indicated FM 1 had not spoken to anyone at the facility regarding placement and stated she was very upset. The Discharge Planning note indicated DCP 1 reached out to the facility and informed Resident 1's medical Power of Attorney (POA) was waiting for someone at the facility to reach out to her. The Discharge Planning note indicated, DCP 1 was awaiting a response. During a review of Resident 1's Nursing Progress Notes, dated [DATE] at 10:46 p.m., the Nursing Progress Notes indicated the Director of Staff Development (DSD) informed FM1 that the facility had no empty beds to accept Resident 1 from the GACH. During a review of Resident 1's Discharge Planning note at the GACH, dated [DATE] at 1:50 p.m., the Discharge Planning indicated FM1 expressed her frustration with the facility to DCP1. During a review of Resident 1's Discharge Summary at the GACH, dated [DATE] at 3:05 p.m., the Discharge Summary indicated the GACH discharged Resident 1 to another facility. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:52 p.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated the facility told FM1 the facility could not accept Resident 1 back to the facility because there was no bed available. Resident 1 stated when FM 1 visited the facility to pick up Resident 1's belongings on [DATE], FM 1 saw empty beds in the facility. Resident 1 stated that made him and FM 1 upset. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 3:56 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the Facility Census, dated [DATE] ,[DATE], [DATE], [DATE], [DATE], and [DATE] were reviewed. The DON stated there were open beds available on [DATE], and the information given by the DSD to FM 1 on [DATE] was not accurate. The DON stated if Resident 1 wished to return to the facility, he could have been readmitted . The DON stated there were empty beds available on the following dates: [DATE], there were total 3 female and 1 male empty beds available. [DATE], there were total 3 female and 1 male empty beds available. [DATE], there were total 3 female and 1 male empty beds available. [DATE], there were total 4 female and 1 male empty beds available. [DATE], there were total 4 female and 1 male empty beds available. [DATE], there were total 4 female beds 2 male empty beds available. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:56 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated residents have the right to return to the facility, even after seven-day bed hold period ends, if the resident wishes to return to the facility. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:41p.m. with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated this facility was considered as the residents' home. The ADM stated if a resident's seven-day bed hold had expired the facility should have accepted the resident back to the facility if there was bed available. The ADM stated if the resident was refused reentry, they may have felt unwanted by the facility, which could have caused anxiety and distress. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Bed hold, revised 12/2023, the P&P indicated If the resident's hospitalization or therapeutic leave exceeds the bed-hold period of (7)days, the resident may return to the facility to their previous room, if available, or immediately upon the first availability of a bed, if the resident requires the services provided by the facility.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0628 (Tag F0628)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a completed written Bed Hold notification to one of one sampled resident (Resident 1) upon transfer on 7/15/2025 to the General Acu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a completed written Bed Hold notification to one of one sampled resident (Resident 1) upon transfer on 7/15/2025 to the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH). This failure had the potential to result in a resident and/or their representative being unaware of their right to return to the facility within the designated bed-hold period, potentially leading to unnecessary displacement.Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 7/24/2024 with diagnoses including psychotic disorder (severe mental illnesses where people lose touch with reality) with hallucinations ( a sensory experience that feels real but is not based on an external stimulus) and major depressive disorder( a serious mental health condition characterized by persistent feelings of sadness, loss of interest in activities, and a lack of energy that significantly impact daily life). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical Examination (H&P), dated 7/26/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 4/28/2025, indicated Resident 1's cognitive (functions your brain uses to think, pay attention, process information, and remember things) was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required setup assistance (helper sets up or cleans up) with eating, oral hygiene, moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort to complete the task) with toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort to complete task) with showering, and dressing. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, dated 7/15/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated the facility may transfer Resident 1 to a GACH for psychological evaluation and bed-hold for seven days. During a review of Resident 1's Notice of Transfer/Discharge, dated 7/15/2025, the Notice of Transfer indicated the facility transferred Resident 1 to the GACH. During a review of Resident 1's Bed Hold Notification, dated 7/15/2025, the Bed Hold Notification indicated the section for the resident or resident representative's response was left blank, including the resident's desire for bed hold, date and time of notification, and the facility representative's signature. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/31/2025 at 4:35 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 1's Bed Hold Notification, dated 7/15/2025, was reviewed. The DON stated facility staff did not notify Resident 1 of the Bed Hold notification upon transfer. The DON stated the Bed Hold Notification lacked documentation of Resident 1's desire for bed hold, the resident or representative's signature, the date and time, and the facility representative's signature. The DON stated there was no documentation indicating Resident 1 refused to sign the form. The DON stated providing bed hold notification upon transfer is essential to ensure the residents are informed of their right to seven-day bed hold. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Bed hold, revised 12/2023, the P&P indicated the resident, or the resident's representative shall be informed in writing of their right to exercise the bed hold provision in the event of a transfer from the facility to a general acute care hospital or at the start of a resident's therapeutic leave.
May 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a refund was issued within 30 days to the Responsible Party ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a refund was issued within 30 days to the Responsible Party (RP 1), upon a resident's discharge for one out of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1's RP 1 not receiving a refund of $1,752.00. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the face sheet indicated, Resident 1 was originally admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnosis including hemiplegia (total paralysis of the arm, leg, and trunk on the same side of the body) and hemiparesis (a slight paralysis or weakness on one side of the body), and malignant neoplasm of the prostate (prostate cancer). The Face Sheet further indicated Resident 1 was discharged from the facility on 2/19/2025 at 3:25 p.m. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool), dated 12/6/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 was usually understood and usually able to understand others. During an interview on 5/23/2025 at 12:20 p.m., with the Business Office Manager (BOM), the BOM stated Resident 1 had a refund because his share of cost which was $3292 was lowered to $2416 as of 1/2025. There was no credit or refund showing in 2/2025. No funds were taken for 3/2025. The 2/2025 payment was posted on 6/2024 to the private account by the Business Office Manager Assistant (BOMA), which was incorrect. On 4/21/2025, the BOMA stated Resident 1 had a drop in share of cost so that alerted her to an audit of Resident 1's entire account so that if Resident 1 had a refund, that money could be refunded back to them. The BOM stated she realized that the 2/2025 payment was deposited in 6/2024 because there were two payments for that month. The funds were deposited into the correct patient liabilities account for 2/2025. The BOM stated in March, the balance didn't flag her because it wasn't a large amount, meaning owing funds for three to four months and the money could be collected from the family. On 4/21/2025, the BOM spoke to FM 1 and notified FM 1 that Resident 1 had a refund and to see if FM 1 wanted to pick up the check once the refund was received from corporate and to verify Resident 1's address. The BOM stated she tried to initiate the refund on 4/21/2025, but it didn't show the credit in the system because the books had to be closed. The books are closed at the end of the month meaning the first week of the following month. The books closed on 5/6/2025. If the process is expedited, the refund should be received by the resident or resident family in five to 10 business days and if not expedited, the process takes 15-30 days. The BOM stated the refund of $1752.00 was overlooked on 5/6/2025, because it got busy, and she forgot to go back and check for the refund and it should have been expedited at that time. During an interview on 5/23/2025 at 2:07 p.m., with the Administrator (ADM 2), ADM 2 stated she spoke to FM 1, and told FM 1 she would find out from the business office if there was a refund for Resident 1. ADM 2 let the facility know to contact FM 1 but does not recall when she contacted the facility. During an interview on 5/23/2025, at 4:18 p.m., with ADM 1 stated, ADM 2 had contacted him to let him know that FM 1 had reached out regarding if Resident 1 had a refund. ADM 1 reached out to FM 1 and let FM 1 know that the system was not showing any refund for Resident 1 at that time. The ADM stated he spoke to the BOM and was told after an audit a refund was shown. ADM 1 stated he let the business office handle the issue. The ADM 1 stated there is no standard time for refunds to be returned to the resident. The business office runs the audits and only notified if it is needed. Weekly and monthly audits to alleviate the turnaround time for refunds. ADM 1 states he oversees the business office but doesn't get into the details unless it's a significant amount of money due to the resident. During an interview on 5/23/2025, at 4:32 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the facility did not have any policies pertaining to the timeframe when a refund should be received by the resident or resident responsible party after discharge.
Feb 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

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 prompt attempts were made to resolve the reside...

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 prompt attempts were made to resolve the resident council meeting complaints of call lights not being answered, staff being rude, and not receiving care timely or at all for 5 of 11 sampled residents (Resident 1, Resident 2, Resident 4, Resident 7, and Resident 9). This deficient practice had the potential to violate the residents' right to have their concerns addressed. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (also known as a stroke, where blood flow to the brain is interrupted causing brain tissue to die) and congested heart failure (CHF - a heart disorder which causes the heart to not pump the blood efficiently, sometimes resulting in leg swelling). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS – a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 10/30/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had mild cognitive (ability to think and reason) impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) for toileting/personal hygiene, transferring from bed to chair, and from chair to toilet. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was occasionally incontinent (involuntary loss of urine or stool) of bladder and always incontinent of bowel. During an interview on 2/5/2025 at 10:35 a.m., Resident 1 stated on 1/26/2025 at 3:00 a.m. he pushed the call light for assistance in changing his soiled incontinence brief, but nobody responded to him until 8:30 a.m. Resident 1 stated he had called 911 on 1/26/2025 because he could not get a hold of a nurse and was unable to get out of bed alone to clean himself. Resident 1 stated he stayed soiled in urine and feces for 5.5 hours. b. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 2 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle weakness and CHF. During a review of Resident 2 ' s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 was cognitively intact and required supervision/touching assistance for toileting/personal hygiene, transferring from bed to chair, and from chair to toilet. The MDS indicated Resident 2 was incontinent of bowel and bladder. During an interview on 2/5/2025 at 1:05 p.m. Resident 2 stated for at least six months and at least a minimum of three times a week, there had been an ongoing issue with nursing staff taking up to 30 minutes to respond to her call light on the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. Resident 2 stated she was not the only resident who had experienced the evening and night nurses not answering call lights and not changing soiled incontinence briefs timely because it had been an ongoing issue discussed at the resident council meetings for the past six months and the issues still yet to be resolved. Resident 2 stated she feared there will be no one to help her if there was an emergency. c. During a review of Resident 4 ' s Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 4 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), generalized muscle weakness, and Diabetes Mellitus (DM - a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing). During a review of Resident 4 ' s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 4 had mild cognitive impairment and required maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) with toileting, personal hygiene, and toilet transferring. The MDS indicated Resident 4 required moderate assistance for transferring from bed to chair or chair to bed. The MDS indicated Resident 4 was occasionally incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel. During a review of Resident 4 ' s Interdisciplinary Team Person Centered Care Conference Record (IDT care record) dated 1/27/2025 at 10 a.m., the IDT care record indicated Resident 4 expressed she did not want registry to care for her because she did not like unfamiliar nurses caring for her. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/5/2025 at 1:42 p.m. with Resident 4, Resident 4 was alert and oriented, sitting on her wheelchair in the activities room. Resident 4 stated there had been ongoing issues on the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift with nursing staff not responding to call lights averaging between 20 to 35 minutes, and up to one hour sometimes she was soiled and needed to be changed. Resident 4 stated a couple of days ago on the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 took 35 minutes to change her soiled incontinence brief. Resident 4 stated a few weeks ago, during the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift, sometime between 5 p.m. and 7 p.m., her registry CNA (identifier unknown) took an hour to respond to her call light. Resident 4 stated she did not know who the CNA was because they did not introduce themselves. Resident 4 stated the lack of the caring and responding to her call lights caused her anxiety, and she felt the registry staff did not care because they would not even introduce themselves. Resident 4 stated when she would ask registry staff for small requests, they would reply with, No, I will do it my way. Resident 4 stated she had discussed her concerns during the resident council meeting in regards to the registry staff being rude, not being changed timely, and call lights not being answered timely with the staff at the facility on numerous occasions, but the issues had not been resolved. d. During a review of Resident 7 ' s Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 7 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including pneumonia (an infection/inflammation in the lungs), muscle weakness, and congested heart failure. During a review of Resident 7 ' s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 7 ' s was cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident 7 required maximal assistance with toileting/personal hygiene, and transferring to the toilet was not attempted due to medical condition or safety concerns. The MDS indicated Resident 7 was occasionally incontinent (inability to control the flow of urine or stool) of urine and always incontinent of bowel. During an interview on 2/6/2025 at 6:37 a.m., Resident 7 stated several times during the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift, she would have to sit in her soiled incontinence brief waiting sometimes up to two hours for the nurses to respond to her call light. Resident 7 stated this has been ongoing for several months. Resident 7 stated she struggled to care for herself due to her medical condition and she was angry at the health care system and the nurses and thought about going out on the street where she would be better off. Resident 7 stated, They need to stop calling it health care but a health business because all they care about is money. e. During a review of Resident 9 ' s Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including pneumonia, generalized muscle weakness, and arthritis (inflammation of the joints). During a review of Resident 9 ' s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 9 ' s had mild cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff for toileting hygiene and required maximum assistance from staff for personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 9 was dependent on staff to sit, stand, and transfer. The MDS indicated Resident 9 was unable to transfer to the toilet due to medical condition or safety concerns. The MDS indicated Resident 9 was occasionally incontinent of bladder and frequently incontinent of bowel. During an interview on 2/6/2025 at 12:40 p.m. with Resident 9, Resident 9 stated sometimes he had to wait 45 minutes for a nurse to respond to his call light and change his soiled incontinence briefs. Resident 9 stated the last time he had to wait 45 minutes to be changed was earlier this morning. During a review of facility ' s Resident Council Minutes dated 7/18/2024, the Resident Council Minutes indicated residents were concerned about registry staff taking a long time to answer the call lights, using foul language, being rude, and would not give residents their names. During a review of facility ' s Resident Council Minutes dated 8/20/2024, the Resident Council Minutes indicated residents were concerned about CNAs not being available found from 11 a.m. to 7 a.m. and registry staff being rude and loud when talking about their personal lives. During a review of the facility in-service dated 8/21/2024, the in-service indicated nursing staff were educated on not using foul language in the hallways and answering the call lights timely. During a review of facility ' s Resident Council Minutes dated 10/2/2024, the Resident Council Minutes indicated residents were concerned about call lights not being answered for two hours from the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift and were not getting their showers on the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift. During a review of facility in-service dated 10/8/2024, the in-service indicated the nursing staff were educated on answering call lights timely, keeping noise levels to a minimum, and not talking about their personal lives in the hallways. During a review of facility ' s Resident Council Minutes dated 10/22/2024, the Resident Council Minutes indicated residents were concerned about call lights are not being answered timely, showers were not being done for the 3-11 p.m. shift, and Activities of Daily Living (ADLs – routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily) care was not being done until after dinner time. During a review of facility in-service dated 10/22/2024, the in-service indicated the nursing staff were educated on answering call lights, CNAs covering each other for necessary requests or patient care when assigned CNA is on break, resident care needing to be done upon request and/or when necessary, residents being showered when scheduled, being polite to residents, and staff arriving/leaving their shifts as scheduled. During a review of facility ' s Resident Council Minutes dated 11/21/2024, the Resident Council Minutes indicated residents disliked registry and would like to be checked in on more often by nursing staff. During an interview on 2/6/2025 at 9:45 a.m., the Director of Activities (DA) stated he attended and documented the resident council meeting minutes that were held monthly for the residents. The DA stated the residents had discussed their concerns regarding call lights not being answered, showers not being done, and registry staff being rude on the evening and night shifts. The DA stated he had brought up the residents ' concerns about call lights, rude staff, and care not being done during stand-up meetings with the department heads such as the Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator (ADM) on multiple occasions, but the residents were still having the same repeated complaints. During an interview on 2/6/2025 at 2:26 p.m., the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated nursing staff were supposed to answer call lights right away and try to not exceed response time beyond five minutes. The DSD stated if residents do not get their call lights answered timely, the residents would not get the care that they need which could result in a fall or skin break down. During an interview on 2/6/2025 at 3:17 p.m., the DON stated she was not aware of the extent and duration of issues with call lights not being answered, showers not being done, and soiled incontinent briefs not being changed timely on the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and 11 p.m. to 7 am. shift until 11/2024. The DON stated she was not aware the complaints/concerns had been brought up during the resident council meeting minutes dating had been ongoing concerns since 7/2024. The DON stated she found out yesterday (2/5/2025) about Resident 1 calling 911 on 1/26/2025 due to nursing not responding to answering his call light for 5.5 hours. The DON stated she had not spoken to Resident 1 or investigated this incident yet. The DON stated since 11/2024 when she was made aware residents had concerns about rude staff, call lights not being answered, and residents not receiving care timely or at all they had been educating staff with in-services and utilizing a form called Angel Rounds to survey residents to ensure residents ' needs are being met evening and night shifts. The DON stated the department heads oversee making rounds with residents during the day and ask how their care was during the off-hour shifts. The DON stated she thinks residents had not been complaining according to surveys but was not sure. The DON stated she had not experienced a discussion with a resident who was concerned about the call lights, rude registry staff, or being receiving care on the off shifts since she had found out about the issue in 11/2025. During a continued interview on 2/6/2025 at 3:20 p.m. the DON stated since she found out about the lack of call light response, rude nurses, and patient care issues in 11/2024 she had checked in on staff on one occasion in 12/2024 around 11 p.m. until 1:30 a.m. to monitor staff answering call lights and responding to care needs, but it was not an issue on that day. The DON stated she believed that what they residents were complaining about in the resident council meetings had merit, and it was not enough to continue to educate staff if the issue had been ongoing for six months. The DON stated if residents ' do not have their call lights answered timely or care is provided for, they could be in unnecessary pain, have skin break down, or fall. During a review of facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Call Light/Bell, dated 5/2007, the P&P indicated call lights should be answered within a reasonable time. During a review of facility ' s P&P titled Resident Council Meeting, dated revised 2/2023, the P&P indicated the resident council meeting is to provide a forum for constructive suggestions and concerns for the mutual benefit of the resident and the facility will provide information to the residents on action taken on recommendations made at the meetings. The P&P indicated the council allows residents to discuss any special concerns they have, and the activity director will refer these matters to the appropriate personnel. The P&P indicated a plan of action or resolution will be submitted to the activities director to correct concern.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement its Infection Prevention and Control Program...

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 its Infection Prevention and Control Program for four of 11 sampled residents (Resident ' s 5, 6, 7 and 8) by failing to: 1. Ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 performed hand hygiene and used the proper personal protective equipment ([PPE] clothing and equipment that is worn or used to provide protection against hazardous substances and/or environments equipment) while providing care to Resident 5 who was on Enhanced Barrier Precautions ([EBP] infection control precautions in addition to the standard to prevent the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms). 2. Ensure CNA 1 did not throw Resident 5 ' s contaminated linen and soiled incontinence (loss of bladder and/or bowel control) brief on the floor. 3. Ensure CNA 2 wore proper PPE on while providing direct care to Resident 5. 4. Ensure CNA 2 discarded contaminated gloves prior to entering Resident 6 ' s room and turning the call light off. 6. Ensure licensed nurses dated Resident 7 ' s nasal cannula (a small plastic tube, which fits into the person ' s nostrils for providing supplemental oxygen). 7. Ensure licensed nurses changed Resident 7 ' s humidifier (a bottle of sterile water used to provide moisture to the oxygen recipient to prevent irritation of the inner nose and throat) weekly. 8. Ensure staff dated, emptied, discarded and/or replaced Resident 8 ' s urinal when it was visibly soiled. These failures placed Resident ' s 5, 6, 7, and 8 at risk for infection. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 5 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (total paralysis of the arm, leg, and trunk on the same side of the body), hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) following a cerebral infarction (also known as a stroke, loss of blood flow to a part of the brain) affecting the left side of the body, dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), and gastrostomy ([G-tube] a surgical opening fitted with a device to allow feedings to be administered directly to the stomach common for people with swallowing problems). During a review of Resident 5 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 11/18/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 5 had severe cognitively impairment (ability to think and reason) and was dependent on staff (helper does all the effort) for all activities of daily living ([ADLs] routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily). During a review of Resident 5 ' s Order Summary Report dated 7/1/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated a physician order for EBP with PPE required for high contact care activities related to Resident 5 having a G-tube. During an observation on 2/5/2025 at 3:55 p.m., outside Resident 5 ' s room, there was an EBP sign outside Resident 5 ' s door. CNA 1 was observed entering Resident 5 ' s room and started providing oral suctioning (a procedure that removes liquid contents from a person ' s mouth using a machine that provides negative pressure, a plastic tube inserted into the mouth) to Resident 5 without having performed hand hygiene, putting on gloves or a gown. CNA 1 then proceeded to put on gloves without performing hand hygiene but did not put on a gown before providing incontinence care for Resident 5. Resident 5 was noted to have a bowel movement which had gotten on the cloth reusable incontinence pad from the soiled incontinence brief. CNA 1 ' s hair was observed coming into contact with Resident 5 ' s incontinence pad and left thigh as she reaching over her. CNA 1 removed the incontinence brief and pad from under Resident 5 and threw it on the floor. CNA 1 then grabbed the oral suctioning tube and began to suction Resident 5 again without removing contaminated gloves used to provide incontinence care. CNA 1 then moved the curtain and left the room with contaminated gloves, left the room and came back with a clean incontinence pad and finished changing Resident 5 with the same pair of gloves used when she wiped Resident 5. CNA 1 removed and discarded her gloves, used alcohol-based sanitizer, and then left the room again. CNA 1 came back with a plastic bag, put on gloves and put the soiled linens and incontinence brief that were on the floor into the bag and discarded the bag. During an interview on 2/5/2025 at 4:20 p.m., CNA 1 stated she did not wear a gown when providing direct care to Resident 5 because she thought it was optional. CNA 1 stated she forgot to wash her hands prior to providing care to Resident 5, take off her contaminated gloves, and wash her hands again after providing care to Resident 5 because she was nervous. CNA 5 stated she should have done so to prevent infection. During an observation on 2/6/2025 at 6:07 a.m., CNA 2 was observed walking into Resident 5 ' s room and provided incontinence care to Resident 1. CNA 2 did not put a disposable gown on prior to providing incontinence care to Resident 5. During an interview on 2/6/2025 at 6:24 a.m., CNA 2 stated she did not wear a disposable gown when providing incontinence care to Resident 5 because she was very hot. b. During a review of Resident 6 ' s Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cellulitis (a skin infection that causes swelling and redness), pressure ulcer/injury stage II (partial-thickness loss of skin, presenting as a shallow open sore or wound) of the right hip, and sepsis (a life-threatening blood infection). During a review of Resident 6 ' s MDS, the MDS indicated Resident 6 was cognitively intact, was dependent on staff with showering/bathing, dressing and required substantial assistance (helper does more than half the effort) with eating and toileting. During an observation on 2/6/2025 at 6:15 a.m., in Resident 6 ' s room, Resident 6 was observed pressing the call light. CNA 2 was observed going into Resident 6 ' s room and pressing the call light off button which was located on the wall next to Resident 6 ' s bed. CNA 2 did not dispose of her contaminated gloves, nor wash her hands upon turning off Resident 6 ' s call light. c. During a review of Resident 7 ' s Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 7 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including pneumonia (an infection/inflammation in the lungs), atelectasis (a condition where part or all of a lung collapses), and respiratory failure (a medical condition where the lungs are unable to adequately exchange oxygen and carbon dioxide between the body and atmosphere). During a review of Resident 7 ' s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 7 ' s was cognitively intact and required substantial assistance with toileting, showering/bathing, and lower body dressing. During an observation on 2/6/2025 at 6:32 a.m., Resident 7 ' s was observed wearing a nasal cannula which was attached to a humidifier and oxygen. Resident 7 ' s nasal cannula was undated, and the humidifier was dated 1/21/2025. d. During a review of Resident 8 ' s Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including [NAME] ' s lymphoma (a type of cancer that affects the lymphatic system which is part of the immune system), diabetes mellitus ([DM] a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), and anemia (an abnormal amount of blood in in the body). During a review of Resident 8 ' s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 8 was cognitively intact and required clean-up assistance (helper sets up or cleans up) with toileting hygiene, showering/bathing, dressing, eating, and oral hygiene. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/6/202 at 12:26 p.m., with Resident 8, Resident 8 ' s undated urinal container had 250 milliliters ([ml] a metric unit of measurement used to measure liquids) of light amber urine with scattered black specks inside the container. Resident 8 stated the last time he asked for his urinal container to be replaced was months ago and stated his urinal had not been emptied since yesterday. Resident 8 stated although he was able to walk, he was frequently fatigued and dizzy due to his chemotherapy (medication treatment used to stop the growth of cancer cells) treatment and he wishes the nurses would help him empty his urinal. During an interview on 2/6/2025 at 12:43 p.m., CNA 3 stated when she made rounds at 9:00 a.m., she did not check Resident 8 ' s urinal container because he was independent and assumed he could empty the urinal himself. During an interview on 2/7/2025 at 11:43 a.m., with the Infection Prevention Nurse (IP), the IP stated humidifiers need to be changed weekly to prevent the resident from breathing in bacteria and acquiring an upper (nose, throat, sinuses) or lower respiratory infection (such as pneumonia). The IP stated the night shift (11 a.m. to 7 a.m.) is responsible for changing the humidifiers every Sunday. The IP stated urinal containers need to be changed every 30 days and should be dated to know when to discard/replace them to prevent bacterial build up and a potential urinary tract infection ([UTI] an infection in the bladder/urinary tract) for residents. The IP stated EBP are not optional and should be followed for all residents who are placed on EBP to prevent residents from getting an infection. The IP stated EBP is indicated for residents who have indwelling devices, wounds, or multi drug resistant organisms ([MDRO] bacteria or other microorganisms that are resistant to multiple antibiotics or other antimicrobial agents). The IP stated all staff should perform hand hygiene prior to providing direct patient care to prevent transmitting organisms to residents which might cause an infection. The IP stated soiled linens should be put into the proper linen and trash barrels and not onto the floor which could contaminate the environment and spread germs. The IP stated long hair should be tied up when providing direct patient care to prevent hair from becoming contaminated and potentially spreading it to other residents who could become infected. During an interview on 2/7/2025 at 2:26 p.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated when CNAs are hired, as part of their orientation, it included informing them of the facilities infection control policies, and that CNAs should be aware of them. During an interview on 2/7/2025 at 3:17 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated staff should put on a disposable gown when providing direct care for residents on EBP to prevent the spread of infections to residents. The DON stated they do not have a policy for nursing staff to put their hair up when providing direct care, but it is best practice to do so to prevent the spread of infection to other residents. The DON stated humidifiers should be changed once a week to prevent infection. The DON stated urinals should be dated to know how old they are, should be changed more than once every three months, and emptied once a shift to prevent infection. During a review of facility ' s undated Policy and Procedure titled Hand Hygiene, the P&P indicated the facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infections and all personnel will wash hands with soap and water or use an alcohol-based hand rub before and after providing direct contact with residents, and after removing gloves. The P&P indicated the use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene, and the integration of glove use along with routine hand hygiene is the best practice in preventing healthcare-associated infections. During a review of facility ' s undated P&P titled Linen Management, the P&P indicated soiled laundry/bedding shall be handled in a manner that prevents gross microbial contamination of the air and persons handling the linen. The P&P indicated dirty linens are to be contained in a closed container or bag and are not to come into contact with staff clothing. During a review of facility ' s P&P titled Infection Prevention and Control Program revised 1/2024, the P&P indicated elements of the program include coordination, oversight and prevention of infection. The P&P indicated the goal was to decrease the risk of infection to residents and personnel, to identify and correct infection control problems, and ensure compliance with state and federal regulations related to infection control. During a review of facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled IPCP Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions, revised 3/2024, the P&P indicated Enhanced Barrier Protection (Precautions) includes the use of gown and gloves during high-contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for indirect transfer of MDROs to staff and clothing then indirectly transferred to residents. The P&P indicated high-contact resident care activities include dressing, bathing/showering, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens, changing briefs or assisting with toileting and device care or use. During a review of facility ' s P&P titled IPCP Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions, revised 3/2024, the P&P indicated Standard Precautions are infection prevention practices that apply to the care of all residents regardless of suspected or confirmed infection or colonization status and based on the principle that all blood, body fluids, secretions, and excretions may contain transmissible infectious agents requiring the use of wearing gloves when potentially coming into contact with body fluids or contaminated equipment are anticipated.
Jan 2025 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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained for one of three sampled...

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 dignity was maintained for one of three sampled residents (Resident 4) when the facility failed to provide timely incontinent (having little or no control over urination or defecation) care (assistance in cleaning up a resident after toileting in a brief [adult diaper]) to Resident 4. Resident 4 was left to sit in a soiled, wet brief for an hour. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 4 feeling uncomfortable, embarrassed , frustrated and neglected by staff. Findings: During a review of Resident 4's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes (DM-disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing) , muscle weakness and major depressive episode (mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). During a review of Resident 4's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool), dated 12/20/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 4 had moderate impairment and is usually understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 4 required partial/moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) from staff with hygiene, toileting, shower and bathing and dressing. The MDS indicated Resident 4 has occasional urine and bowel incontinence (inability to control urge urinate or have bowel movements) . During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/24/25 at 8:15 a.m., with Resident 4, in Resident 4 ' s room, Resident 4 was observed to be sitting in a wheelchair next to her bed. Resident 4 stated she used her call button to call a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) last night. Resident 4 stated she often waits greater than 30 minutes to receive care. Resident 4 stated it seems the CNAs are too busy and the Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN)s and Registered Nurses (RN)s do not provide incontinent care, the staff answers wait for your CNA she is coming. Resident 4 stated she felt embarrassed, uncomfortable and neglected at having to wait. Resident 4 stated I have complained regarding the amount of time I have to wait for assistance to the charge nurses but no one does anything. During a review of the facility's Resident Council Minutes, dated 10/22/2024, the minutes indicated call lights are not being answered in a timely way. The minutes indicated when residents ask for CNA, the staff responds, I am not your CNA. During a review of the facility's Resident Council Minutes, dated 11/21/2024, the minutes indicated residents would like to be checked more by nursing. During a review of the facility's Resident Council Minutes, dated 12/19/2024, the minutes do not indicate old business (minutes from the last meeting were read and discussed) concerns from 10/22/2024 and 11/19/2024 were addressed. During an interview on 1/24/2024, at 3 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility must accommodate the toileting needs of the residents in a timely manner. The DON stated the nursing staff which includes CNAs, licensed nurses and registered nurses, must check on residents at least every two hours or more frequently as requested by the resident. The DON stated by not aiding Resident 1 timely, the facility put Resident 1 at risk for urinary tract infections (UTIs-infection in any part of the urinary system [parts of the body responsible for removing urine]) and skin breakdown. The DON stated sitting in a wet and soiled brief can cause frustration and embarrassment for a resident, which does not preserve dignity. The DON stated the licensed nurses, and registered nurses must provide all care including incontinent care to residents. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Dignity , revised 2/2021, the P/P indicated each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhanced his/ her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life , and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. The P/P indicated demeaning practices and standards of care that compromise dignity are prohibited. Staff are expected to promote dignity and respect for example, promptly responding to resident ' s request for toileting assistance. During a review of the facility's P/P titled, Call Light , revised 5/2007, the P/P indicated it is the policy of this facility to provide residents a means of communicating with nursing staff, the procedure is as follows: answer the call light/ bell within a reasonable time. The P/P indicated respond to residents ' request, if the item is not available for you or you are unable to assist, explain to the resident and notify the charge nurse for further instructions. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure dignity was maintained for one of three sampled residents (Resident 4) when the facility failed to provide timely incontinent (having little or no control over urination or defecation) care (assistance in cleaning up a resident after toileting in a brief [adult diaper]) to Resident 4. Resident 4 was left to sit in a soiled, wet brief for an hour. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 4 feeling uncomfortable, embarrassed , frustrated and neglected by staff. Findings: During a review of Resident 4's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes (DM-disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing) , muscle weakness and major depressive episode (mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). During a review of Resident 4's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool), dated 12/20/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 4 had moderate impairment and is usually understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 4 required partial/moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) from staff with hygiene, toileting, shower and bathing and dressing. The MDS indicated Resident 4 has occasional urine and bowel incontinence (inability to control urge urinate or have bowel movements) . During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/24/25 at 8:15 a.m., with Resident 4, in Resident 4's room, Resident 4 was observed to be sitting in a wheelchair next to her bed. Resident 4 stated she used her call button to call a Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) last night. Resident 4 stated she often waits greater than 30 minutes to receive care. Resident 4 stated it seems the CNAs are too busy and the Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN)s and Registered Nurses (RN)s do not provide incontinent care, the staff answers wait for your CNA she is coming. Resident 4 stated she felt embarrassed, uncomfortable and neglected at having to wait. Resident 4 stated I have complained regarding the amount of time I have to wait for assistance to the charge nurses but no one does anything. During a review of the facility's Resident Council Minutes, dated 10/22/2024, the minutes indicated call lights are not being answered in a timely way. The minutes indicated when residents ask for CNA, the staff responds, I am not your CNA. During a review of the facility's Resident Council Minutes, dated 11/21/2024, the minutes indicated residents would like to be checked more by nursing. During a review of the facility's Resident Council Minutes, dated 12/19/2024, the minutes do not indicate old business (minutes from the last meeting were read and discussed) concerns from 10/22/2024 and 11/19/2024 were addressed. During an interview on 1/24/2024, at 3 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility must accommodate the toileting needs of the residents in a timely manner. The DON stated the nursing staff which includes CNAs, licensed nurses and registered nurses, must check on residents at least every two hours or more frequently as requested by the resident. The DON stated by not aiding Resident 1 timely, the facility put Resident 1 at risk for urinary tract infections (UTIs-infection in any part of the urinary system [parts of the body responsible for removing urine]) and skin breakdown. The DON stated sitting in a wet and soiled brief can cause frustration and embarrassment for a resident, which does not preserve dignity. The DON stated the licensed nurses, and registered nurses must provide all care including incontinent care to residents. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Dignity , revised 2/2021, the P/P indicated each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhanced his/ her sense of well-being, level of satisfaction with life , and feelings of self-worth and self-esteem. The P/P indicated demeaning practices and standards of care that compromise dignity are prohibited. Staff are expected to promote dignity and respect for example, promptly responding to resident's request for toileting assistance. During a review of the facility's P/P titled, Call Light , revised 5/2007, the P/P indicated it is the policy of this facility to provide residents a means of communicating with nursing staff, the procedure is as follows: answer the call light/ bell within a reasonable time. The P/P indicated respond to residents' request, if the item is not available for you or you are unable to assist, explain to the resident and notify the charge nurse for further instructions.
Jan 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 one of three sampled resident ' s (Resident 1) resident repr...

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 one of three sampled resident ' s (Resident 1) resident representative (RR) 1 immediately after Resident 1 sustained a fall and was transferred to a General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) for evaluation. This failure resulted Resident 1 ' s RR 1 not being notified of Resident 1 ' s fall and transfer to the GACH until five hours and 25 minutes later. The deficient practice resulted in violation of the RR 1 ' s right to be informed of Resident 1 ' s care and services provided. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including acute cerebrovascular insufficiency (a temporary lack of blood flow to the brain), hemiplegia (total paralysis of the arm, leg, and trunk on the same side of the body) affecting left dominant side, abnormalities of gait (a manner of walking on foot) and mobility. During a review of Resident 1 ' s History & Physical (H&P), dated 4/6/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS – a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 10/9/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment and was usually able to understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required maximal assistance from staff for sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to stand position, and required partial/ moderate assistance from staff for chair to bed and bed to chair transfers. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes, dated 1/9/2025, the Progress Notes indicated, on 1/9/2025 at 3:20 p.m., Resident 1 fell and hit the left side of her head on the floor. The Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was transferred to a GACH for evaluation. During a telephone interview on 1/15/2025 at 2:12 p.m., with RR 1, RR stated RR 2 called the facility on 1/9/2025 around 8 p.m. and was told Resident 1 was not at the facility and was transferred to the GACH. RR 1 stated she and RR 2 were concerned that they were not aware of Resident 1 ' s status and surprised to hear that Resident 1 was not at the facility. RR 1 stated she was upset and frustrated because the facility should have called her immediately after Resident 1 had the fall and was transferred to the GACH on 1/9/2025. During an interview on 1/16/2025, at 4:49 p.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) 1, RNS 1stated, Resident 1 fell on 1/9/2025 around 3:20 p.m., and endorsed to the Charge Nurse (CN) 1 around 3:30 p.m., for CN 1 to notify Resident 1 ' s family of the fall and transfer to the GACH. RNS 1 stated she endorsed to CN 1 to call Resident 1 ' s RRs because she had a lot of charting and tasks to carry out. RNS 1 stated she later found out on 1/9/2025 that Resident 1 ' s RRs were not notified of Resident 1 ' s fall and transfer to the GACH until around 8 p.m. RNS 1 stated Resident 1 ' s RRs should have been notified immediately so they were aware of Resident 1 ' s fall and here whereabouts. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/17/2025 at 3 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes dated 1/9/2025 and timed at 3:20 p.m. was reviewed. The Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 sustained a witnessed fall and Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 notified RR 1 of the fall and transfer to the GACH at 8:45 p.m. (five hours and 25 minutes after the incident occurred). The DON stated, the family/RRs should have been notified immediately so the family was aware, knows what happened, doesn ' t worry, and doesn ' t get upset. The DON stated if the nurse was busy, and CN 1 got too busy to call Resident 1 ' s RRs, then another nurse or the DON should have notified the family immediately of what happened and where the resident was transferred to. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Change in Condition, Response, dated 1/2022, the P&P indicated, the resident/resident representative will be notified of the change of condition and any changes in the resident ' s medical or nursing care.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its Infection Prevention and Control Program...

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 its Infection Prevention and Control Program by failing to: 1. Ensure Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 4 ' s N95 (a disposable face mask that cover ' s the user ' s nose and mouth which offers protection from small solid or liquid droplets found in the air) was covering her nose. 2. Ensure CNA 4 washed her hands upon exiting Resident 10 ' s room after providing care to Resident 10. These failures placed residents, staff, and the community at higher risk for cross contamination, transmitting infectious microorganisms, and an increased spread of Influenza A (a contagious an infection of the nose, throat and lungs, which are part of the respiratory system) in the facility and community. Findings: During a review of Resident 10 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 10 was initially admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM - a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), acute respiratory failure (a serious medical condition that occurs when the lungs are unable to absorb enough oxygen into the blood), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing). During a review of Resident 10 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS – a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 10/15/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 10's cognition was intact and was able to understand and be understood by others. During an observation on 1/17/2025, at 5:10 p.m., in Resident 10 ' s room, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 4) was observed wearing an N95 mask below her nose while talking to Resident 10 and adjusting his clothing. CNA 4 was then observed walking out of Resident 10 ' s room, did not use hand sanitizer, nor wash her hands after providing care to Resident 10. During an interview on 1/17/2025 at 5:12 p.m. with CNA 4, CNA 4 stated, she had the mask below her nose because it was hard to breathe. CNA 4 stated she should have had the N95 covering both her mouth and nose. CNA 4 stated it is important to wear the N95 face mask appropriately, so germs are not spread to other residents making them sick. CNA 4 stated she forgot to use hand sanitizer and wash her hands upon exiting Resident 10 ' s room. CNA 4 stated hand washing should be done to prevent the spread of germs to other residents which could potentially make them sick. During an interview on 1/17/2025 at 5:15 p.m., with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated, all staff are supposed to wear the N95 face mask snugly above their nose and covering the mouth. The IP stated the importance of wearing the N95 mask correctly is because it protects staff from contracting and spreading Influenza A throughout the facility, especially during an outbreak. The IP stated all staff must wash their hands with soap and water before and after direct contact with the residents. During a review of the Center for Disease Control (CDC), Sequence for Donning Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), undated, indicated, for the mask or respirator secure ties or elastic bands at middle of head and neck, fit flexible band to nose bridge, fit snug to face and below chin. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P), titled Hand Hygiene, dated 12/2023, the P&P indicated to use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol or alternatively soap and water for before and after direct contact with residents .
Jan 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document a resident ' s change of condition in the medical record f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document a resident ' s change of condition in the medical record for one of four sampled resident ' s (Resident 1). This deficient practice resulted in inaccurate documentation of the care provided to Resident 1 after he sustained a fall with injury on 11/28/2024. This deficient practice had the potential for non-continuity of Resident 1 ' s care by other health care providers. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (a serious medical condition that occurs when the body doesn ' t have enough oxygen in its tissues), stage 4 pressure ulcer (Full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage, or bone) of sacral region (low back), aphasia (a disorder that makes it difficult to speak), and cognitive communication deficit (difficulty communicating due to an underlying issue with cognition). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS - a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 12/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s cognition (a problem with a person ' s ability to think, learn, remember, use judgement, and make decisions) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was bed bound and dependent (helper does all the effort) for all activities of daily living (ADLs - routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Rehab Screening Tool dated 11/28/2024 at 1:30 p.m., the Rehab Screening Tool indicated Resident 1 had an unwitnessed fall, found lying in the floor, and reported left head pain. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Nursing Progress Note dated 11/28/2024, the Nursing Progress note indicated 911 was called and Resident 1 was transferred to a General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) for evaluation on 11/28/2024 at 4:40 p.m. During an interview on 1/6/2024 at 3:22 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) 1 stated on 11/28/2024 when Resident 1 fell a second time she walked by Resident 1 ' s room and heard CNA 4 ask for help. RN 1 stated when she went in the room, she saw Resident 1 dangling from the bed with his head in the air not touching the floor. RN 1 stated she and CNA 4 assisted him to the floor and it was an assisted fall without injuries, so they did not call 911 right away. RN 1 stated instead she called the physician after her assessment who later suggested to send Resident 1 to the hospital. During an interview on 1/7/2024 at 10:28 a.m., RN 1 stated normally after a fall she would document a change of condition note, fall assessment, pain assessment, and if applicable a transfer assessment, which would give in detail the account of the fall but on 11/28/2024 she must have forgotten. RN 1 stated inaccurate documentation could cause confusion between the health care providers and a delay or error in care. During an interview on 1/8/2024 at 8:35 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated documentation of events such as falls should be an accurate reflection of how they found the resident including what type of fall it was, the nurses ' assessment interventions done, and notification to the physician and physician recommendations to communicate to health care providers for future planning of care. During a review of facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Change in Condition, Response, dated revised 1/2022, the P&P indicated if at any time, it is recognized by any one of the team members that the condition or care needs of the resident have changed, the nurse will perform and document an assessment, and the nurse will transcribe the treatment and plan of care relative to the change of condition on the resident Electronic Medical Record (EMR).
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

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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident, who was initially assessed and determined to be ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident, who was initially assessed and determined to be at high risk for falls and had a history of falling at the facility did not fall and continue to fall for one out of four sampled residents (Resident 1). The facility failed to: 1. Ensure the licensed nurses developed a care plan that addressed Resident 1 ' s inability to communicate his needs or use the call light when needing assistance which led to Resident 1 falling on 11/14/2024, 11/28/2024, and on 12/13/2024. 2. Ensure the nursing staff implemented interventions timely when Resident 1 fell on [DATE]. Resident ' s 1 ' s Post Fall Care Plan interventions dated initiated 11/14/2024 included a room change closer to the nursing station which was not initiated until 11/19/2024 (five days after the first fall on 11/14/2024), and also included an order for a Perimeter Low Air Loss Mattress (an air inflated mattress with raised borders on the sides designed to protect the skin and prevent falling) which was not ordered until 11/21/2024 (one week after the first fall on11/14/2024). These deficient practices resulted in Resident 1 ' s continued falls and had the potential for Resident 1 to sustain serious injuries and/or death as a result of the falls. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (a serious medical condition that occurs when the body doesn ' t have enough oxygen in its tissues), stage 4 pressure ulcer (Full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage, or bone) of sacral region (lower back), aphasia (a disorder that makes it difficult to speak), and cognitive communication deficit (difficulty communicating due to an underlying issue with cognition). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS – a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 12/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s cognition (a problem with a person ' s ability to think, learn, remember, use judgment, and make decisions) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was bed bound and dependent (helper does all the effort) for all activities of daily living (ADLs – routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE], the Fall Risk Assessment indicated Resident 1 was a high fall risk. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Physician Order dated 11/11/2024, the order indicated a Speech-Language Pathologist ([SLP] an expert who assesses, diagnoses, and treats speech, language, and swallowing disorders) to evaluate and treat Resident 1 three times a week for four weeks for cognitive-communicative deficit, aphasia, dysarthria (a speech disorder that makes it difficult to speak clearly), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Care Plan dated 11/6/2024, dated 11/6/2024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 was at risk for falls due to limited mobility, impaired ADL skills, and impaired cognitive skills. The Care Plan ' s goal was for Resident 1 was to be free from falls with interventions that included to be sure the call light is within reach and encourage Resident 1 to use the call light for assistance as needed. The Care Plan did not address Resident 1 ' s inability to communicate his needs or use the call light when needing assistance. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Interdisciplinary Team (IDT – a group of medical professionals from different disciplines who work together to help a resident achieve their goals) Care Plan Review dated 11/22/2024, the IDT-Care Plan Review indicated Resident 1 was not able to use his call light or make his needs known when needing assistance due to being non-verbal. 1. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Nursing Progress Note dated 11/14/2024 at 12:40 p.m., the Nursing Progress Note indicated Resident 1 was found on the floor next to his bed and reported having head and nose pain. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Nursing Home to Hospital Transfer Form (Transfer Form) dated 11/14/2024, the Transfer Form indicated Resident 1 was sent to a General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) for evaluation because of the fall on 11/14/2024 at 12:45 p.m. via 911. Resident 1 was evaluated at the GACH and returned to the facility on [DATE]. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Rehabilitation Services Screening Tool (Rehab Screening Tool) dated 11/14/2024, the Rehab Screening Tool indicated a recommendation to move Resident 1 closer to the nursing station for close monitoring, and recommended roll-control side bed bolsters (a long, narrow, triangular firm pillow used as a safety device to prevent residents from falling out of bed). During a review of Resident 1 ' s post fall Care Plan dated 11/14/1024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 had a fall on 11/14/2024 with a goal to resume usual activities without further incident with a target date of 2/4/2025. The Care Plan ' s interventions included for Resident 1 to have a perimeter LALM mattress and to assign Resident 1 closer to the nursing station. The Care Plan did not address Resident 1 ' s inability to communicate his needs or use the call light when needing assistance. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Physician Order dated 11/21/2024 at 9:50 a.m., the order indicated standard treatment of a low air loss mattress with bolsters for wound management. 2. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Rehab Screening Tool dated 11/28/2024 and timed at 1:30 p.m., the Rehab Screening Tool indicated Resident 1 was found lying in the floor and reported left head pain. The Rehab Screening Tool indicated Resident 1 ' s fall was unwitnessed. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Nursing Progress Note dated 11/28/2024, the Nursing Progress Note indicated 911 was called and Resident 1 was transferred to the GACH for evaluation on 11/28/2024 at 4:40 p.m. Resident 1 retuned to the facility on [DATE]. 3. During a review of Resident 1 ' s SBAR Communication Form (SBAR - situation, background, assessment, recommendation- a communication tool used by healthcare workers when there is a change of condition among the residents) dated 12/13/2024 at 3:40 a.m., the SBAR Communication Form indicated Resident 1 had an unwitnessed fall, complained of head pain, and was transferred to a GACH via 911. As of 1/8/2025, Resident 1 has not returned to the facility. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Post Fall Care Plan dated revised 12/2/2024, the Care Plan indicated the goal was to resume usual activities without further incident through the review date of 2/4/2025. The Care Plan ' s interventions included to transfer Resident 1 to the hospital per physician and family request. The Care Plan did not address Resident 1 ' s inability to communicate his needs or use the call light when needing assistance. During an interview on 1/6/2024 at 1:24 p.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 stated when she was caring for residents who try to get out of bed, she would check on them at least once an hour and inform the supervisor in case the resident needs someone to be with them all the time. CNA 1 stated residents who try to get out of bed usually have a bed alarm. During an interview on 1/6/2024 at 1:32 p.m., CNA 2 stated on 11/28/2024 nurses were asking for help with Resident 1 who had a fall. CNA 2 stated she saw Resident 1 ' s legs on the bed but his body and head was on the floor mat next to his bed. CNA 2 stated she never directly worked with Resident 1 but during report the nurses discussed him shaking a lot. During an interview on 1/6/2024 at 1:55 p.m., CNA 3 stated Resident 1 was not able to use the call light at all and was confused most of the time. CNA 3 stated he was there on 11/28/2024 when Resident 1 fell and believed it was because he slid off the bed since the air mattress was slippery there was no side rails. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 had bed bolsters on both sides but sometimes the bed bolsters would fall on the floor. During an interview on 1/6/2024 at 2:46 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 stated she had worked with Resident 1 would move a lot to the point where he would be on the edge of the bed so she would have to reposition him. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was not able to talk. LVN 1 was not working when Resident 1 fell but if he had an unwitnessed fall, she would assess him and call 911 right away because it could be serious such as head or spinal cord injury. LVN 1 stated it is even more serious for Resident 1 if he had fallen because he is on blood thinners which could cause internal bleeding. LVN 1 stated for high risk for falls residents there is no protocol beyond monitoring a resident every two hours, but she would check on the Resident 1 once an hour since he is high risk for falls. LVN 1 stated in report there was a discussion about a nurse trying to reach out to the son to see if he could be more involved by coming to the facility to sit with his dad to prevent him from falling again. During an interview on 1/6/2024 at 3:22 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) 1 stated for an unwitnessed fall, with suspected head injury and complaints of head pain, she would call 911 right away, especially if the resident was on blood thinners because they could die from a brain bleed. RN 1 stated on 11/28/2024 when Resident 1 fell a second time she walked by Resident 1 ' s room and heard CNA 4 ask for help. RN 1 stated when she went in the room, she saw Resident 1 dangling from the bed with his head in the air not touching the floor. RN 1 stated she and CNA 4 assisted him to the floor and it was an assisted fall without injuries, so they did not call 911 right away. RN 1 stated instead she called the physician after her assessment who later suggested to send Resident 1 to the hospital. RN 1 stated Resident 1 did not have a history of seizures (a sudden, uncontrolled electrical disturbance in the brain which can cause uncontrolled jerking, blank stares, and loss of consciousness) but he moved in bed a lot, and she thinks he fell from moving in bed. RN 1 stated he had a low air loss mattress which can contribute to falling because it is slippery, and he was not able to push the call light, so they constantly monitored him. RN 1 stated they normally monitor residents every 2 hours but Resident 1 required more frequent monitoring. RN 1 was unable to state a specific time fame of the increased monitoring or how this is ensured. During an interview on 1/7/2024 at 9:35 a.m., CNA 4 stated she recalled the incident on 11/28/2024 when Resident 1 was falling out of bed. CNA 4 stated Resident 1 never actually fell but was hanging off the bed one foot from the floor. CNA 4 stated she called for help and RN 1 and other staff members of unknown name came to assist Resident 1 to the floor. During an interview on 1/7/2025 at 7:45am, CNA 5 stated he was on the night shift when Resident 1 fell (12/13/2024) but was not directly assigned to Resident 1. CNA 5 stated another CNA he did not recall called for help, so he went in the room and saw Resident 1 on the floor with a surprised look on his face. CNA 5 stated they received in report on 12/12/2024 that Resident 1 had fallen before and to keep a closer eye on him. CNA 5 stated when the CNAs were told in report to keep an eye on him that was not accompanied by a specific time frame, but he interpreted that as checking in on your Resident every two hours if they are high risk for falls. CNA 5 stated if a resident requires more monitoring than once every 2 hours, they usually assign a one-to-one sitter, meaning a person stays with the resident the whole shift. During an interview on 1/7/2025 at 10:14 a.m., RN 1 stated since Resident 1 was a high fall risk and fell twice already frequent monitoring would be needed which would mean more than once every 2 hours especially since Resident 1 could not use the call light or ask for help. RN 1 was not able to give me a specific time frame for monitoring. RN 1 stated a bed alarm was never implemented for Resident 1 because it would not be appropriate for an air mattress since the purpose of an air mattress is to protect the skin by reducing pressure. During an interview on 1/8/2025 at 8:30 a.m., the Director of Nursing stated Resident 1 was moved closer to the nursing station on 11/19/2024 after he fell on [DATE] and the order for the Perimeter LALM was not ordered until 11/21/2024 because the IDT had to discuss the plan first. The DON stated there should have been other interventions in the care plan such as monitoring with specific time frames to prevent falls since Resident 1 could not use the call light or ask for help. The DON was not able to give me a specific time frame. During a review of facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning dated revised 1/2022, the P&P indicated the interdisciplinary team (IDT) shall develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet the resident ' s medical, nursing, mental, and psychosocial needs. During a review of facility ' s P&P titled Change in Condition, Response dated revised 1/2022, the P&P indicated if at any time, it is recognized by any one of the team members that the condition or care needs of the resident have changed, the Licensed Nurse or Nurse Supervisor should be made aware (such as a fall) and the IDT shall collaborate with the attending physician, resident and/or resident representative to review risk indicators and plan of care. The P&P further indicated each department notified will perform their own evaluation and assessment to determine if the change requires further interventions and implement actions accordingly, and the nurse will transcribe the treatment and plan of care relative to the change of condition on the resident Electronic Medical Record (EMR).
Dec 2024 13 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the assessment entries on the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a 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 the assessment entries on the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) related to discharge status was accurately documented to reflect that the resident was discharged home for one of three residents (Resident 78). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect Resident 78's plan of care and delivery of necessary care and services. Findings: During a review of Resident 78's admission Record, dated 12/12/2024, the admission Record indicated Resident 78 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including respiratory failure and chronic kidney disease (gradual failing of the kidneys). The face sheet indicated Resident 78 was discharged on 9/13/2024 to a board and care/assisted living/group home. During a review of Resident 78's MDS, the MDS indicated Resident 78 had moderate cognitive (ability to think and reason) impairment and required maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) for eating, hygiene, and position changes. During a review of Resident 78's Discharge Summary and Post-Discharge Plan of Care, dated 9/13/2024, the Discharge Summary and Post-Discharge Plan of Care indicated Resident 78 was discharge to Assisted Living/Board and Care on 9/13/2024 with arranged hospice (compassionate care for people who are near the end of life provided at the person's home or within a health care facility) services. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/10/2024 at 2:45 p.m. with the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) Nurse (MDSN), Resident 78's MDS dated [DATE] was reviewed. The MDS indicated Resident 78 had a planned discharge to a Short-Term General hospital on 9/13/2024. The MDSN stated the MDS was incorrect, and the MDS should have reflected that Resident 78 was discharged to an assisted living facility with hospice care. The MDSN stated the facility would correct that entry. During an interview on 12/12/2024 at 4:29 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was important for the MDS to be accurate in order to provide care according to the resident status and current needs. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Resident Assessment Instrument, last revised 10/1/2019, the P&P indicated the assessment must accurately reflect the resident's status and needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of three sampled residents (Residents 5 and Resident 37)...

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 two of three sampled residents (Residents 5 and Resident 37) preadmission screening and resident review (PASRR) screening was reassessed to determine the facility's ability to provide care for the special needs of the residents. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk of not receiving necessary care and services. a. During a review of Resident 5's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility initially admitted Resident 4 to the facility on 7/29/2024 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified dementia (progressive state of decline in mental abilities), mood disturbance (mental health condition that affects your emotional state), anxiety, and psychosis (a severe mental condition in which thought, and emotions are so affected that contact is lost with reality). During a review of Resident 5's History and Physical (H&P) dated 10/12/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 5 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 5's Minimum Data Set (MDS a resident screening tool), dated 11/8/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 5's cognitive (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) skills were moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 5 was dependent for toilet and personal hygiene, upper and lower body dressing, required maximal (assisting more than half the effort) assistance for sit to stand, chair/bed to chair transfer, and oral hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 5 utilized a wheelchair and walker for mobility and had impairments on both arms, shoulders. During a review of the PASRR Level I screening dated 10/24/2024, the PASRR Level I screening indicated Resident 5 required a Level II screening due to having serious mental illness (SMI). The PASRR Level 1 screening indicated on 10/24/2024, there was a notice of attempted evaluation to complete a Level II evaluation for SM for Resident 5, however due to the facility staff being unresponsive to two or more separate attempts of communication within 48 hours of the Level I screening, the Level II screening was not completed. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/11/2024 at 4:02 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 5's PASRR was reviewed. The DON stated PASRR was a part of the admission documents, reviewed by licensed staff. The DON stated the notice regarding Resident 5's uncompleted Level II PASRR indicated Resident 5 did need a Level II screening The DON stated the facility should have resubmitted the Level I screening to ensure Resident 5 would receive the appropriate care based on her condition. The DON stated without a proper assessment, the facility will not know whether they are providing the proper service for the resident. b. During a review of Resident 37's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder (MDD: serious mood disorder that causes persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), Type II Diabetes (disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control), and hypertension (high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 37's H&P dated 10/31/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 37 had a history of bipolar disorder and was capable of making decisions for himself. During a review of Resident 37's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 37's cognitive skills were intact. The MDS indicated Resident 37 was dependent for lower body dressing, required maximal assistance for bathing, toileting hygiene, sit to lying, rolling left to right, and required moderate assistance for personal and oral hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 37 utilized a wheelchair for mobility and had an impairment on one side of the lower extremities (hip, legs). During a review of Resident 37's PASRR Level I screening dated 11/8/2024, the PASRR Level I screening the section indicated Resident 37 did not have a SMI. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/2024 at 4:40 p.m., with the DON, Resident 37's PASRR Level 1 document was reviewed. The DON stated the PASRR indicated a Resident 37 did not have an SMI and a Level II screening was not indicated. The DON stated Resident 37 had a diagnosis of depression and the PASRR did not reflect his diagnosis. The DON stated Resident 37's PASRR should have been corrected and resubmitted. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled PASRR, dated 12/2021, the P&P indicated it is the policy of this facility to ensure that each resident is properly screened using the PASRR specified by the State. Based upon the assessment, the facility will ensure proper referral to appropriate state agencies for the provision of specialized services to residents with ID/RC (Intellectual Disability or Related Condition) or SMI (Serious Mental Illness).
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a trauma (a deeply distressing or disturbing event that overwhelms a person's ability to cope, causing significant an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a trauma (a deeply distressing or disturbing event that overwhelms a person's ability to cope, causing significant and lasting negative consequences) informed care plan for one of one residents (Resident 52), who reported difficulty sleeping related to previous trauma. This failure had the potential to compromise Resident 52's emotional well-being and increas the risk of re-traumatization. Findings: During a review of Resident 52's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 52 on 10/10/2023 with diagnoses including major depressive disorder (a mental health condition that can cause severe feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and a loss of interest in activities), and anxiety disorder (a condition that causes excessive and persistent feelings of fear, worry, dread, and uneasiness.) During a review of Resident 52's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a resident assessment tool), dated 10/11/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 52 was cognitively (the ability to think and process information) intact. The MDS indicated Resident 52 had symptoms of feeling down, depressed, or hopeless, up to once a day. During a review of Resident 52's History and physical (H&P), dated 11/3/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 52 had a history of alcohol abuse (excessive consumption of alcohol that may lead to negative consequences). During a review of Resident 52's Social Services Assessment/Evaluations dated 1/17/2024 and 9/20/2024, the Social Services Assessment/Evaluations indicated Resident 52 had verbalized being raped at 9 years old, and later on being in the a war. The Social Services Assessment/Evaluations indicated Resident 52 verbalized his wife had committed suicide. During an interview on 12/11/2024 at 1:28 p.m., Resident 52, stated that he couldn't sleep well related to the previous trauma and the facility provided the resident with medications, which help him a little to sleep at night but not significantly. The resident stated, he experienced triggers (something that causes a person to involuntarily recall a previous traumatic experience), although not specific ones. Resident 52 stated that these triggers tend to occur around certain people. During a concurrent interview and record review Resident 52's care plan on 12/11/2024 at 3:20 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1,. RN 1 stated that she was not aware of Resident 52's trauma, and that there was no care plan or documentation addressing his trauma. RN 1 stated that if a resident was identified or screened as having experienced trauma, the goal is to minimize triggers or discomfort related to the resident's trauma, and residents with trauma could be triggered by various factors, depending on the nature of the trauma. RN 1 stated that when a traumatized resident is identified, the process involves notifying Social Services and the interdisciplinary team (IDT the resident's healthcare team consisting of various specialties) to initiate a trauma informed care plan. RN 1 stated the care plan interventions and goals are discussed during the huddle (short stand-up staff meeting) the staff is made aware to ensure appropriate care measures are in place. During an interview on 12/11/2024 at 4:57 p.m., with the Social Service Director (SSD), the SSD stated that he mentioned Resident 52's trauma assessment during the IDT meetings. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/2024 at 10:10 a.m. with the DON, Resident 52's Social Services Assessment/Evaluations dated 1/17/2024 and 9/20/2024 were reviewed. The DON stated that Resident 52's trauma was screened on 1/17/2024 and 9/20/2024 by Social Services. The DON stated that the facility should have developed an individualized care plan for Resident 52's history of trauma. The DON emphasized the importance of creating an individualized care plan, stating that it addresses the resident's specific issues and helps prevent potential triggers that could retraumatize the resident. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, revised 12/2023, Indicated the IDT will develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered, and trauma-informed care plan for each resident and will include resident's needs identified in the comprehensive assessment, any specialized services. During a review of the facility's P&P title, Behavioral Health Services, revised 4/2019 indicated the plan of care will include non-pharmacological interventions and individualized, person-centered care approaches as well as trauma-informed approaches in accordance with resident's customary routines, with input from the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise care plans when medication regimens were updated ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise care plans when medication regimens were updated for one of three sampled residents (Resident 15). This failure had the potential to result in not accurately addressing Resident 15's psychosocial care. Findings: During a review of Resident 15's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility initially admited Resident 8 on 2/22/2020 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities) and major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). During a review of Resident 15's History and Physical (H&P) dated 6/4/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 15 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 15's order summary report as of 12/12/2024, the order summary report indicated: a. Mirtazapine tablet 7.5 MG, give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for poor meal intake, starting on 5/14/2024. b. Trazadone HCl oral tablet 100 MG, give 100 MG by mouth at bedtime for inability to sleep, starting on 9/17/2024. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/2024 at 1:18 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Resident 15's order summary dated 12/12/2024 and care plans were reviewed. The order summary indicated to monitor side effects of Lexapro (medication used to treat anxiety and depression), starting 10/3/2023. Resident 15's care plans did not include monitoring for Mirtazapine and Trazadone. LVN 1 stated this care plan should have been updated. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/2024 at 4:29 p.m., with the Director of Nursing, Resident 78's order summary and care plans were reviewed. The DON stated orders and care plans should be reviewed and revised so that it accurately reflects the resident's status and what the resident has ordered. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Psychotropic Medications, last revised February 2024, The P&P indicated new physician's orders for psychotropic medications will be communicated to the Social Services department for review with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and appropriate are planning will be done to ensure updated information in the resident's psychosocial care plan.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 2) received her last...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 2) received her last dose of antibiotic per physican's order. This deficient practice could have potentially prolonged Resident 2's infection. Findings: During a review of Resident 2's admission record, the admission Record indicated the facility initially admitted Resident 2 on 9/3/2024 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including atherosclerosis (chronic inflammatory disease of the arteries) of right leg with ulceration (a small open sore or wound generally found in the stomach or on the skin) of thigh, peripheral venous (damaged or blocked veins that affect blood flow) insufficiency, and heart failure (a heart disorder which causes the heart to not pump the blood efficiently, sometimes resulting in leg swelling). During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set [(MDS- a resident assessment tool], dated 9/14/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 2's cognitive (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) skills were intact. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required maximal (assisting more than half the effort) assistance for shower transfer, rolling left and right, and required supervision for chair/bed to chair transfer, personal, toilet, and oral hygiene, and dressing the upper (arms, shoulders) and lower (hip, legs) body. During a review of the Order Summary Report (Physician Orders) for 11/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated Resident 2 had an order for Clindamycin (medication to treat a wide range of bacterial infections) Hydrochloride (HCL: salt used in medication) oral capsule 300miligram (mg: unit of measure of mass): give 300 mg by mouth four times a day for cellulitis (a skin infection that causes swelling and redness) of right leg for seven days that started 11/9/2024 with an end date of 11/16/2024. During a review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 12/2024, the MAR indicated Resident 2 did not receive her 5:00 p.m. and 9:00 p.m. doeses for 11/25/2024. The MAR indicated the order was discontinued on 11/15/2024 at 10:03p.m. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/2024 at 5:18 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 2's MAR dated 11/15/2024 and Progress Notes dated 11/15/2024 were reviewed. The DON stated according to the progress note Resident 2 came back on 11/15/2024 at 6:00p.m. and the MAR indicated Resident 2 did not receive any antibiotics for the 5:00p.m. and the 9:00p.m. doses. DON stated Resident 2 should have taken the last antibiotic at 9:00p.m. as the medication was discontinued at 10:03p.m. The DON stated Resident 2 not receiving her last dose of antibiotic indicated she did not complete her antibiotics and if the antibiotics were not completed, the infection may not be resolved. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Medication Administration: Administration of Drugs, revised 5/2007, the P&P indicated it is the policy of this facility that medications shall be administered as prescribed by the attention physician. Medications must be administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending physician. Unless otherwise specified by the resident's attending physician, routine medications should be administered as scheduled. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Resident Assessment: Physician Orders-CA, revised 5/2007, the P&P indicated drugs and biologicals that are required to be refilled must be reordered from the issuing pharmacy not less than three (3) days prior to the last dosage being administered to assure that refills are on hand.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement infection control practices during indwelling urethral catheter (Foley catheter-a thin tube that is inserted into...

Read full inspector narrative →
. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement infection control practices during indwelling urethral catheter (Foley catheter-a thin tube that is inserted into your bladder through the urethra-the tube you pee through and left there to continuously drain your urine into a collection bag) care for one of one sampled resident (Resident 1) by: a. Failing to perform hand hygiene before and after Foley catheter care. b. Failing to ensure and the resident's urine bag was kept off the floor. This deficient practice had the potential for urinary tract infection (UTI- condition that affect the urinary tract and can cause urine to flow abnormally) recurrence. Findings. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 8/15/2016, and readmitted him on 2/14/2024 with diagnoses including infection and inflammatory reaction (the body reacting negativly to an inserted foreign object) due to indwelling urethral catheter, calculus of kidney (a solid mass of minerals and salts that forms in the kidney), neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (a condition that occurs when the nerves and muscles that control the bladder do not work together properly), and encounter for fitting and adjustment of urinary device. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a resident assessment tool), dated 11/29/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive (the ability to think and process information) skills for daily decision making were severely impaired. During a review of Resident 1's History and physical(H&P) from a General Acute Care Hospital (GACH), dated 1/30/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had penile (relating to the penis) edema (swelling, or fluid buildup in the body's tissues) with scrotal (a part of external male genitalia located at the base of the penis) erythema (reddening of the skin, or a skin rash, caused by inflammation). Resident 1 was diagnosed with sepsis (a life-threatening medical emergency that occurs when the body had an extreme response to an infection) and Acute kidney injury (AKI-sudden decline in kidney function that can occur within a few hours or days). During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, active orders as of 12/12/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated an order on 12/9/2024 to provide enhanced barrier precautions (EBP a set of infection control measures used to reduce the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms [infectious organisms that are resistant to antibiotics] ) including the use of personal protective equipment (PPE equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause injuries and illnesses) for high resident contact care activities related to indwelling (remaining within) catheter, to be implemented every shift. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan for atitled Risk for infection, revised on 8/18/2024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 was at risk for infection related to an Indwelling device. The care plan goal indicated to reduce the risk of transmission of a pathogen (any organism that causes disease). The care plan interventions included educating caregivers regarding the importance of handwashing, EBP: PPE required for high resident contact care activities related to indwelling catheter. During a review of Facility Census, dated December 11/24/2024 indicated that Resident 1 shared the room with 2 other residents. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/9/2024 at 1:08 p.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 in Resident 1's room. Resident 1's urine bag was observed touching floor, the urine bag was covered by a dignity bag. CNA 2 stated, that covering the urine bag with a dignity bag that touched the floor. During a concurrent and observation interview on 12/11/2024 at 8:09 a.m., with CNA 1 in Resident 1's room, an EBP sign was observed on Resident 1's door and on the wall near the head of Resident 1's bed. Observation details: a. Initial Entry: CNA 1 entered the room, touched Resident 1's blanket, and adjusted the bed without performing hand hygiene and wearing gloves. b. Supplies Handling: CNA 1 brought care supplies into the room placed them on the bedside table, touched bed, moved it to create space between the wall and the bed, and left the room without performing hand hygiene before and after. c. Foley Catheter Care: CNA 1 returned with a basin and towels, wore gloves and a gown without performing hand hygiene, cleansed the Foley insertion site and scrotal area with a wet towel, and changed the bottom sheet. CNA 1 then covered Resident 1 with a new blanket, and lowered the bed. d. Restroom Activities: CNA 1 discarded water from the basin in the restroom sink while wearing the same gloves used during Foley catheter care. CNA 1 then grabbed two discarded plastic bags used for linen, tied knots in the bags, opened the door with the same gloves on, and left the room carrying the plastic bags. CNA 1 stated that he did not perform hand hygiene, and put on PPE before and after providing care to Resident 1. CNA 1 stated that these actions could lead to the spread of infection. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/12/2024 at 10:10 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated that the urine bag should not touch the floor, even when placed in a dignity bag. The DON stated it as imprtant to practice p hand hygiene as a standard practice before and after providing care and wearing a gown and mask as part of EBP protocols. The DON acknowledged that failure to follow these practices could result in infection or contamination to the Resident 1. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Infection Control Policy/ Procedure, revised 2013, indicated that staff to wash hands put on gloves on before catheter care and remove gloves and wash hands after the care. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Hand Hygiene, revised 12/2023, indicated that it is the facility's responsibility to oversee and ensure healthcare workers perform hand hygiene, one of the most effective measures to prevent the spread of infection, based on accepted standards. The P&P indicated that Hand hygiene is a general term that applies to hands washing, antiseptic hand wash, and alcohol-based hand rub. The P/P indicated that healthcare workers to perform hand hygiene before and after direct contact with residents, after contact with a resident's intact skin, after contact with objects (e.g., medical equipment), after removing gloves, before and after assisting a resident, and after removing and disposing of personal protective equipment. During a review of the P&P titled, IPCP Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions, revised 3/2024, the P&P indicated that Standard Precautions are infection prevention practices applied to the care of all residents. These include Hand hygiene, EBP: used alongside standard precautions and EBP expands the use of PPE including gowns and gloves, during high-contact resident care activities. The P&P indicated that these practices reduce the risk of indirect transfer of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) to staff hands and clothing, and subsequently to other residents, and also indicated that use of gowns and gloves for high-contact resident care activities is required for residents with indwelling medical devices, such as urinary catheters, to prevent the acquisition and colonization of MDROs.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop a trauma informed care plan for one of one 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 develop a trauma informed care plan for one of one resident (Resident 52), who reported difficulty sleeping related to previous trauma. This failure has the potential to compromise Resident 52's emotional well-being and increased the risk of re-traumatization. Findings: During a review of Resident 52's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 52 on 10/10/2023 with diagnoses including major depressive disorder (a mental health condition that can cause severe feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and a loss of interest in activities), and anxiety disorder (a condition that causes excessive and persistent feelings of fear, worry, dread, and uneasiness.) During a review of Resident 52's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a resident assessment tool), dated 10/11/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 52 was cognitively (the ability to think and process information) intact, had symptom of feeling down, depressed, or hopeless, never, or once a day. During a review of Resident 52's History and physical (H&P), dated 11/3/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 52 had ethyl alcohol (EtOH) abuse (The excessive consumption of alcohol that led to negative consequences). During a review of Resident 52's Social Services Assessment/Evaluation dated 1/17/2024 and 9/20/2024 indicated Resident 52 had trauma and verbalized that the resident was raped at 9 years old, being in the [NAME] war, and having his wife commit suicide. During an interview on 12/11/2024 at 1:28 p.m. with Resident 52, the resident stated that he couldn't sleep well related to the previous trauma and the facility provided the resident with medications, which help him a little to sleep at night but not significantly. The resident stated, he experienced triggers, although not specific ones, and noted that these triggers tend to occur around certain people related to the previous trauma. During an interview on 12/11/2024 at 1:45 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, LVN 2 stated that she was not specifically aware of any trauma residents including Resident 52. LVN 2 stated that she monitored the resident's behavior because it populated as a task on her job assignments in the computer system and the behavior monitoring is the only aspect of care she checked for the resident and that there were no specific trauma-related tasks assigned. During a concurrent interview and record review Resident 52's care plan on 12/11/2024 at 3:20 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1,. RN 1 stated that she was not aware of Resident 52's trauma, and that there was no care plan or documentation addressing his trauma. RN 1 stated that if a resident was identified or screened as having experienced trauma, the goal is to minimize triggers or discomfort related to the resident's trauma, and the residents with trauma could be triggered by various factors, depending on the nature of trauma. RN 1 stated that when a traumatized resident is identified, the process involves notifying Social Services and the interdisciplinary team (IDT). The supervisor is informed, and during the huddle, the staff is communicated with to ensure appropriate care measures are in place. During an interview on 12/11/2024 at 4:57 p.m. with Social Service Director (SSD), the SSD stated that he mentioned Resident 52's trauma assessment during the IDT meetings. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/2024 at 10:10 a.m. with the DON, of Resident 52's Social Services Assessment/Evaluation dated 1/17/2024 and 9/20/2024. The DON acknowledged that Resident 52's trauma was screened on 1/17/2024 and 9/20/2024 by Social Services. The DON stated that an individualized care plan should have developed for the resident following the screening. The DON emphasized the importance of creating an individualized care plan, stating that it addresses the resident's specific issues and helps prevent potential triggers that could retraumatize the resident. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, revised 12/2023, Indicated the IDT will develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered, and trauma-informed care plan for each resident and will include resident's needs identified in the comprehensive assessment, any specialized services. During a review of the facility's P&P title, Behavioral Health Services, revised 4/2019 indicated the plan of care will include non-pharmacological interventions and individualized, person-centered care approaches as well as trauma-informed approaches in accordance with resident's customary routines, with input from the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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 observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 36) had the required ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 36) had the required Insulin Glargine Solution (medication that controls the amount of sugar in the blood) on hand to be administered. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 37 not getting the insulin on time. During a review of Resident 36's admission record, the admission Record indicated Resident 36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Type II Diabetes Mellitus (DM: a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), hypertension (high blood pressure), and long-term use of insulin (hormone that regulates blood sugar levels). During a review of Resident 36's History and Physical (H&P) dated 1/14/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 36 has the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 36's Minimum Data Set [(MDS) a resident screening tool], dated 10/14/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 36's cognitive (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) skills were mildly impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 36 was dependent for chair/bed to chair transfer, personal hygiene, required maximal (assisting more than half the effort) assistance for bathing, and toileting hygiene, and required set up for oral hygiene and eating. During a review of the Order Summary Report (Physician Order), the order indicated Resident 36 had an active order for Insulin Glargine Solution 100 unit (amount of substance)/milliliter (mL: unit of fluid volume) inject 34 units subcutaneously (layer of tissue under the skin) one time a day for diabetes dated 1/11/2024. During an observation and interview on 12/11/2024 at 10:27 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1), LVN 1 stated Resident 36's Insulin glargine was not available. LVN 1 stated she would follow up with the pharmacy. LVN 1 stated the medication needs to be readily available as the resident could be in distress if the medication is not available. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Medication Administration: Administration of Drugs, revised 5/2007, the P&P indicated it is the policy of this facility that medications shall be administered as prescribed by the attention physician. Medications must be administered in accordance with the written orders of the attending physician. Unless otherwise specified by the resident's attending physician, routine medications should be administered as scheduled. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Resident Assessment: Physician Orders-CA, revised 5/2007, the P&P indicated drugs and biologicals that are required to be refilled must be reordered from the issuing pharmacy not less than three (3) days prior to the last dosage being administered to assure that refills are on hand.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff knew the proper techinize of thawing frozen food and testing the concentration of the sanitizer. These ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dietary staff knew the proper techinize of thawing frozen food and testing the concentration of the sanitizer. These deficient practices had the potential to cause food-borne illnesses due to improperly thawed for being served to the residdnts of the facility, and the sanitizer not being at an effective strength. Findings: a.During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/9/2024 at 9:35 a.m., with the Dietary Aid (DA) 2, in the Kitchen, DA 2 checked the sanitizer concentration in a sanitizer bucket using the the wrong testing strip. DA 2 acknowledged that there was no color change on the test strip to indicate the concentration level of the sanitizer solution. b.During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/9/2024 at 9:35 a.m. with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), in the Kitchen, a sealed frozen item was observed running under hot water in a stainer in the sink. The DS acknowledged that the water was hot and stated DA 2 had accidently turned on the hot water, but the proper method required using cold water. During an interview on 12/10/2024 at 8:15 a.m., with the DS, the DS stated that DA 2 had used the wrong test strip to test sanitizer concentration. During an interview on 12/10/2024 at 11:29 a.m., with [NAME] 1, [NAME] 1 stated that the frozen item should be placed in a basin and cold water run over it to ensure proper thawing. During a review of the facility's Policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Quaternary Ammonium Log Policy dated 2023, the P&P indicated: the Food and Nutrition Service worker will place the sanitation solution in the appropriately labeled bucket and test its concentration. The concentration will be tested at least once per shift or whenever the solution becomes cloudy. If the reading is below 200 ppm, the solution will be replaced, and the replacement solution will be tested before use. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Thawing of meats dated 2023, the P&P indicated, Thawing meat properly can be done in these four ways: 3. Submerge under running water at a temperature of 70 Fahrenheit (a way of measuring temperature) or lower .4. This works well for frozen vegetables and ground meat.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Store staff personal belongings outside the food storage area. 2. Ensure proper labeling of potatoes and green produce....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Store staff personal belongings outside the food storage area. 2. Ensure proper labeling of potatoes and green produce. These deficient practices had the potential to cause food-borne illnesses. Findings: a.During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/9/2024 at 8:22 a.m., with Dietary Aid (DA)1, in the dry food storage area, staff personal belongings were observed, one black jacket and one white tote bag were hanging on the first shelf to the left side of the door. Additionally, one black jacket and one black backpack were observed on the second self from the bottom on the right side of door. DA 1 stated that these items belong to kitchen staff and acknowledged they should not be in the food storage area as they can lead to cross-contamination, potentially causing food borne illness. b.During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/9/2024 at 8:22 a.m., with DA 3, in the dry food storage area, there was a container of potatoes on the bottom shelf without labeling. DA 3 stated proper labeling is required for the potatoes to ensure the correct use of the items. c.During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/9/2024 at 8:25 a.m., with DA 1, in the refrigerator, a container of green produce was labeled as strawberry and did not include a delivery date. During an interview on 12/9/2024 at 9:05 a.m. with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), the DS stated that produce items should have delivery dates marked on containers to ensure proper tracking and use before expiration. The DS stated that without proper labeling and dates, could lead to food born illness. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Employee Personal Items dated 2023, the P&P indicated, employees bringing in personal items from outside (i.e., jackets, cell phones, keys, pursed, etc.) will not be kept in the kitchen area. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Storage of food and supplies dated 2023, the P&P indicated, food storage area should be used only for food, label should be visible, and all food will be dated-month, day, year. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Labeling and Dating of Foods dated 2023, the P&P indicated: Food delivered to facility needs to be marked with a delivery or received date, whole unprocessed or purchased pre-processed Produce is dated with a delivery date (DD).
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 their infection control policy for two of ...

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 their infection control policy for two of three sampled residents (Resident 130 and 53) by: 1.Ensuring staff performed hand hygiene after providing care for a resident and before going to Resident 130's room. 2. Ensuring staff doffed (systematic removal of personal protective equipment [PPE: equipment worn to minimize exposure to injury or infection] to prevent infection and contamination after administering medication to Resident 53. These deficient practices had the potential to transmit infectious microorganisms and increase the risk of infection for the residents. a. During a review of Resident 130's admission record, the admission Record indicated Resident 130 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including generalized weakness, cerebrovascular accident (CVA: stroke, loss of blood flow to a part of the brain), and Parkinson's disease (a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremor, muscular rigidity, and slow, imprecise movements). During a review of Resident 130's History and Physical (H&P) dated 12/5/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 130 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 130's Minimum Data Set [(MDS) a resident assessment tool], dated 12/10/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 130's cognitive (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) skills were intact. The MDS indicated Resident 130 was dependent for sit to lying, required maximal (assisting more than half the effort) assistance for bathing, toileting hygiene, and required moderate (assisting less than half the effort) for personal hygiene and oral hygiene. During an observation on 12/9/2024 at 3:29 p.m., of Certified Nursing Assistant 3 (CNA 3), CNA 3 exited a resident's room. CNA 3 went to Resident 130's room to answer the call light. CNA 3 did not without perform hand hygined before going into and before leaving the residents' room. During an interview on 12/9/2024 at 3:29p.m. with CNA 3, CNA 3 stated when entering a room, she would sanitize her hand before diaper change or when providing direct patient care, but if she enters a room to check in on the resident as was the case for Resident 130 as she asked who her Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) was, since she does not have direct contact with the resident, she does not have to do hand hygiene. CNA 3 stated hand hygiene is done to prevent cross contamination. b. During a review of Resident 53's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 53 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (blood flow to the brain is blocked) due to embolism (blood clot), hypertension (high blood pressure), and dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities). During a review of Resident 53s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 53's cognitive skills were mildly impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 53 required moderate assistance for shower transfer, supervision for bathing, toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, chair/bed to chair transfer, and required set up for oral hygiene and eating. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/11/2024 at 9:08 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 (LVN 3), LVN 3 removed her gloves and removed her gown by grabbing the front of the gown with her bare hands. LVN 3 stated when wearing PPE, you would put your gown, mask, goggles, and then gloves and would remove it by taking the gloves, gown, goggles and mask. LVN 3 stated it is important to wear proper PPE to protect yourself and the resident as improper use of PPE can cause sicknesses, spread infections, and the resident can become ill. During an interview on 12/12/2024 at 10:46 a.m. with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), the IPN stated hand washing or hand sanitization is done before and after direct contact with the resident or before performing an invasive procedure to prevent anything from spreading. The IPN stated hand hygiene should be done prior to entering and exiting a residents room whether they are on standard precaution (infection prevention practice to avoid transmission of infectious agents) or on enhanced barrier precaution (EBP: reduce transmission of multi-drug resistant organisms) as it is the first protection against infection control. The IPN stated it is not known what the staff was doing prior to entering the room, and even if the staff does not touch anything, they may come in contact with a doorknob or curtain and want to ensure their hands are clean prior to coming in contact with such items or objects. The IPN stated not doing proper hand hygiene can get yourself sick and transmit different bacteria one place to another. IPN stated when removing a gown, after the gloves are removed, hand hygiene can be performed and untie the gown from the back, but the gown should not be removed from the front without gloves on due to cross contamination. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Hand Hygiene, revised 12/2023, the P&P indicated it is the policy of this facility to provide the necessary supplies, education, and oversight to ensure healthcare workers perform hand hygiene, which is one of the most effective measures to prevent the spread of infection, based on accepted standards. Use an alcohol-based hand rub containing at least 62% alcohol; or, alternatively soap (antimicrobial or non-antimicrobial) and water for the following situations: before and after coming on duty. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled IPCP Standard and Transmission-Based Precautions, revised 3/2024, the P&P indicated standard precautions are infection prevention practices that apply to the care of all residents regardless of suspected or confirmed infection or colonization status .standard precaution includes hand hygiene. Personal protective equipment (PPE): [NAME] PPE upon room entry, then doff and properly discard PPE and perform hand hygiene before exiting the patient room to contain pathogens.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

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 15 of 35 residents rooms met the 80 square feet...

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 15 of 35 residents rooms met the 80 square feet ([sq. ft.] unit of area equal to a square one foot long on each side) per residents in multiple resident rooms. Rooms 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 housed two residents per room, and Rooms 18, 20, 21, 35 and 36 housed four residents per room. This deficient practice had the potential to result in inadequate nursing care to the residents. Findings: During an observation on 12/12/2024 at 11:59 a.m., the following rooms were observed room [ROOM NUMBER], 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and room [ROOM NUMBER] did not meet the requirement of 80 square feet per residents. During a review of the Client Accommodations Analysis Form, dated 12/12/224, provided by the Administrator (ADM) on 12/12/2024, the Client Accommodations Analysis Form indicated Rooms 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 were occupied by two residents per room and had a total square feet measurement of 153.33 square feet. The Client Accommodations Analysis Form indicated Rooms 18, 20, 21, 35 and 36 were occupied with four residents per room and had a total square feet measurement ranging from 283.5 square feet to 296.66 square feet. During an interview on 12/12/2024 at 12:30 p.m. with Resident 15, Resident 15 stated there was no issues with the room space, Resident 15 stated having adequate space for all the belongings in the multiple resident room. During an observation of rooms 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and room [ROOM NUMBER] from 12/9/2024-12/12/2024 by the survey team, the residents care needs, and health were not affected by room size. The residents or the facility staff, who were providing care to the residents in these resident rooms, did not complain about not having enough space to provide adequate care. The facility provided a request to continue the room waivers on 12/12/2024.
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure three of four residents (Resident 8, 15, and 3...

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 three of four residents (Resident 8, 15, and 37) were free of unnecessary medications by failing to: 1.Ensure informed consents for the use of psychotropic medication were obtained for Resident 8 and Resident 15. 2. Ensure informed consents were obtained prior to the use of Trazadone Hydrochloride (HCL: salt used in medication) medication used to treat depression and or anxiety)150 milligram (mg: unit of meaure of mass) and Quetiapine Fumarate (brand name Seroquel) medication used to treat schizophrenia (a mental illness that is characterized by disturbances in thought), depression, and bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression to elevated periods of emotional highs) 100mg for Resident 37. 3. Ensure the indication for Quetiapine Fumarate 100mg was clarified prior to administration for Resident 37. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 8's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 8 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), Anxiety Disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities), and Major Depressive Disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). During a review of Resident 8's History and Physical (H&P), dated 5/26/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 8 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 8's Order Summary Report as of 12/12/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated: i. Ativan oral tablet 0.5 milligrams (mg), give 1 tablet by mouth every 24 hours as needed for anxiety manifested by (m/b) expressing excessive worries about certain situations, starting on 7/16/2024. ii. Duloxetine HCl capsule delayed release particles 20 mg, give 1 capsule by mouth one time a day for depression m/b verbalization of feeling sad, starting on 7/17/2024. iii. Risperidone oral tablet 0.5 mg, give 0.5 mg by mouth at bedtime for visual hallucinations m/b verbalization of seeing things not present, starting on 5/21/2024. During a review of Resident 8's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for November 2024 and December 2024, MAR indicated: i. Ativan 0.5 MG tablet was administered one time from 11/1/2024 to 12/12/2024. ii. Duloxetine HCl 20 MG capsule was administered every day from 11/1/2024 to 12/12/2024. iii. Risperidone 0.5 MG tablet was administered every night from 11/1/2024 to 12/12/2024. b. During a review of Resident 15's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 8 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Anxiety Disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities) and Major Depressive Disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). During a review of Resident 15's H&P, dated 6/4/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 15 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 15's Order Summary Report as of 12/12/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated Mirtazapine tablet 7.5 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for poor meal intake, starting on 5/14/2024. During a review of Resident 15's MAR for December 2024, the MAR indicated Mirtazapine 7.5 mg tablet was administered every night 12/1/2024-12/12/2024. During a concurrent interview and record on 12/12/2024 at 4:29 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON)Resident 8 and Resident 15's Informed Consents were reviewed. The informed consents indicated the following: i. Resident 8's Informed Consent for Ativan 0.5 mg, 1 tablet every 24 hours as needed m/b sudden angry outburst with no valid reason. Consent obtained from Resident 8's representative on 5/13/2022. ii. Resident 8's Informed Consent for Duloxetine HCl 30 MG m/b verbalization of being sad. Consent obtained from Resident 8's representative on 3/21/2022. iii. Resident 8's Informed Consent for Risperidone 0.5 mg, give 0.5 mg by mouth at bedtime for visual hallucinations m/b verbalization of seeing things not present. Consent obtained from Resident 8's representative on 5/21/2024. iv. Resident 15's Informed Consent for Remeron (Brand name for Mirtazapine) 7.5 mg nightly for depression m/b poor sleep. Consent obtained from Resident 15 on 12/20/2023. The DON stated psychotropic (medications affecting how the brain works and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behavior) medication cannot be administered without a consent. The DON stated informed consents for psychotropic medication are valid for six months, and Resident 8 and Resident 15's consents should have been reobtained from the resident and/or resident's responsible party every 6 months. The DON stated informed consents are important so the resident and/or responsible party is aware of the indication, risk, and right to refuse the medication. c. During a review of Resident 37's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 37 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder (MDD: serious mood disorder that causes persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), Type II Diabetes (disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control), and hypertension (high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 37's H&P dated 10/31/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 37 had a history of bipolar disorder and was capable of making decisions for himself. During a review of Resident 37's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 37's cognitive skills were intact. The MDS indicated Resident 37 was dependent for lower body dressing, required maximal assistance for bathing, toileting hygiene, sit to lying, rolling left to right, and required moderate assistance for personal and oral hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 37 utilized a wheelchair and for mobility and had an impairment on one side of the lower extremities (hip, legs). During a review of the Order Summary Report (Physician Order) dated 11/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated Resident 37 had an order for Quetiapine Fumarate oral (mouth) tablet100 mg: give one tablet by mouth every 12 hours (hrs) for depression manifested by (m/b) verbalization of feelings of sadness on 11/8/2024 start date 11/9/2024 but was discontinued. Quetiapine Fumarate100mg: give one table by mouth every 12 hours for schizophrenia m/b sudden angry outburst was ordered on 11/12/2024 and started on 11/12/2024. During a review of the Medication Administration Record (MAR: electronic record of when the medications are given) for November and December 2024, the MAR indicated Resident 37 did not have any episodes of sudden angry outbursts. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/2024 with . with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1), the order and H&P from a General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) were reviewed. LVN 1 stated Trazadone HCL 150 mg was for depression m/b verbalization of feeling of sadness and Quetiapine Fumarate 100 mg was for schizophrenia m/b sudden angry outbursts. LVN 1 stated a diagnosis for schizophrenia is not on the admission record. LVN 1 stated on the GACH record, it indicated a diagnosis of schizophrenia with a question mark, however it is not clear whether the resident actually had schizophrenia and would be followed up with the doctor to confirm the manifestation. LVN 1 stated Resident 37 is on monitoring for angry outbursts. LVN 1 stated she had not seen the resident angry or have angry outbursts. LVN 1 stated medications should be discontinued if the resident does not present the behavior the medication is prescribed for. LVN 1 stated informed consents are obtained prior to administering medications as it was the residents rights to take the medication or not. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/2024 at 4:59 p.m., with the DON, the order and informed consent was reviewd. The DON stated informed consents for psychotropic medications are completed upon admission and the medication cannot be administered without the consent form. The DON stated the order for Trazadone 150 mg was ordered on 11/8/2024 and started on 11/9/2024, and the informed consent should have been obtained on 11/8/2024 or 11/9/2024. The DON stated the informed consent for Trazadone 150 mg was dated 11/11/2024. The DON stated if the resident did not consent for the medication and was administered on 11/9/2024 the resident took the medications without being informed of the risks and benefits, and the right to refuse the medication. During a review of the facility's policies and Procedures (P&P), titled Care and Treatment: Psychotropic Drug Use, revised 8/2017, the P&P indicated the licensed nurses shall review the classification of the drug, the appropriateness of the diagnosis, its indication/behavior monitors and related adverse side effects prior to verification of admission orders with the Attending Physician. These residents will be referred to the facility's Psychotropic Drug Review Committee and/or the Psychiatrist to ensure psychotropic medications are prescribed to treat a specific diagnosed condition as documented in the clinical record, informed consent was obtained prior to medication use. During a review of the facility's policies and Procedures (P&P), titled Care and Treatment: Informed Consent-CA, revised 5/2019, the P&P indicated physician's orders related to the use of psychotherapeutic drug and physical restrains should not be initiated until an informed consent is obtained. -
Dec 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a timely Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT] health ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct a timely Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT] health care professionals who work together with the resident to plan the residents plan of care) meeting for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). The facility failed to ensure Resident 1's was given the opportunity to meet with the IDT to discuss any updates or concerns she has in her current plan of care. These deficient practices resulted in a delay in communication between Resident 1 and the IDT causing frustration and anxiety to the Resident 1 and had the potential to delay in the delivery of needed care and services. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet) the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including displaced fracture (broken bone) of the medial condyle of left femur (inside part of knee), left hemiplegia (total paralysis of the arm, leg, and trunk on the same side of the body), and left hemiparesis (weakness and paralysis) following cerebral infarction ([stroke]lack of blood flow to brain). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P) dated 5/3/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 8/7/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 always had the ability to be understood and understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had functional limitation in range of motion (ROM - limited ability to move a joint that interferes with daily functioning, including activities of daily living, or places the resident at risk for injury) in one upper (shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand) extremity and one lower (hip, knee, ankle, foot) extremity. Resident 1 required partial to moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) from staff for showering, upper body dressing, personal hygiene, sitting to lying, lying to sitting on side of the bed, and sit to stand. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was occasionally (had less than seven episodes) incontinent of urine and had frequent (two or more episodes) of bowel incontinence during the assessment period. During a review of Resident 1's untitled Care Plan, initiated on 5/26/024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 had impaired and fluctuating Activities of Daily Living (ADLs - routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing, and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves) skills related to displaced (ends of a broken bone are no longer aligned, creating a gap) fracture of the left femur (thigh bone) left hemiplegia/hemiparesis, motor vehicle accident , left ankle joint injury, orthopedic after care, acute post hemorrhagic anemia (low blood count after injury), pneumothorax (collapsed lung), dissection (tear) of carotid artery ( vessel carries blood to heart to head), and multiple rib fractures. During a review of Resident 1's Clinical Record (Interdisciplinary Team Person Care Conference Record), dated on 7/11/2024, the IDT record indicated Resident 1's Medical Doctor (MD) from the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) referred Resident 1 to physical therapy. During a review of Resident 1's Social Services Note, dated 8/16/2024, the Social Service Note indicated Resident 1 approved for rehab services at outpatient physical therapy clinic beginning 9/4/2024 and Resident 1 had and appointment with her Primary Care Physician (PCP) on 9/3/2024. The Social Service Note indicated the Social Service Director (SSD) informed Resident 1 of the appointment, will continue to assist Resident 1 with all appropriate needs, and follow up as needed. During a review of Resident 1's Physician's Order Recap Report, dated 5/2/2024 to 12/4/2024, indicated Resident 1 had the following orders: 1. Follow-up appointment with neuroradiology in two weeks from 5/2/2024. 2. Appointment for CTA-neck on 7/1/2024 at 1 p.m. at the outside imaging center. 3. One month follow up appointment with PCP on 9/3/2024. 4. Outpatient physical therapy appointment on 9/30/2024 at 8:30 a.m. 5. Outpatient physical therapy appointment on 10/16/2024 at 2:30 p.m. 6. Outpatient physical therapy appointment on 10/22/2024 at 3:45 p.m. 7. Outpatient physical therapy appointment on 10/29/2024 at 3:45 p.m. 8. Return to the outpatient clinic on 12/5/2024 at 2 p.m. During an interview on 12/3/2024, at 10 a.m., Resident 1 stated she has been very frustrated with the communication between the members of the IDT team regarding her plan care. Resident 1 stated she do not have a clear understanding of her plan of care specifically regarding physician appointments and physical therapy goals. Resident 1 stated she has been coordinating her own physical therapy outside of the facility since her insurance wouldn't cover in house therapy at the facility. Resident 1 stated the facility is providing her with Restorative Nurse Assistant (RNA) therapy based on what her insurance will cover. Resident 1 stated she would the like facility to be aware of her appointments and would like clarification on what her recovery plan and discharge goals were. Resident 1 stated she thinks she may have missed certain physician appointments due to lack of coordination from the facility. Resident 1 stated she can plan her own appointments but wants everyone to be on the same page to ensure she do not miss appointments. Resident 1 stated she wants the nursing and rehabilitation department to be aware of her outside physical therapy appointments and how it affects her care in the facility. Resident 1 stated the lack of communication between her care and the IDT has caused her increased anxiety and worry. During an interview on 12/3/2024, at 3:10 p.m., the Director of Social Services (SSD) stated Resident 1 goes to an outside physical therapy clinic to receive physical therapy services. The SSD stated, once Resident 1 attends an appointment, the IDT team should be made aware of any recommendations to update Resident 1's plan of care. The SSD stated Resident 1's last IDT meeting was noted to be held on 7/11/2024 and another IDT should have been done since it was overdue. The SSD stated it is important for the IDT team and Resident 1 to meet regularly to ensure Resident 1 has a clear understanding on her plan of care and who is involved. During an interview on 12/4/2024, at 10 a.m., the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) stated Resident 1 does not receive physical therapy in the facility due to lack insurance coverage. The DOR stated Resident 1 coordinates her own appointments with an outpatient physical therapy clinic. The DOR stated, the last IDT held for Resident 1 was on 7/11/2024. The DOR stated Resident 1 receives RNA therapy to perform passive range of motion exercises (caregiver moves a resident's body part or limb to gently stretch muscles and improve range of motion) on left upper and lower extremities in all joints and planes five times a week as tolerated to improve range of motion for contracture prevention (the practice of keeping the body moving to prevent the tightening of muscles, tendons, skin, and nearby tissue). The DOR stated she and the IDT are not sure what kind of services Resident 1 is receiving at the outpatient physical therapy clinic but it would be important for the IDT to know what the recommendations are from the outside physical therapy clinic to update Resident 1's plan of care. During an interview on 12/4/2024, at 3 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she did not see any progress notes or summaries detailing a summary of Resident 1's physician visits. The DON stated she could not confirm whether nor not Resident 1 missed the physician appointments as listed in the physician order recap report. The DON stated, the IDT is not aware of the nature of Resident 1 's outside physical therapy appointments. The DON stated the IDT along with Resident 1 should have a clear understanding of when Resident 1 physician appointments and outside physical therapy appointments are scheduled and after they occur, what the outcomes and recommendations are if any. The DON stated the Resident 1 is overdue to have another IDT meeting as her most recently documented IDT was on 7/11/2024. The DON stated failure to conduct regular IDT meetings to discuss and update Resident 1 's plan of care can cause frustration to Resident 1 and cause a delay in care and necessary services. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Care plan and care plan update revised 2/2023, the P&P indicated it is the policy of this facility to ensure each resident received quality of care and services to attain and maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial wellbeing in accordance with the interdisciplinary comprehensive assessment and plan of care. The facility will assure the completion of the resident assessment process enabling the development of an individual comprehensive care plan for the resident. The interdisciplinary team will adhere to the schedule of the resident assessment. The P&P indicated, the IDT team involvement in adhering to these guidelines will ensure consistency in documentation and care plan update.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), was provided the appropriate care and services to maintain her Activities of Daily Living (ADLs - routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing, and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves) by failing to provide Resident 1 with a commode (portable toilet) on 7/11/2024. This failure resulted in Resident 1 being forced to use a bedpan (container used to collect urine or feces used while lying or sitting in bed) which caused Resident 1 to feel embarrassed and degraded. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including displaced fracture (broken bone) of the medial condyle of left femur (inside part of knee), left hemiplegia (total paralysis of the arm, leg, and trunk on the same side of the body), left hemiparesis (weakness and paralysis) following cerebral infarction ([stroke] loss of blood flow to a part of the brain). During a review of Resident 1's Bowel and Bladder Evaluation dated 5/2/2024, the evaluation indicated Resident 1 was continent (ability to control the need to use to the toilet). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P) dated 5/3/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 8/7/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 always had the ability to be understood and understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had functional limitation in range of motion (ROM - limited ability to move a joint that interferes with daily functioning, including activities of daily living, or places the resident at risk for injury) in one upper (shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand) extremity and one lower (hip, knee, ankle, foot) extremity. Resident 1 required partial to moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) from staff for showering, upper body dressing, personal hygiene, sitting to lying, lying to sitting on side of the bed, and sit to stand. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was occasionally (had less than seven episodes) incontinent of urine and had frequent (two or more episodes) of bowel incontinence during the assessment period. During a review of Resident 1's untitled Care Plan, initiated on 5/3/2024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 had an ADL self-performance deficit related to limited mobility secondary to left lower extremity fracture. The Care Plan goal indicated Resident 1 will safely perform (bed mobility, transfers, eating, dressing, grooming, toilet use, and person hygiene with modified independence) through the target date of 2/8/2025. Under this Care Plan, the interventions indicated Resident 1 required one staff member to participate with transfer (chair to bed/chair transfer, toilet transfer). During a review of Resident 1's Clinical Record (Interdisciplinary Team Person Care Conference Record), dated on 7/11/2024, the IDT record indicated Resident 1 requested a bedside commode. During an interview on 12/3/2024, at 10 a.m., Resident 1 stated she has been requesting a commode for several months but has yet to receive one. Resident 1 stated she feels angry that she has not been given the opportunity to get out of bed to use the commode as requested. Resident 1 stated staff have been giving her a bed pan to urinate and have a bowel movement which results in her feeling embarrassed and degraded that she must resort to using a bedpan. During an interview on 12/4/2024 at 10 a.m., the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) stated Resident 1 was evaluated by the rehabilitation department and was appropriate to transfer with assistance from her bed to a chair. The DOR stated the Resident 1 should have been provided a commode to ensure Resident 1 maintained her independence. During an interview on 12/4/2024 at 3 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 1 could verbalize when she needs to use the toilet and should have been provided the opportunity to use a commode. The DON stated Resident 1's request for a commode should have been addressed by the IDT team during the time of the request on 7/11/2024. The DON stated the facility should ensure Resident 1 maintains or can improve ability to carry out her ADLs. The DON stated by failing to meet Resident 1's request for a commode put Resident 1 at risk for decline in mental health and did not enhance Resident 1's sense of dignity and independence. During a review of the facility's policies and Procedures (P&P), titled Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), Services to carry out, dated 11/2007, the P&P indicated it is the policy of the facility that residents are given the appropriate treatment and services to maintain or improve her abilities.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), was seen by the psychiatrist as indicated per the physician orders. This failure resulted in Resident 1 not receiving the required behavioral health care services and placed Resident 1 at risk to suffer further mental anguish and decreased quality of life. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet) the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including displaced fracture (broken bone) of the medial condyle of left femur (inside part of knee), left hemiplegia (total paralysis of the arm, leg, and trunk on the same side of the body), and left hemiparesis (weakness and paralysis) following cerebral infarction ([stroke]lack of blood flow to brain). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P) dated 5/3/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 8/7/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 always had the ability to be understood and understand others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had functional limitation in range of motion (ROM - limited ability to move a joint that interferes with daily functioning, including activities of daily living, or places the resident at risk for injury) in one upper (shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand) extremity and one lower (hip, knee, ankle, foot) extremity. Resident 1 required partial to moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) from staff for showering, upper body dressing, personal hygiene, sitting to lying, lying to sitting on side of the bed, and sit to stand. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report (physician's orders), dated 5/2/2024, the report indicated Resident 1 had an order for psych to evaluate and treat as indicated. During a review of Resident 1's untitled Care Plan, initiated on 6/25/2024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 had a behavior of consistently fabricating stories, was very impulsive, constantly pressed the call light for the same concerns that were previously addressed, and exhibited attention seeking behavior such as yelling at the staff. The Care Plan goal indicated the following Resident 1 will have fewer episodes of fabricating stories through the review dated of 2/8/2025. Under this Care Plan, the interventions indicated to administer medication as ordered, monitor/document for side effects and effectiveness of medication, anticipate and meet needs, approach in a calm manner, assist to develop more appropriate methods of coping and interacting, encourage to express feelings appropriately, care givers to provide opportunity for positive interaction, attention stop and talk with Resident 1, document behaviors and resident response to interventions, educate family and caregivers on successful coping and interactions strategies, needs encouragement and active support by family/caregivers, explain all procedures to before starting and allow to adjust to changes, discuss behavior, and explain and/or enforce why behavior is inappropriate and or unacceptable. During an interview on 12/3/2024, at 10 a.m., Resident 1 stated she has been very frustrated with the communication between the members of the IDT team regarding her plan of care. Resident 1 stated she does not have a clear understanding of her plan of care specifically regarding physician appointments and her physical therapy goals. Resident 1 stated the lack of communication between herself, and the IDT has caused her increased depression (mental health condition that involves a persistent low mood and loss of interest in activities for at least two weeks), anxiety and worry. Resident 1 stated it was affecting her daily life, was having a hard time focusing, and would like to see psychiatrist or psychologist. During an interview on 12/3/2024, at 3:10 p.m. the Social Services Director (SSD) stated upon his review of Resident 1 clinical records, Resident 1 's records do not indicate Resident 1 was seen by psychiatrist or psychologist since her admission on [DATE]. The SSD stated Resident 1's insurance does not cover the facility's contracted psychiatric visits and the facility has not made any efforts to facilitate Resident 1 in receiving a psychiatric visit. The SSD stated the facility placed Resident 1 at risk for mental health decline due to the lack of behavioral health services provided to Resident 1. The SSD stated the facility failed to ensure Resident 1's behavioral and psychosocial needs were met. During an interview on 12/4/2024, at 3 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated upon her review of Resident 1's clinical records, she did not see any progress notes or summaries indicating Resident 1 was seen by a psychiatrist. The DON stated Resident 1 did not receive a consult from a psychiatrist because Resident 1's insurance did not cover the services of the facility inhouse psychiatrist. The DON stated the facility should have followed up to ensure Resident 1's behavioral needs and well-being were being monitored and met. The DON stated by failing to follow up on Resident 1's behaviors, and by failing to facilitate Resident 1 in receiving a psychiatric consult, the facility placed Resident 1 at risk to suffer a decline in mental health and a decreased quality of life. The DON stated Resident 1 had a right to receive behavioral and mental health care and services which was not provided to her. During a review of the facility's document, titled Facility Assessment (assessment to determine what resources are necessary to care for it residents competently during both day to day operations and emergencies) 2024-2025, revised 10/1/2024 2019, the assessment indicated the facility will accept and care for residents with psychiatric conditions (medical condition that significantly impacts a person's thinking, feelings, behavior, or mood) such as adjustment disorder, depression, major depressive disorder, anxiety, failure to thrive, bipolar disorder, borderline personality disorder and mood disorders. The assessment indicated the facility will manage the medical conditions and medication related issues causing psychiatric symptoms and behavior, identity and implement interventions to help support individuals with issues such as dealing with anxiety, care of someone with cognitive impairment, care of individuals with depression trauma/PTSD, other psychiatric diagnoses, intellectual or developmental disabilities, SUD, traumatic brain injury. The facility assessment indicated the facility will support the residents' emotional and mental well-being and helpful coping mechanisms. During a review of the facility's policies and Procedures (P&P), titled Behavioral Health Services, revised 4/2019, the P&P indicated it is the policy of the facility to provide residents with necessary behavioral health care services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
CONCERN (F) 📢 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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview, and record review the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance ([QAA] develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies) and Quality A...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and record review the facility's Quality Assessment and Assurance ([QAA] develop and implement appropriate plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies) and Quality Assurance Performance Improvement ([QAPI] a systematic, interdisciplinary, comprehensive, and data-driven approach to maintaining and improving safety and quality in nursing homes while involving residents and families, and all nursing home caregivers in practical and creative problem solving) committee failed to develop and implement appropriate methods to measure the success of actions implemented addressing the continued concerns from the Resident Council pertaining to a delay in call light response during the hours of 11 p.m. to 7 a.m., and failed to address the delivery of Activities of Daily living (ADLs – routine tasks/activities such as bathing, dressing, and toileting a person performs daily to care for themselves) care. This deficient practice has the potential to affect all 73 residents who reside in the facility to not receive the quality care necessary to meet their highest potential well-being. Findings: During a review of facility ' s Resident Council Minutes, dated 8/20/2024, the minute ' s indicated residents are not happy with the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift as the staff could not be found. During a review of facility ' s Resident Council Minutes, dated 10/2/2024, the minute ' s indicated residents had concerns with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) during the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift taking two hours to answer the call light and resident not being showered during the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift. During a review of facility ' s Resident Council Minutes, dated 10/22/2024, the minutes indicated residents ' concerns included call lights not being answered in a timely manner, resident not being showered during the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift, and not receiving activities of daily living care after dinner. During a review of facility ' s QAPI Projects 2024, dated 8/1/2024, the QAPI Project indicated the facility ' s goal was to improve call light response to achieve resident satisfaction in three to six months. The QAPI Project indicated the facility will collect data measuring and frequency by providing daily spot checks. The QAPI Project indicated the project plans included rounding and spot check every day, daily Guardian Angel rounds based on resident interview, Resident council will give feedback on call light response time, and monthly call light in-services to staff. During an interview on 12/4/2024 at 4 p.m., the Administrator (ADM) stated the facility is utilizing the Angel Rounds as an assessment of the care being delivered to the residents. The ADM stated the Angel Rounds do not include direct questions addressing the residents ' concerns mentioned in the resident council minutes such as how long residents must wait for the call light to be answered during the 11 p.m. to 7 p.m. shift, if residents received ADLs care during 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift, and if the resident a shower or bed bath during the 3 p.m. to the 11 p.m. shift. The ADM stated the facility ' s Angel Rounds does not measure the success of the actions implemented not track performance to ensure improvements are realized and sustained. The ADM stated failure to have an accurate system in place to measure the outcomes of interventions puts residents at risk for receiving substandard quality of care. During a review of the facility's policies and procedure (P&P), titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement, revised 1/2022, the P&P indicated the facility will establish and implement a Quality Assessment and Assurance Committee, develop a written Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Plan which will be reviewed and updated annually and Implement Performance Improvement Projects (PIPs) through data driven and proactive approach. The purpose of the QAPI plan and process is to continually access the facility ' s performance in all service areas, so that systems and processes achieve the delivery of person-centered care, and which maximizes the individual ' s highest practicable physical, mental, and social well-being. The P&P indicated the QAPI components include design and scope, governance and leadership, feedback, data systems and monitoring, PIPs systemic analysis and systemic action.
Sept 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 3) was...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 3) was offered and provided a shower and was dressed in her personal clothing and not in a hospital gown. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 3 not receiving a shower for 28 days and her family's preference of her being dressed in her personal clothing and not a hospital gown, not being followed. This deficient practice had the potential to lower Resident 1's self-esteem. Findings: During a review of Resident 3's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (a disease affecting how one thinks and understands), hemiplegia (inability to move one side of the body), hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) of the left side of her body, and generalized muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 3's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 8/7/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 3 had severe cognitive impairment and was rarely or never understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 3 was dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff for hygiene, toileting, showering, bathing and dressing. During an observation on 9/3/2024, at 9:44 a.m., and 1:10 p.m., Resident 3 was observed in her room, in bed, wearing a hospital gown. During a telephone interview on 9/3/2024, at 1:15 p.m., Resident 3's responsible party (RP 3) stated she did not know when Resident 3 last received a shower. RP 3 stated when she asked the nursing staff about Resident 3's shower schedule, no one could tell her when Resident 3's assigned shower days were or when Resident 3 last received a shower. RP 3 stated it was sad to see Resident 3 with dirty hair. RP 3 stated the facility had not called to inform her of any refusals made by Resident 3 to take a shower. RP 3 stated it was the preference of the family for Resident 3 to be dressed in her personal clothes and not in a hospital gown. During an interview on 9/3/2024, at 1:35 p.m., Certified Nursing Assistant 2 (CNA 2) stated she was not sure but thinks Resident 3's assigned shower days were every Wednesday during the 3 p.m., - 11 p.m., shift. CNA 2 stated she did not know the last time Resident 3 was offered or provided a shower. CNA 2 stated she did not offer or provide Resident 3 with a shower or bed bath during her shift (7 a.m., - 3 p.m., shift) and did not dress Resident 3 in her personal clothing because Resident 3 was not receiving visitors today (9/3/2024). During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/3/2024 at 3:30 p.m., and a subsequent interview at 3:34 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 3's Bathing Point of Care Flow Sheet dated 8/5/2024 through 9/2/2024 was reviewed. The Bathing Point of Care Flow Sheet indicated Resident 3 had not received a shower for 28 days and there was no documentation indicating Resident 3 refused to take a shower. The DON stated the Bathing Point of Care Flow Sheet was a record that showed documentation of resident's showers and/or their refusal to take a shower. The DON stated the Bathing Point of Care Flow Sheet indicated Resident 3 had not been showered for 28 days. The DON stated nursing staff should be aware of their resident's shower days and the last time a resident received a shower and should offer residents' the choice to dress in their personal clothing and to receive a shower. During a review of facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P), titled Activities of Daily Living, revised 11/2007, the P&P indicated residents are given treatment and services to maintain or improve her abilities, residents who are unable to carry out ADLs will receive assistance as needed.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 2), 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 ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 2), who had poor safety awareness and was at risk for injury, had a call light button (device used to call nursing staff) within reach. This deficient practice resulted in a delay in Resident 1's care and services and had the potential for Resident 1 to act without assistance and sustain a fall/injury. Findings: During a review of Resident 2's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 2 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (a brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills), muscle weakness and rheumatoid arthritis (a disease that causes pain, swelling, stiffness, and loss of function in the joints). During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 6/28/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 2 had severe cognitive impairment . The MDS indicated Resident 2 was dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff for hygiene, toileting, showering, and bathing. During a review of Resident 2's Care Plan, dated 4/17/2023, the Care Plan indicated Resident 2 was at risk for fall's related to confusion, gait (the way a person walks)/balance problems, hypotension (low blood pressure), incontinence (inability to control urination and bowel movements) and she was unaware of her safety needs. The care plan indicated Resident 2 would be free from falls and minor injuries. The care plan interventions indicated for the call light to be within Resident 2's reach and to encourage Resident 2 to use the call light to call for assistance as needed. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/3/2024, at 9:40 a.m., with Resident 2, Resident 2 was observed lying in bed on her right side with the call light button on the top left side of her bed. Resident 2 stated, she needed to call someone to get her coffee, but she could not find her call light button. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/3/2024, at 9:45 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 observed Resident 2's call light located on the top of the head of Resident 2's bed and stated Resident 2's call light was not within Resident 2's reach. RN 1 stated staff should have ensured Resident 2 could see and touch the call light button prior to leaving Resident 2's room. During an interview on 9/3/2024, at 3:45 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the nursing staff must ensure residents' call lights were in reach prior to leaving the residents' room. The DON stated interventions to ensure Resident 2's call light was in reach should be implemented as indicated in Resident 2's care plan. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Call light/Bell, revised 5/2007, the P&P indicated it is the policy of this facility to provide the resident a means of communication with nursing staff. The P&P indicated staff to leave the resident comfortable, place call device within resident's reach before leaving room.
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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents'( Resident 3) 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 ensure one of three sampled residents'( Resident 3) who was dependent on staff for care was returned and repositioned every two hours This deficient practice put Resident 3 at risk for skin breakdown leading to pressure injuries/ulcers wounds created by extended pressure on the skin). Findings: During a review of Resident 3's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (disease affecting how one thinks and understand), hemiplegia (inability to move one side of the body), hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) to her left side, and generalized muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 3's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 8/7/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 3 had severe cognitive impairment and was rarely or never understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 3 was dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff for hygiene, toileting, showering, bathing, and dressing. The MDS indicated Resident 3 was frequently incontinent (inability to control urination and bowel movements) of urine and was always incontinent of bowel. The MDS indicated Resident 3 was at risk for developing pressure ulcer/injuries. During a review of Resident 3's Care Plan, dated 3/13/2023, the Care Plan indicated Resident 3 had pressure ulcers or a potential for pressure ulcer development related to mobility, incontinence, end stage renal disease and diabetes mellitus ([DM] a chronic disease that causes high blood sugar levels). The Care Plan's goals indicated Resident 3's skin would be intact, would be free of redness, blisters, or discoloration. The Care Plan's interventions indicated to educate Resident 1, Resident 1's family, and caregivers regarding the causes of skin breakdown including frequent repositioning. During a review of Resident 3's Care Plan, dated 2/21/2023, the Care Plan indicated restorative nursing assistants were to perform exercises on Resident 3's bilateral (both) lower extremities (legs) in all joints and planes seven times per week as tolerated to maintain range of motion ([ROM] the degree to which a joint or muscle can move, or the distance a moving object can travel) and to prevent contractures (fixed tightening of muscle, tendons, ligaments, or skin, prevents normal movement of the associated body part). The care plan interventions indicated to turn and reposition Resident 3 every two hours or as needed. On 9/3/2024, at 9:44 a.m., 11:11 a.m., and 1:10 p.m., Resident 3 was observed lying in bed on her back. During a telephone interview on 9/3/2024, at 1:15 p.m., Resident 3's Responsible Party (RP 3) stated she visited Resident 3 weekly and had often observed Resident 3 not being turned every two hours. RP 3 stated she was concerned Resident 3 would develop a pressure injury. During an interview on 9/3/2024, at 1:35 p.m., Certified Nursing Assistant 2 (CNA 2) stated Resident 3 was dependent on staff for grooming and toilet use. CNA 2 stated she last repositioned and changed Resident 3's incontinent brief at approximately 8:30 a.m., (9/3/2024). CNA 2 stated it was important that Resident 3 be turned at least every two hours to prevent pressure injuries from forming. During an interview on 9/3/2024, at 3:45 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated residents who are dependent on staff should be turned at least every two hours and as needed. The DON stated failing to turn and reposition a dependent resident places the resident at risk for skin breakdown. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled, Skin Management System, revised 5/2020, the P&P indicated any resident who enters the facility without a pressure ulcer will have appropriate preventative measures taken to ensure that the resident does not develop pressures ulcers unless the resident's clinical condition makes the development unavoidable. The P&P indicated the preventative plan of care to prevent the development of skin breakdown or prevent existing pressure injuries from worsening, nursing staff shall implement preventative measures as appropriate and consistent with the resident 's condition and preferences, stabilize, reduce and remove any existing any underlying risks, reposition the individual in such a way that pressure is relieved or redistributed.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement Enhanced Barrier Precautions ([EBP] precaut...

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 Enhanced Barrier Precautions ([EBP] precautions utilized to prevent the spread of multidrug resistant organisms [MDROS - bacteria that resist treatment with more than one antibiotic [medication that treat bacterial infections] for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) who had a pressure injury wound (wound caused by pressure on the skin) on her sacrum (buttocks), when Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1) did not use an isolation gown when performing high contact activities such as repositioning and removing Resident 1's incontinent brief (a disposable undergarment designed to absorb urine and feces). These deficient practices resulted in Resident 1's care needs being provided without the use of EBP and placed Resident 1 at increased risk of acquiring an infection. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (a condition that causes a loss of strength on side of the body), hemiparesis (inability to move one side of the body), type 2 diabetes ([DM] a disease that occurs when blood sugar, is too high) and blindness. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 7/26/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills for daily decision-making were moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required substantial/maximum assistance (the helper does more than half the effort) from staff for hygiene, toileting, bathing/showering, and dressing. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had two wounds categorized as stage 2 pressure injuries (shallow open wound with a red or pink base that can appear as a blister or an open sore cause by pressure to the skin). During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan, dated 8/18/2024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 was at risk for infection related to the presence of a pressure injury. The Care Plan's goal indicated Resident 1 would be free from signs and symptoms of infection related to her pressure injury. The Care Plan's interventions included to use Personal Protective Equipment ([PPE] gowns, gloves, mask, shields as needed, for high resident contact care activities), and to use EBP for Resident 1's Sacro coccyx pressure injury. During an observation on 9/3/2024, at 9:55 a.m., outside of Resident 1's room, a EBP sign was observed to be posted on the door. During a concurrent observation on 9/3/2024, at 10 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) was observed gathering ointments from a wound treatment cart and was overheard giving directions to CNA 1 to reposition Resident 1 in preparation for her wound treatment to her sacrum. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/3/2024, at 10:05 a.m., in Resident 1's room, CNA 1 was observed standing at Resident 1's bedside, without a gown on, with Resident 1 turned away from her. Resident 1 was observed without an incontinent brief on leaving her sacrum area exposed. CNA 1 stated she repositioned Resident 1 and removed Resident 1's incontinent brief in preparation for LVN 1 to complete Resident 1's wound treatment. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 was on EBP, and she (CNA 1) should have worn a gown prior to repositioning Resident 1 and removing Resident 1's the incontinent brief. During an interview on 9/3/2024, at 10:07 a.m., LVN 1 stated Resident 1 required EBP and was not sure why CNA 1 did not wear a gown prior to providing high-contact care to Resident 1. LVN 1 stated CNA 1 put Resident 1 at risk for infections by not donning (to put on) a gown prior to providing care. During an interview on 9/3/2024, at 3:30 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated all residents with wounds must have an EBP sign in front of their door and an isolation cart for staff's use. The DON stated staff should be properly educated on understanding the rationale for EBP. The DON stated staff must wear the proper PPE when providing care to the residents with wounds to prevent the spread of any disease-causing microorganism. The DON stated failure to ensure staff understood and implemented EBP put the Resident 1 at risk for infections that could lead to death. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Enhanced Barrier Precautions (EBP), dated 3/2024, the P&P are used in conjunction with standard precautions (infection prevention practices that apply to the care of all residents) and expand the use of PPEs, through the use of gowns and gloves during high contact resident care activities that provide opportunities for indirect transfer of MDROs to the staff hands and clothing when indirectly transferred to residents or from resident to resident. The P/P indicated the use of gown and gloves for high contact resident care activities is indicated when contact precautions do not otherwise apply for nursing home residents with wounds or indwelling medical devices regardless of known MDRO infection or colonization. The P/P indicated examples of high contact resident care activities requiring gown and glove use for EBP include dressing, showering /bathing, transferring, providing hygiene, changing linens , changing briefs, or assisting with toileting, device care or use, wound care.
Aug 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled resident's (Resident 1) Responsible Party (RP) was assisted in filing a grievance when Resident 1's RP found th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled resident's (Resident 1) Responsible Party (RP) was assisted in filing a grievance when Resident 1's RP found three tablets of Bictegravir- Emtricitabine-Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate 50-200-25 (an anti- human immunodeficiency virus medication) left in Resident 1's 30-day supply for 7/2024. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1's RP feeling frustrated that concerns related to Resident1's medication administration was not addressed and had the potential for mismanagement of Resident 1's medication regimen. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted at the facility on 12/1/2023 with a diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus disease ([HIV] a condition where a virus attacks the body's immune system) and placement of a Percutaneous Endoscopic Gastrostomy Tube ([PEG] a feeding tube inserted through the stomach to allow a person to receive nutrition and/or medication administration). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 6/6/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 was able to make independent decisions that were reasonable and consistent. During a review of Resident 1's Physician's Order Summary, dated 7/2024 the Physician Order Summary indicated Resident 1 was prescribed Bictegravir- Emtricitabine-Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate 50-200-25 milligrams ([mg] a unit of measurement) via his PEG. During a telephone interview on 8/9/2024 at 8:26 a.m., Resident 1's RP stated he informed the licensed nurses and the Director of Nursing (DON) that three tablets of Bictegravir- Emtricitabine-Tenofovir Alafenamide Fumarate 50-200-25 were left in Resident 1's 30-day supply for 7/2024 but no one paid attention to his concerns. The RP stated no one told him that he could file a grievance so his concern could be investigated, and he felt devastated about it. During a telephone interview on 8/12/2024 at 11:07 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2) stated Resident 1's RP approached him and reported that three tablets of Resident 1's HIV medication were left in Resident 1's 30-day supply for 7/2024. LVN 2 stated he did not inform the DON about it nor did he assist the RP to file a formal grievance so that the extra tablets of medication left over from 7/2024 could be addressed. During an interview on 8/12/2024 at 11:40 a.m., Registered Nurse Supervisor 1 (RNS 1) stated she heard Resident 1's RP when he was talking to LVN 2 about the three tablets of HIV medication that were left in Resident 1's 30-day supply for 7/2024. RNS 1 stated she was not able to inform the DON about the RP's concerns and stated she should have directed the RP and/or assisted the RP to file a formal grievance related to his concerns. RNS 1 stated facilitating the residents and their RP's grievances were important so they could identify/provide solution to resident's concerns. During an interview on 8/12/2024 at 1:20 p.m., the Social Services Director (SSD) stated he did not receive a grievance from Resident 1's RP or any information about Resident 1 and the RP's medication concerns. The SSD stated there were grievance forms in a binder at the facility's nursing station and the nursing staff should have let the RP know he could file a grievance and assisted the RP to complete it. During an interview on 8/12/2024 at 2 p.m., the Administrator (ADM) stated all residents, and their responsible parties/families should be encouraged to file a grievance and all staff should assist them to complete one as needed to ensure their concerns were followed up on for a resolution. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P), titled, Grievances revised 12/2023, the P/P indicated the facility should allow the residents a way to execute their right to voice their concerns or grievances without fear of discrimination and retaliation and such grievances include care and treatment and other concerns related to their stay. The P/p indicated the facility must ensure the information on how to file for a grievance is available and the staff make prompt efforts to resolve the residents and their responsible parties' grievances.
Jun 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 failed to ensure the pain medication for one (Resident 1) of five sampled residents was documented immediately in t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 failed to ensure the pain medication for one (Resident 1) of five sampled residents was documented immediately in the narcotic sheet (document used to keep track of inventory of narcotic [medication that is highly addictive] medications) after the medication was administered, in accordance with the professional standards of practice. This failure has the potential for Resident 1 to be subjected to risk of undermedication and/ or overmedication due to untimely documentation of administered pain medication. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face sheet), the Face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted at the facility on 2/25/2022 with diagnosis including diabetes mellitus (a serious condition where the blood glucose, also known as blood sugar level of the body, is too high) with neuropathy (a condition when nerve damage leads to pain, numbness, and weakness). During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary, the Order Summary indicated Resident 1 has an order of Norco (is a combination of two medications, hydrocodone [a narcotic analgesic, a powerful pain reducing medication, which can be addictive] and Tylenol [a medication acts as a pain reliever and fever reducer) tablet 5/325 milligram (mg- a unit of measurement, which means a thousandth of a gram) 1 (one) tablet by mouth for pain management, to administer (give) 30 minutes prior to wound care. During a review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated June 2024, the MAR indicated Resident 1 was given Norco 5/325 mg 1 (one tablet) by mouth on 6/12/2024 at 9 a.m. During an observation and interview on 6/12/2024 at 2:31 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN) was standing by the medication cart in the facility's hallway and signing a page of the narcotic count sheets. LVN 2 stated he administered Norco to Resident 1 at 9 a.m. today and he was just signing off now the narcotic count sheet of Norco of Resident 1. LVN1 stated he could have signed off the narcotic count sheet immediately after administering Resident 1's pain medication to ensure the pain medication was documented timely and the pain medication was accounted for to prevent discrepancy and risks of overmedication and/ or undermedication of Resident 1. During an interview on 6/12/2024 at 3 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 (LVN 3) stated the right procedure of medication administration is to pour, pass and sign and the resident's narcotic count sheet must be signed and updated immediately after administering the medication to prevent a medication error. During an interview on 6/13/2024 at 2:31 p.m., the Director of Nursing Services stated the licensed nurses must sign the narcotic count sheet after giving the medication to determine the accurate timing of the dose given to the resident thus preventing unrelieved/ uncontrolled pain and duplication of medication administration. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) on Medication Administration- General Guidelines updated 11/2021, the P/P indicated the residents' medications are administered in accordance with good nursing principles and practices and the license nurse who administered the medication dose records/ documents the administration on the resident's medication administration record after the medication pass is completed. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) on Medication Storage in the Facility updated 8/2019, the P/P indicated the facility's current controlled substance accountability records are kept in the medication administration record or a designated book.
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

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to account for the disposition of eight Morphine Sulfate (a drug used to treat moderate and severe pain and can be addictive) tablets in one o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to account for the disposition of eight Morphine Sulfate (a drug used to treat moderate and severe pain and can be addictive) tablets in one of two emergency medication kits (receptacle that holds emergency medications) in the facility. This failure resulted in missing medications which could potentially be accidentally ingested by a resident or the medications to be diverted to an unknown recipient. Findings: During a telephone interview on 6/13/2024 at 11:43 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 (LVN 3) stated on 6/8/2024 he came to work at 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. and he and Licensed Vocational Nurse 6 (LVN 6), who was the outgoing (7 a.m. to 3 p.m.) licensed nurse counted the individual controlled medications of the residents and checked the emergency medication kit inside the locked compartment of the medication cart. LVN 3 stated the emergency medication kit had been opened because it had a red tag on it. LVN 3 stated he and LVN 6 reconciled the contents of the emergency medication kit and identified there were 8 morphine tablets missing from the kit. LVN 3 stated there was no receipt in the kit to identify a resident who had needed an emergent dose of morphine nor a signature of the licensed staff who removed the 8 tablets of morphine. LVN 3 stated controlled medications including the emergency medication kit need to be reconciled before and after each shift to ensure there were no missing medications. During a telephone interview on 6/13/2024 at 12:45 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 6 (LVN 6) stated it was the first time that she had to check the emergency medication kit in the locked compartment of the medication cart with another licensed nurse (LVN 3). LVN 6 stated whenever she counts the individual controlled medications of the residents with another licensed nurse, she and the licensed nurse never had to check the emergency medication kit at all. LVN 6 stated after counting the individual controlled medication of each resident, the incoming and outgoing licensed nurses sign the controlled log to confirm the controlled drug count was correct and the medications were stored safely. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/13/2024 at 2:31 p.m., with the Director of Nursing Services (DON)the 3 (three) Controlled Sign in Sheets Logbook for Incoming and Outgoing Nurses from 6/1/2024 to 6/11/2024 was reviewed. The Logbooks indicated and the DON confirmed there were missing signatures and/or initials of licensed nurses from the 3 (three) Controlled Sign in Sheets Logbook for Incoming and Outgoing Nurses from 6/1/2024 to 6/11/2024, as indicated: a. Logbook 1= 5 (five) missing signatures b. Logbook 2= 6 (six) missing signatures c. Logbook 3= 18 (eighteen) missing signatures The DON stated it was the responsibility of each licensed nurse (whether incoming or outgoing licensed nurse) to ensure the emergency medication kit medications were accounted for before and after the shift to confirm safe storage, timely replacement, and prevention of accidental and/ or intentional loss of the controlled medications. The DON stated the licensed nurse must sign the Controlled Sign in Sheets to indicate the count of the controlled drugs, including the emergency kit, was done. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) on Medication Ordering and Receiving from Pharmacy updated 8/2020, the P/P indicated the facility's emergency medications which includes antibiotics, controlled substances and products for infusion must be contained in sealed containers and maintained at a designated area secured with a green seal, denoting the emergency box has not been opened and is intact. The P/P indicated the inventory count of the controlled medications must be updated and if the emergency kit has been opened (red tagged), the outgoing charge nurse must endorse the status of the emergency kit during shift change report for transfer of new medication orders and follow-up of replacement of the emergency kit. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) on Medication Storage in the Facility updated 8/2019, the P/P indicated a controlled substance accountability record for all controlled medications, including those in the emergency supply must be completed upon dispensing or receipt of a controlled substance or use of a controlled substance form the emergency supply and at each shift, or when keys are transferred, a physical inventory of all controlled substances, including the emergency supply, is conducted by two licensed nurses and is documented.
May 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

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 conduct an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT-team of health care professi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT-team of health care professionals that work together toward and prioritize the resident 's needs) care conference involving one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) and Resident 1's Responsible Party (RP1) prior to discontinuing Resident 1's speech therapy (treatment that improves ability to talk and use other language skills). This deficient practice violated the Resident 1 and RP 1's rights to be informed and the right to participate in resident's plan of care. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV- is a virus that attacks the body's immune system), hemiplegia (unable to move one side of body) affecting right side, and percutaneous gastrostomy tube (PEG-Tube- surgically placed tube into the stomach, used to administer medication and nutrition). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 3/6/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment (ability to think, learn, remember, use judgement, and make decisions). The MDS indicated Resident 1 was receiving speech -language pathology and audiology services (therapy to treat disorders involving speech, language, swallowing, cognitive, communication, hearing and balance disorders) from 2/14/2024 through 3/4/2024. During a review of Resident 1's Speech Language Pathologist (SLP/speech therapist - work with residents who have speech, language, voice disorders and treat residents with trouble swallowing) Discharge summary, dated [DATE], the record indicated Resident 1 received SLP services from 2/14/2024 through 3/4/2024. During a review of Resident 1's SLP Evaluation and Plan of Treatment record dated 4/30/2024, the record indicated Resident 1 restarted treatment on 4/30/2024. During an interview on 5/14/2024, at 3:15 p.m., RP 1 stated he was not informed Resident 1's speech therapy was discontinued in March and restarted in late April. RP 1 stated during my daily visits, I observed Resident 1 was not receiving speech therapy, I approached a speech therapist who told me the therapy ended on 3/4/2024. RP 1 stated he was frustrated about not being notified of the discontinuation of therapy not being part of the plan of care. RP 1 stated he felt distrustful of the facility and angry. During an interview on 5/15/2024, at 8:48 a.m. the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) stated Resident 1 received speech therapy services on 2/14/2024 through 3/4/2024. The DOR stated during scheduled sessions, Resident 1 often refused therapy and became aggressive with the therapists. The DOR stated the therapy team (the speech therapists and DOR) decided it would be best to terminate Resident 1's speech therapy for a duration of time. The DOR stated Resident 1's speech therapy was restarted on 4/30/2024. The DOR stated RP 1 was not informed of Resident 1's speech therapy was discontinued on 3/4/2024 and restarted on 4/30/2024. The DOR stated the facility should have discussed the plan of care with RP1 and should have had an IDT meeting. The DOR stated failure to inform and involve RP1 violated his rights and Resident 1's right. During an interview on 5/15/2024, at 2 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was residents and/or responsible party's rights to be informed of any treatment changes. The DON stated the speech therapy department should have discussed and involved RP1 in plans to discontinue Resident 1's speech therapy prior to the actual discontinuation. The DON stated the facility should have should have held an IDT meeting to discuss the Resident 1's condition before and after the discontinuation of the speech therapy. The DON stated failing to update RP 1 about Resident 1' s change in treatment violated Resident 1 and RP 1's rights. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure, (P/P) titled, Comprehensive Resident Centered Plan of Care revised January 2021, the P/P indicated to the extent possible the resident, the resident's family and or RP should participate in the development of the care plan.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) who had a gastrostomy tube (G-tube- surgically placed tube into the stomach, used to administer medication and nutrition), had measures in place to prevent the g-tube from being inadvertently dislodged a second time on 3/31/2024. The facility failed to revise Resident 1's care plans to include interventions to prevent future unintentional dislodgements of the G tube and the facility failed to investigate to determine the cause of Resident 1's multiple G-tube dislodgements. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 requiring to be admitted to the hospital for surgical intervention to replace the G-tube and had the potential for malnutrition (not enough nutrients) and underdosing of medications. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including a percutaneous gastrostomy tube (PEG-Tube- surgically placed tube into the stomach, used to administer medication and nutrition). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 3/6/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment (ability to think, learn, remember, use judgement, and make decisions). The MDS indicated Resident 1 received nutrition through a feeding tube. During an interview on 5/14/2024, at 3:15 p.m., RP 1 stated Resident 1's G Tube was removed unintentionally on 1/19/2024 and Resident 1 had to be transferred to the general acute care hospital (GACH). RP 1 stated he was very frustrated and angry at the facility because on 3/31/2024 Resident 1's Gt tube was unintentionally removed a second time and required Resident 1 to be transferred again to GACH. RP 1 stated he was fearful that Resident 1's might be dislodged again. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 5/15/2023 at 9:45 a.m., with the MDS Nurse, Resident 1's Change of Condition (COC) note, dated 1/19/2024 was reviewed. The COC note indicated at approximately 8:40 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN )1 was approached by a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) to assist with Resident 1. Resident 1 was observed with a G tube completely dislodged as Resident 1 was pulling his gown up and he pulled his G tube out. The MDS nurse stated the notes indicated Resident 1's G-tube was unintentionally removed on 1/19/2024 and resulted in a transfer to GACH for it to be replaced. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 5/15/2023 at 10 a.m., with LVN 3, Resident 1's progress notes dated 3/31/2024 was reviewed. The progress note indicated at approximately 8:30 a.m., per LVN 2, during medication administration, the G-tube slid out of the abdominal binder (a belt that encircles the abdomen) and was not intact. LVN 3 stated she was notified by LVN 2 of Resident 1's G-tube dislodgement. LVN 3 stated Resident 1 was transferred to GACH 1 for reinsertion for the G-tube. During an interview on 5/14/2024, at 3:15 p.m., LVN 3 stated Resident 1's G-tube unintentionally removals could have resulted in potential trauma to the g-tube site, malnutrition and underdosing of medications due to Resident 1 not being able to receive nutrition and medications through his G-tube. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 5/15/2023 at 10:30 a.m., with the MDS nurse, Resident 1's progress notes, IDT notes and care plans were reviewed. The MDS nurse stated the documents do not indicate Resident 1's care plans were revised after the unintentional G-tube dislodgements on 1/19/2024 and 3/31/2024 to include interventions specific to preventing future unintentional dislodgements. The MDS stated Resident 1's care plans did not reflect the use of the abdominal binder which was used to secure the G-tube. The MDS nurse stated specific care plan revisions should have been discussed in the IDT meeting following the incident and reflected on the care plans. During an interview on 5/15/2024, at 1:45 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) it was her responsibility to ensure staff was providing residents with the appropriate care and services as indicated in their plan of care. The DON stated the facility must ensure Resident 1 received the appropriate care for maintenance of his G-tube. The DON stated unintentional removal of the G-tube puts Resident 1 at risk for trauma such as bleeding to the site. The DON stated the facility put Resident 1 at risk for malnutrition and underdosing of medication due to the G-tube not being accessible. The DON stated the facility failed to revise Resident 1's care plans to include interventions to prevent future inadvertent G-tube dislodgements. The DON stated the facility has not investigated the cause of Resident 1's multiple G-tube dislodgements. The DON stated failing to investigate the reasons for Resident 1's multiple G-tube dislodgements and failure to revise care plan interventions places Resident 1 at risk for future unintentional G-tube dislodgements. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure, (P/P) titled, Comprehensive Resident Centered Plan of Care revised January 2021, the P/P indicated it was the policy of the facility that the IDT shall develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. During a review of the facility's job description Director of Nursing (DON) dated October 2021, the job description indicated the DON will assist in management and direction of the nursing department in accordance with federal, state and local standards, guidelines, and regulations that govern our facility and may be directed by the Administrator and Medical Director to ensure that the highest degree of quality of care is maintained at all times. The DON is delegated the administrative authority, responsibility, and accountability necessary for carrying out the assigned duties. The job description indicates the DON manages and directs all aspects of Nursing Services Department.
May 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure required in service training and skills checklist for abuse and dementia were provided to two of four sampled Certified Nursing Assi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure required in service training and skills checklist for abuse and dementia were provided to two of four sampled Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 3 and 4). This deficient practice had the potential for the facility not be able to assess the skills necessary to provide nursing services to assure resident safety and to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/3/2024, at 2:00 p.m., with Medical Record , Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 and CNA 4 employee files were reviewed. MR stated there were no CNA skills checklist or abuse and dementia trainings present in both employee files. MR stated Director of Staff Development was let go on 5/2/2024. During an interview on 5/3/2024 at 4:52 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON, the DON stated, they do not have the CNA skills checklists or abuse and dementia trainings for CNA 3 and CNA 4. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Abuse: Prevention of and Prohibition Against, revised 12/2023 indicated The facility will engage in training and orienting its new and existing staff on topics which relate to the delivery of care and service in the post-acute setting. Topics of such training will include, but not be limited to prohibiting, preventing, identifying, recognizing, and reporting all forms of abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident property and exploitation, Dementia Management/Care of Cognitively Impaired, and understanding behavioral symptoms of residents that may increase the risk of abuse and neglect and how to respond.
May 2024 2 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure, the resident who was assessed as a high risk for falls and ...

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 resident who was assessed as a high risk for falls and was totally dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL), did not fall out of bed and sustained injuries for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). The facility failed to: 1. Ensure Resident 1 had more than one staff present to provide incontinence care when the resident was found being soiled while in bed. 2. Ensure Resident 1's bed was maintained in a lowest position as care planned to prevent the resident from fall. 3. To have floor mats (high-impact foam pads which are placed adjacent to the bed on the floor to help reduce the impact from falls and help prevent injuries) at the bed side to lessened possible injury during fall as care planned. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 1 falling from a bed on 4/11/2024, which was in a high position and landing on the floor without a floor mats in place and sustaining a non-displaced (broken bone that remains in the proper alignment) left intertrochanteric fracture (fracture of the thigh bone that connects to the hip bone), bump on her forehead and an abrasion on her left arm. On 4/12/2024 Resident 1 was transferred to a General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) for evaluation and treatment. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnoses including generalized muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]) a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 12/14/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills (thinking process) for daily decision-making were severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was totally dependent on staff for activities of daily living (ADL) including toileting, bathing, upper and lower body dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated a total dependence was when a helper does all of the effort for the resident. Resident does none of the effort to complete the activity or the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had functional limitations in range of motion ([ROM] the distance and direction a joint can move to its full potential) to both sides of her lower extremities (legs). During a review of Resident 1's Fall Risk Evaluation, dated 3/22/2024, the Fall Risk Evaluation indicated Resident 1's fall risk score was 13. A score of 13 and above indicated a high risk for falls. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan, dated 12/14/2023, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 was at risk for falls and fall related injuries due to the use of antidepressant medication (medication used to treat depression), impaired cognition, and impaired ADLs. The Care Plan's goal indicated Resident 1 would be free from falls through the review date of 7/19/2024 and the Care Plan's interventions included to have floor mats at Resident 1's bedside and to keep Resident 1's bed in the lowest position. During a review of Resident 1's Change of Condition (COC) dated 4/11/2024 and timed at 11:15 p.m., the COC indicated a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 2) heard a thud and found Resident 1 on the floor in a prone (lying on the stomach) position. Resident 1 was noted with a bump on her forehead and an abrasion on her left arm. During a review of Resident 1's physician's order dated 4/11/2024, the physician's order indicated to transfer Resident 1 to a GACH for further evaluation and treatment as indicated, status post (after) an unwitnessed fall. During a review of the GACH's emergency room (ER) documentation dated 4/12/2024 and timed at 12:03 a.m., the ER documentation indicated Resident 1 had a hematoma (a bruise) above her left eyebrow and pain to her left hip. During a review of Resident 1's X-ray (an imaging test to view the body internal structure) report of the resident's pelvis (the area of the body below the abdomen, between the hip bones that contains the hip bones, bladder, and rectum) area, dated 4/12/2024 and timed at 1:03 a.m., the X-ray report indicated Resident 1 had a probable nondisplaced left intertrochanteric fracture. During an interview on 4/29/2024 at 4:41 p.m., and a subsequent interview on 5/1/2024 at 4:49 p.m., CNA 1 stated, on 4/11/2024 at approximately 10:30 p.m., she was called to Resident 1's room. CNA 1 stated she observed Resident 1 on the floor in a prone position and there was no floor mat on the ground. During an interview on 4/29/2024 at 5:18 p.m., CNA 2 stated, that on 4/11/2024, between 10:15 p.m. and 10:30 p.m., she heard Resident 1 crying in her room. CNA 2 stated she went to check on Resident 1 and found the resident lying on a low air loss mattress (a type of medical mattress designed to reduce pressure on the skin, which helps prevent pressure ulcers or bed sores) on her right side, soiled. CNA 2 stated she went to the bathroom to get supplies to clean and change Resident 1, when she heard a loud thud. CNA 2 stated, she went to check Resident 1 and found her on the floor next to her bed on her stomach. CNA 2 stated Resident 1's mattress and bed were at bedside table height, and she did not recall if a floor mat was in place on the floor. CNA 2 stated the best way to prevent a fall was to have a two persons assistance with Resident 1 care. During an interview on 4/30/2024 at 3:57 p.m., the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) stated on 4/11/2024 at approximately 10:40 p.m., she was called to Resident 1's room and when she entered Resident 1's room, she saw Resident 1 on the floor and the Registered Nurse (RN 1) was assessing the resident. LVN 1 stated Resident 1's bed had to be placed in the lowest position in order to transfer Resident 1 back to the bed. During an interview on 4/30/2024 at 4:19 p.m., RN 1 stated she was called to Resident 1's room by CNA 1 and CNA 2 at approximately 10:50 p.m. RN 1 stated when she went to the room, she found Resident 1 on the floor with a bump to her forehead and Resident 1 complained of discomfort. During an interview on 5/2/2024 at 4:26 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 1's bed should have been in the lowest position along with floor mats in place on the floor next to Resident 1's at bed along with having two staff members present while providing care. The DON stated floor mats and two staff members are used to lessen the chance of injury if a resident falls out of bed. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) title Fall Management System, revised 1/2024, the P/P indicated the facility is to provide an environment that remains as free of accident hazards as possible. The P/P indicated to provide each resident with appropriate assessment and interventions to prevent falls and to minimize complications if a fall occurs.
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a care plan to place floor mats next to Resident 1 ' s be...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a care plan to place floor mats next to Resident 1 ' s bed and to have Resident 1 ' s bed in the lowest position, for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) who was assessed as high risk for falls. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 falling from her bed, which was in a high position and landing on the floor without floor mats in place. Resident 1 was transferred to a General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) where she was assessed with a non-displaced (broken bone that remains in the proper alignment) left intertrochanteric fracture (fracture of the thigh bone that connects to the hip bone). Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of generalized muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS]) a standardized assessment and care screening), dated 12/14/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s cognitive skills (thinking process) for daily decision-making were severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was totally dependent on staff for toileting, bathing, upper and lower body dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had functional limitations in range of motion ([ROM] the distance and direction a joint can move to its full potential) to both sides of her lower extremities (legs). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Fall Risk Evaluation, dated 3/22/2024, the Fall Risk Evaluation indicated Resident 1 ' s fall risk score was 13. A score of 13 and above indicated a high risk for falls. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Care Plan, dated 12/14/2023, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 was at risk for falls and fall related injuries related to the use of antidepressant medication, impaired cognition, and impaired activities of daily living ([ADL] task such as bathing or showering, dressing, getting in and out of bed or a chair, walking, using the toilet and eating). The Care Plan ' s goal indicated Resident 1 would be free from falls through the review date of 7/19/2024 and the Care Plan ' s interventions indicated to have floor mats at Resident 1 ' s at bedside and to have Resident 1 ' s bed in the lowest position. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Change of Condition (COC) dated 4/11/2024 and timed at 11:15 p.m., the COC indicated Certified Nurse Assistant 1 (CNA 1) heard a thud and found Resident 1 on the floor in a prone (lying on the stomach) position. Resident 1 was noted with a bump on her forehead and an abrasion on her left arm. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Physician ' s Order dated 4/11/2024, the Physician ' s Order indicated to transfer Resident 1 to a GACH for further evaluation and treatment as indicated, status post (a treatment, diagnosis, or event that a patient has experience before) an unwitnessed fall. During a review of the GACH ' s emergency room (ER) documentation dated 4/12/2024 and timed at 12:03 a.m., the ER documentation indicated Resident 1 had a hematoma (a bruise) above her left eyebrow and pain to her left hip. During a review of Resident 1 ' s X-ray of her pelvis (the area of the body below the abdomen, between the hip bones that contains the hip bones, bladder, and rectum) dated 4/12/2024 and timed at 1:03 a.m., the X-ray indicated Resident 1 had a probable nondisplaced left intertrochanteric fracture. During an interview on 4/29/2024 at 4:41 p.m., and a subsequent interview on 5/1/2024 at 4:49 p.m., CNA 1 stated, on 4/11/2024 at approximately 10:30 p.m., she was called to Resident 1 ' s room. CNA 1 stated she observed Resident 1 on the floor in a prone position and there was no floor mat on the ground. During an interview on 4/29/2024 at 5:18 p.m., CNA 2 stated, she heard Resident 1 crying in her room, she went to check on her, and found Resident 1 lying on a low air loss mattress on her right side, soiled. CNA 2 stated she went to the bathroom to get supplies to clean and change Resident 1, when she heard a loud thud. CNA 2 stated, she went to check Resident 1 and found her on the floor next to her bed on her stomach. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 ' s mattress and bed were at bedside table height, and she did not recall if a floor mat was in place on the floor. During an interview on 4/30/2024 at 3:57 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) stated on 4/11/2024 at approximately 8:45 p.m., she was called to Resident 1 ' s room and when she entered Resident 1 ' s room, she saw Resident 1 on the floor and Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1) assessing her. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 ' s bed had to be placed in the lowest position in order to transfer Resident 1 back to her bed. During an interview on 4/30/2024 at 4:19 p.m., RN 1 stated she was called to Resident 1 ' s room by CNA 1 and CNA 2, when she went to the room, she found Resident 1 on the floor with a bump to her forehead and Resident 1 complaining of discomfort. and she (RN 1) observed a bump to Resident 1 ' s forehead and complaining of discomfort. During an interview on 5/2/2024 at 1:53 p.m., the MDS Nurse stated care plans are individualized for each resident and are created to ensure residents get proper care and necessary interventions are implemented. The MDS Nurses stated when interventions are not implemented residents may not receive quality care. During an interview on 5/2/2024 at 4:26 p.m., the Director of Nurse (DON) stated Resident 1 ' s bed should have been in the lowest position along with having floor mats in place on the floor next to Resident 1 ' s bed as indicated in Resident 1 ' s care plan. The DON stated fall mats are used and the bed is put in the lowest position to lessen the chance of injury if a resident falls out of bed. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Care Planning revised 1/2021 the P/P indicated the interdisciplinary team ([IDT] a group of health care professionals with various areas of expertise who work together toward the goals of the resident) shall develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with the resident rights, that it includes measurable objective and timeframes to meet a resident ' s medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. During a review of the facility ' s P/P titled Fall Management System, revised 1/2024, the P/P indicated the facility is provide each resident with appropriate assessment and interventions to prevent falls and to minimize complications if a fall occurs.
Apr 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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 provide the necessary treatment and services for two ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary treatment and services for two of three sample residents (Resident 1and 2) by: 1. Failing to document the presence of a low air loss mattress (special mattress that ensures air circulation around the skin and protects the residents from bedsores [injury to skin]) on the treatment administration record, ([TAR] a report that serves as a legal record of the treatments a resident was receiving) for Resident 1 and 2. 2. Failing to ensure Resident 1 had an order for a low air loss mattress. These deficient practices had the potential to result in poor wound healing for Resident 1 and 2. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 1's admission record (face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of prostate (cancer of the prostate [accessory gland that makes the fluid that transport sperm]), cardiac arrest (heart stops), and unspecified and hypertension (high blood pressure [force of circulating blood]). During a review of Resident 1 's history and physical (H&P) report dated 12 /13/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1's reason for admission is for management after hospitalization for wounds. During a record review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 12/11/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment, was dependent on staff with toileting, eating, lower and upper body dressing, and when changing positions (sit to lying, sit to stand). During a review of Resident 1's untitled care plan, revised 1/21/2024, and with a target date of 3/23/2024, the care plan indicated Resident 1 had a stage 3 (Full thickness tissue loss. Subcutaneous fat may be visible, but bone, tendon, or muscle is not exposed) pressure sore (injury to skin) in the coccyx (tail bone). The care plan indicated Resident 1 required pressure relieving device in the bed and to monitor effectiveness of treatments. During a record review and interview on 4/4/2024 at 1:32 p.m. with the Licensed Treatment Nurse (TX), Resident 1's Physician orders and TAR records were reviewed and indicated no documented evidence of an order for a low air loss mattress and no monitoring for a low air loss mattress. The TX nurse verified there was no order for Resident 1's low air loss mattress and TX stated he forgot to write an order for Resident 1 to have the specialty bed. TX nurse also stated he was not aware he needed to document monitoring for Resident 1's placement on the low air loss mattress on the TAR. TX nurse stated it was important to document Resident 1 was placed on an air mattress is to take credit for what was done and how Resident 1 responds to the treatment. b. During a review of Resident 2's admission record (face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 2 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus without complications (elevated levels of sugar in the blood), acute respiratory failure (the lungs can't get enough oxygen to the blood), unstageable (stage not clear) pressure ulcer in the right buttocks, and stage 4 (deep wounds that may impact muscle, tendons, ligaments, and bone)pressure ulcer in sacral region (lower back). During a review of Resident 2 's history and physical (H&P) report dated 12/7/23, the H&P indicated Resident 2 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a record review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 12/11/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 2 was dependent on staff with toileting, eating, lower and upper body dressing, and changing positions. During a review of Resident 2's Order Summary as of 3/25/2024, the summary indicated on 1/24/2024, Resident 2 had an order for low air loss mattress for wound management, monitor every shift. During a record review and interview on 4/4/2024 at 1:32 p.m., with the TX nurse, Resident 2's TAR was reviewed and there was no documented evidence Resident 2 was using a low air loss mattress. TX nurse stated he did not know he needed to document Resident 2's usage of a low air loss mattress on the TAR. TX nurse stated it was important to document Resident 2 was placed on an air mattress is to take credit for what was done and how Resident 2 responds to the treatment. During a record review and interview on 4/4/2024 at 1:44 p.m., with the Registered Nurse MDS Coordinator (MDS nurse), Resident 1's physician orders and Resident 1 and 2's TAR records were reviewed and indicated no physician order for a low air loss mattress for Resident 1 was noted and there was no documented evidence of monitoring for a low air loss mattress for Resident 1 and 2 in the TAR. The MDS nurse verified there was no order for a Low air loss mattress for Resident 1. The MDS nurse verified Residents 1 and 2 did not have monitoring of use of the low air loss mattress on the TAR. The MDS nurse stated Resident 1 should have had an order for a low air loss mattress. The MDS nurse stated it was important to document the type of clinical care was given for Resident 1 and 2 so that the facility can continue to give the best treatment possible. The MDS nurse stated if it was not documented it was not done. During a review of facility's policy and procedure titled Skin and Wound Monitoring and Management Revision/Review Date 12/2023, the policy indicated Licensed nurse will document the presence of pressure reducing devices on Treatment Administration Record as ordered. The policy indicated daily monitoring with the medication and treatment administration records will confirm all orders have been implemented.
Mar 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

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 staff failed to notify the responsible party (RP) when Resident 1 had a 12-po...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility staff failed to notify the responsible party (RP) when Resident 1 had a 12-pound (lbs- measurement) weight loss for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice had violated the resident's responsible party's right to be inform of the care or services provided. Findings : During a review of Resident 1's admission record (face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus without complications ( elevated levels of sugar in the blood ), Hypertension ( High blood pressure ), and acute respiratory failure with hypoxia ( the lungs can't get enough oxygen to the blood ). During a review of Resident 1 's history and physical (H&P) report dated 12/7/23, the H&P indicated resident 1 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a record review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care screening tool ), dated 12/11/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 is dependent on toileting, eating, lower and upper body dressing, changing positions (sit to lying, sit to stand). During a record review on 3/20/24 at 1:30 pm of Resident 1's weight summary on 1/3/24 at 10:55 a.m. Resident 1's weight was 116 LBS ( pounds) then on 1/25/24 at 14:04 p.m. Resident 1's weight was 104 LBS 12 lbs weight loss in one month. During a record review and interview on 3/20/24 at 3:00 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 verified there was no record of a condition change, or the family was being notified when Resident 1 loss weight. LVN 1 stated if a resident has a weight loss of more than 3 LBS in one week we are to start a change of condition form and staff informs the doctor, notify the family, care plan, and monitor the resident for 72 hours. LVN 1 stated it is the family's right to know of any changes and plan of care being provided to the resident. During an interview on 3/20/24 at 3:15 p.m. with Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDS), MDS stated when there is a change of condition you must inform or notify the family. MDS stated the family is Resident1's responsible party and should be aware of the resident's condition. During an interview on 3/20/2024 at 4:00 p.m. withy the Director of Nursing ( DON), the DON Verified there was no change of condition started and family notification of Resident 1's weight loss. DON stated it is important to do a change of condition if there is a change in the resident's baseline and family needs to be involved. During a review of facility's policy and procedure titled Nursing Administration Dated 5/2019 indicated: 1. The responsible party will be notified that there has been a change in the resident's condition and what steps are being taken. 2. Document resident change of condition and response in eInteract Change of Condition UDA and in nursing progress notes , and update resident's care plan, as indicated.
Mar 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rights were maintained for two of thr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident rights were maintained for two of three sampled residents (Resident 1 and 2) when the facility failed to: A. Notify Resident 1 's Responsible Party (RP) 1 when Protonix (medication used to treat gastroesophageal reflux disease [GERD-when stomach acid flows back into the throat]) was discontinued on 1/9/2024. B. Honor RP 1's wishes to retain Resident 1's air flow mattress (mattress that help prevent skin breakdown by promoting blood flow and stimulating circulation in the body). C. Conduct an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT-team of health care professionals that work together toward and prioritize the resident 's needs) care conference involving Resident 2 following Resident 2's fall on 2/13/2024. These deficient practices violated the Resident 1 and RP 1's rights causing mistrust and frustration directed toward the facility; and Resident 2 not having an IDT Care Conference placed Resident 2 at risk for future falls. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV- is a virus that attacks the body's immune system), hemiplegia (unable to move one side of body) affecting right side, and percutaneous gastrostomy tube (PEG-Tube- surgically placed tube into the stomach, used to administer medication and nutrition). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 2/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment (ability to think, learn, remember, use judgement, and make decisions). A. During an interview on 2/29/2024, at 9 a.m., with Resident 1's Responsible Party (RP 1), RP 1 stated during a visit on 1/12/2024 he observed that Resident 1 was not administered Protonix during the morning. RP 1 stated, the facility has not notified him about any changes in Resident 1's medication regimen. RP 1 stated he got concerned when Resident 1 did not receive the medication and he felt distrust towards the facility upon realization the Protonix was discontinued and was not informed of changes in Resident 1's medication regimen. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/1/2024 at 3:45 p.m., with the MDS nurse, Resident 1's Medication Administration Report (MAR) for 1/2024 was reviewed. The MAR indicated Protonix, give one packet via PEG-tube in the morning for GERD, discontinue date 1/9/2024. The MDS nurse stated Protonix was discontinued on 1/9/2024 and was no longer administered to Resident 1. During an interview and record review on 3/1/2024 at 4 p.m. with MDS Nurse, Resident 1's medical records were reviewed. The MDS nurse stated upon her review of Resident 1's documents, the MDS nurse could not find documentation that the facility attempted to contact RP 1 to notify him of Protonix being discontinued on 1/9/2024. The MDS nurse stated failing to inform RP1 was a violation of Resident's rights and caused the mistrust from RP 1 directed toward the facility. During an interview on 3/5/2024, at 2 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was residents' rights to be informed of any medication regimen changes. The DON stated when a medication was discontinued the resident, or their RP should be made aware immediately because they must be involved in the resident's planning of care. The DON stated, failing to update RP 1 about Resident 1' s change in medication violated Resident 1 and RP 1's rights. B. During an interview on 2/29/2024, at 9 a.m., with RP 1, RP 1 stated he was upset at the facility due to the facility removing Resident 1's air mattress without his consent. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/1/2024 at 10: 24 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, in Resident 1's room, Resident 1 was observed to be lying in bed with a fitted sheet covering a regular mattress. LVN 1 stated, Resident 1 used to have an air mattress, but currently, Resident 1 had a regular mattress. LVN 1 stated, Resident 1's air mattress had been removed several weeks ago but could not recall the date. During a current interview and record review on 3/1/2024 at 4:15 p.m., with the MDS nurse, Resident 1's Interdisciplinary Care Plan review document dated 2/13/2024 was reviewed. The document indicated RP 1 was the emergency contact and guardian for Resident 1 who participated in the development and review of resident's plan of care. The document indicated special treatments, procedures and devices were discussed with RP 1 addressing Resident 1's air mattress at length as Resident 1 can easily slide off, but RP 1 refused removal of the air mattress. The MDS nurse stated a meeting was held with RP 1 and RP 1 refused for Resident 1's air mattress to be removed. During an interview on 3/1/2024, at 3:30 p.m., with the DON, and the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated, the facility staff removed Resident 1's air mattress to prevent future falls. The ADM stated, the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT-team of health care professionals that work together toward and prioritize the resident 's needs) was aware that RP 1 did not want Resident 1's air mattress to be removed. The ADM stated the facility removed the air mattress even at the refusal of RP 1. The DON stated this was a violation of RP 1 rights to make decisions regarding Resident 1's plan of care. The ADM and DON stated the facility should not have removed the Resident 1's air mattress against RP 1's wishes. The ADM and DON stated by ignoring RP 1's wishes, the RP became suspicious and distrustful of the facility staff. C. During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including fracture (break) of left shoulder, muscle weakness and encephalopathy (damage or disease that affects brain function). During a review of Resident 2's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 had moderate cognitive impairment and was usually understood and could be understood by others. During a review of Resident 2's Change of Condition note dated 2/13/2024 at 8:50 p.m., the notes indicated Resident 2 sustained an unwitnessed fall. During an interview on 3/5/2024 at 8:45 a.m., Resident 2 stated he recently had a fall a few weeks ago. Resident 2 stated he has not had a meeting with facility staff to discuss his fall or ways to prevent future falls. During an interview on 3/5/2024 at 10:10 a.m. with the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR- healthcare professional who oversees the facility's program that helps residents regarding strength and mobility), the DOR stated the facility staff did not conduct an IDT meeting after Resident 2's fall on 2/13/2024. The DOR stated the facility should have held an IDT involving Resident 2 and or Resident 2's responsible party to discuss more specific interventions to prevent future falls. The DOR stated, Resident 2 was progressing through his therapy goals of gaining strength but needed to be reminded that he needed to ask for assistance prior to getting up. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/5/2024 at 2:40 p.m., with the DON, Resident 2's Electronic Health record (EHR) was reviewed and there was no documented evidence of an IDT care conference conducted after Resident 2's fall. The DON stated there was no documentation reflecting an IDT was held after Resident 2's fall on 2/13/2024. The DON stated, the facility staff should have held an IDT meeting involving Resident 2 to discuss inventions to prevent Resident 2's fall. The DON stated, the IDT would also help determine and address the possible reasons for the fall. The DON stated failure to involve Resident 2 in revising his plan of care put Resident 2 at risk for future falls. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure, (P/P) titled, Comprehensive Resident Centered Plan of Care revised January 2021, the P/P indicated it was the policy of the facility that the IDT shall develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with residents' rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The P/P indicated, to the extent possible the resident, the resident's family and or RP should participate in the development of the care plan.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0559 (Tag F0559)

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 and provide a written notice to the responsible party (RP 1)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify and provide a written notice to the responsible party (RP 1) prior to moving one of four sampled residents (Resident 1). These deficient practices resulted in the violation of Resident 1's and RP 1's rights to be informed of room changes. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV- is a virus that attacks the body's immune system), hemiplegia (unable to move one side of body) affecting right side, and percutaneous gastrostomy tube (PEG-Tube- surgically placed tube into the stomach, used to administer medication and nutrition). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 2/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment (ability to think, learn, remember, use judgement, and make decisions). During an interview on 2/29/2024, at 9 a.m., with RP 1, RP 1 stated Resident 1 was transferred into a new room on 12/13/2024 without notification prior to move. RP 1 stated he felt frustrated he was not informed and would not have consented due to Resident 1's cognitive status and Resident 1's need for familiarity of his room. During a current interview and record review on 3/1/2024 at 10:24 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Resident 1's Census List (list documenting resident admissions, transfers, and bed changes) dated 12/1/2023 through 2/13/2024 was reviewed. The list indicated a bed change occurred on 12/13/2023. LVN 1 nurse stated Resident 1 was moved from one room to another on 12/13/2023. LVN 1 stated the facility should notify residents and their families prior to all room changes. During an interview and record review of Resident 1's electronic health records (EHR) on 3/1/2024 at 10:30 a.m., with LVN 1, Resident 1's EHR was reviewed and there was no documented evidence of a resident or family notification of Resident 1's room transfer. LVN 1 stated she did not locate any documentation in Resident 1's EHR stating RP 1 was notified prior to the room change on 12/13/2024. During an interview on 3/1/2024 at 3:30 p.m., with Administrator (ADM) and Director of Nursing (DON), the ADM stated Resident 1 was moved from one room to another on 12/13/2024. The ADM and DON stated they could not provide documentation that RP 1 was notified prior to the room change. The ADM stated it was the right of residents and their families to receive notice prior to room changes unless there was an emergency need to move the resident. The ADM stated the room change was not an emergency. The ADM stated failure to notify RP 1 resulted in RP 1 not being able to decide regarding the room change and led to RP 1 not trusting the facility staff. The DON stated a room change could cause potential disorientation and confusion in Resident 1. The ADM and DON stated Resident 1 and RP 1's residents rights were violated. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure, (P/P) title Room to room transfer, revised December 2023, the P/P indicated unless medically necessary or for the safety and well-being of the resident, a resident will be provided with advance notice of a room transfer. Prior to the transfer, the resident, their roommate (if any) and the resident's preventative will be provided with the information concerning the decision to make the room transfer. Such notice will include the reason(s) why the move is recommended. Unless medically necessary or for the safety and well-being for the resident, resident will receive written notice, including the reason for the change, before the resident's room or roommate in the facility is changed.
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

Grievances (Tag F0585)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of four sampled resident's (Resident 1) responsible party...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of four sampled resident's (Resident 1) responsible party's (RP 1) complaint regarding Resident 1 's accidental Gastrostomy tube (G-tube- surgically placed tube into the stomach, used to administer medication and nutrition) dislodgement which resulted in a hospitalization was formally logged as a grievance (complaint) and investigated as indicated in the facility's policy and procedures. This deficient practice resulted in RP1 's anxiety and worry that the facility will not address the circumstances leading to Resident 1's G-tube being accidently removed. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV- is a virus that attacks the body's immune system), hemiplegia (unable to move one side of body) affecting right side, and percutaneous gastrostomy tube (PEG-Tube- surgically placed tube into the stomach, used to administer medication and nutrition). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 2/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment (ability to think, learn, remember, use judgement, and make decisions). During an interview on 2/29/2024, at 9 a.m., with RP 1, RP 1 stated Resident 1's G Tube was removed unintentionally on 1/19/2024 and Resident 1 had to be transferred to the general acute care hospital (GACH). RP 1 stated the administrator (ADM), and social services director (SSD) were aware of his concerns, but they did not follow up or address the issue. RP 1 stated he was upset and concerned that Resident 1's G tube might accidently be pulled out again. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 3/1/2023 at 10:30 a.m., with the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, Resident 1's Change of Condition (COC) note, dated 1/19/2024 was reviewed. The COC note indicated at approximately 8:40 a.m., LVN 1 was approached by Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) to assist with Resident 1. Resident 1 was observed with a G tube completely dislodged as Resident 1 was pulling his gown up and he pulled his G tube out. The RP 1 was informed of the incident and the resident was transferred to GACH. LVN 1 stated she was notified by the CNA that Resident 1 accidently pulled out the G-tube. During an interview on 3/1/2024, at 2:45 p.m., with the SSD, the SSD stated he was the facility's Grievance official and oversaw the grievance process. The SSD stated the administrator did not inform him of RP 1's concern regarding Resident 1's inadvertent G-tube removal on 1/19/2024. The SSD stated he was hired and started his employment at the facility after 1/19/2024. The SSD stated the facility should have addressed RP 1's complaint as a formal grievance, followed up and investigated the circumstances surrounding the cause to why Resident 1's G tube was dislodged. The SSD stated failing to address RP 1's concern can cause further worry and increased frustration for RP 1. During an interview on 3/1/2024, at 3:30 p.m., with the ADM and Director of Nursing (DON), the ADM stated he was aware that RP 1 was upset that Resident 1's G tube was dislodged accidentally but was not aware if the previous SSD initiated a grievance. The DON and ADM stated it was the facility policy to address and investigate grievances. The DON and ADM stated failure to investigate RP 1 's grievance could lead to RP 1 distrust in the facility and failure to investigate the contributing factors leading to the dislodgment of Resident 1's G tube. During a review of the facility's policy, and procedure (P/P) titled, Grievances, revised December 2023, the P/P indicated it was the policy of this facility to establish a grievance process that allows the residents a way to execute their right to voice concerns or grievances to the facility or other agency without fear of discrimination or reprisal. Such grievances include those with respect to care and treatment which has been furnished as well as that which has not been furnished, the behavior of staff and other residents and other concerns regarding their facility stay. The P/P states the grievance official was responsible for overseeing the grievance process and for receiving and tracking grievances leading to any necessary investigations by the facility, maintaining the confidentiality of all information associated with grievances, issuing a written grievance decisions to the resident, if requesting and coordinating with state and federal agencies as necessary.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise one of four sampled resident's (Resident 2) care plan to inc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise one of four sampled resident's (Resident 2) care plan to include the recommendations from the director of rehabilitation (DOR- healthcare professional who oversees the facility's program that helps residents regarding strength and mobility) of reminding Resident 2 to ask for assistance when getting up. This deficient practice placed Resident 2 at higher risk for future falls. Findings: During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including fracture (break) of left shoulder, muscle weakness and encephalopathy (damage or disease that affects brain function). During a review of Resident 2's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 had moderate cognitive impairment and was usually understood and could be understood by others. During a review of Resident 2's Change of Condition (document to communicate a resident's condition to the health care team) note dated 2/13/2024 at 8:50 p.m., the notes indicated Resident 2 sustained an unwitnessed fall. During a review of Resident 2's Care Plan initiated on 2/13/2024, the Care Plan focus indicated Resident 2 had an actual unwitnessed fall with no injury on 2/13/2024. The care plan goal indicated will resume usual activities without further incident through the review date. The care plan interventions indicated the following: bed in lowest position, check range of motion, continue interventions on the at risk plan, for no apparent acute injury, determine and address causative factors of the fall, monitor and document and report to medical doctor (MD), monitor for signs and symptoms of pain, bruises, change in mention status, new onset confusion, sleepiness, inability to maintain posture, agitation, neuro-checks (a way to check brain function)as ordered, therapy consult for strength and mobility, and vital signs (measurement of body's basic function) as ordered. During an interview on 3/5/2024 at 8:45 a.m. with Resident 2, Resident 2 stated he recently had a fall a few weeks ago. Resident 2 stated he has not had a meeting with facility staff to discuss his fall or ways to prevent future falls. During an interview on 3/5/2024 at 10:10 a.m. with the DOR, the DOR stated the facility staff did not conduct an IDT meeting after Resident 2's fall on 2/13/2024. The DOR stated the facility should have held an IDT involving Resident 2 and or Resident 2's responsible party (RP) to discuss more specific interventions to prevent future falls. The DOR stated, Resident 2 was progressing through his therapy goals of gaining strength but needed to be reminded that he needed to ask for assistance prior to getting up. The DOR stated these interventions were not listed in Resident 2's care plan initiated on 2/13/2024. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/5/2024 at 2:40 p.m., with the DON, Resident 2's Electronic Health record (EHR) was reviewed and there was no IDT care conference conducted after Resident 2's fall. The DON stated there was no documentation reflecting an IDT was held after Resident 2's fall on 2/13/2024. The DON stated, the facility staff should have held an IDT meeting involving Resident 2 to discuss then revise interventions to prevent Resident 2's fall. The DON stated, the IDT would also help determine and address the possible reasons for the fall. The DON stated failure to involve Resident 2 in revising his plan of care put Resident 2 at risk for future falls. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure, (P/P) titled, Comprehensive Resident Centered Plan of Care, revised January 2021, the P/P indicated it was the policy of the facility that the IDT shall develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with residents' rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The P/P indicated, to the extent possible the resident, the resident's family and or RP should participate in the development of the care plan.
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 implement their policy ensuring the accurate receiving and reconcil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their policy ensuring the accurate receiving and reconciliation (process of verifying physician orders to medication) of home medications for one of one sampled resident (Resident 1). The facility failed to track and document the date, time, or quantity of Bictegravir/emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide (medication used to treat human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-virus that attacks body' immune system) when nursing staff received the medication from Resident 1's Responsible Party (RP). This deficient practice had the potential for inaccurate inventory of medications causing medication shortages and underdosage of medication. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including HIV. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 2/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment (ability to think, learn, remember, use judgement, and make decisions). During a review of Resident 1's Physician Order Summary Report, dated 3/1/2024, the report indicated to administer bictegravir-emtricitabine - tenofovir alafenamide tablet 80-200-25 milligrams (mg- unit of measurement), one tablet via gastrostomy tube ([GT] tube inserted through the belly that brings nutrition directly to the stomach), one time a day for HIV, start date 1/27/2024. During an interview on 3/1/2023, at 10:24 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated Resident 1 receives bictegravir-emtricitabine - tenofovir alafenamide a medication brought in from home from Resident 1's RP. LVN 1 stated the physician orders do not state that bictegravir-emtricitabine - tenofovir alafenamide was a medication brought in from home. LVN 1 stated the facility did not document when bictegravir-emtricitabine - tenofovir alafenamide was received from Resident 1's RP. LVN 1 stated nursing staff did not track the date, time, or quantity of the medication once it was received from Resident 1's RP. LVN 1 stated without proper inventory and reconciliation of the medication, there was a potential risk of under dosing if the medication was not available. During an interview on 3/5/2024, at 2 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the facility does not document when Resident 1's RP delivers home medication, bictegravir-emtricitabine - tenofovir alafenamide, to nursing staff. The DON stated, the facility has a policy indicating the proper process to track medications brought from home which nursing staff did not implement but should have. The DON stated by failing to document and the track the receipt of home medication, the nursing staff cannot verify and assure the medications were received and administered per physician's order. The DON stated, the nursing staff put Resident 1 at risk for underdosage or overdosage. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure, (P/P) titled, Medication ordering and receiving from Pharmacy, Medications brought to the facility by a resident or family member dated February 2020, the P/P indicated Medications brought into the facility by a resident or family member are used only upon written order by the resident's attending physician, after the contents have been verified and if the packaging meeting the facility's guidelines. The P/P indicated a licensed nurse 1) receives medications delivered to the facility and documents delivery of the medication on the appropriate form/chart 2) verifies medications received and directions for use with the original medication order 3) Assures medications were incorporated into the resident's specific allocation/storage area 4) delivery receipts are retained for one year.
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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

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 resident rights were maintained for two of four sampled resi...

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 resident rights were maintained for two of four sampled residents (Resident 3 and 4) when the facility failed to A. Notify Resident 3's physician when Resident 3's blood sugar was 404 milligrams (mg-unit of measurement) / deciliter (dL- unit of measurement) on 2/3/2024 and 432 mg/dL on 2/19/2024. B. Notify Resident 4's physician when Resident 4's blood sugar was 428 mg/dL on 2/26/2024, 405 mg/dL on 2/28/2024 and 425 mg/dL on 3/1/2024. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 3 and 4's physician being unaware of high blood sugar levels causing a delay in needed assessments and services for Resident 3 and 4. Findings: A. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (condition when blood sugar is too high), atrial fibrillation (irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm) and hyperlipidemia (too many fats in the blood). During a review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 3 had moderate cognitive impairment (ability to think, learn, remember, use judgement, and make decisions). During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/5/2024 at 2 p.m., with the DON, Resident 3's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 2/1/2024 through 2/29/2024 was reviewed. The MAR indicated if 401 mg/dL and greater administer notify the physician. The MAR indicated on 2/3/2024 at 11:30 a.m. the blood sugar was 405 mg/dL and the physician was not notified. The MAR indicated on 2/19/2024 at 11:30 a.m. the blood sugar was 432 mg/dL and the physician was not notified. The DON stated the nursing staff received orders to notify the physician for blood sugars above 400 mg/dL. The DON stated on 2/3/2024 and 2/19/2024, the licensed nurses should have notified the MD. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/5/2024 at 2:20 p.m., with the DON, Resident 3's EHR were reviewed and there was no documented evidence of a physician notification of the elevated blood sugars on 2/3/2024 and 2/19/2024. The DON stated there was no documentation reflecting the nursing staff notified the MD of Resident 3's blood sugars. The DON stated nursing staff failed to follow MD orders and caused a delay in needed assessment and services. B. During a review of Resident 4's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 4 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, muscle weakness and hyperlipidemia. During a review of Resident 4's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 4 had moderate cognitive impairment. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/5/2024 at 2:30 p.m., with the DON, Resident 4's MAR, dated 2/1/2024 through 2/29/2024 and 3/1/2024 through 3/31/2024 were reviewed. The MAR indicated if 401mg/ dL to 999 mg/ dL notify the physician. The MAR indicated on 2/26/2024 at 6 p.m. the blood sugar was 428 mg/dL and the physician was not notified. The MAR indicated on 2/28/2024 at 6 p.m. the blood sugar was 405 mg/dL and the physician was not notified. The MAR indicated on 3/1/2024 at 6 p.m. the blood sugar was 425 mg/dL and the physician was not notified. The DON stated licensed nurses should have notified the physician of Resident 4's high blood sugars. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/5/2024 at 2:35 p.m., with the DON, Resident 4's EHR were reviewed and there was no documented evidence of a physician notification of the elevated blood sugars on 2/26/2024, 2/28/2024, and 3/1/2024. The DON stated there was no documentation reflecting that the nursing staff notified the physician of Resident 4's blood sugars. The DON stated nursing staff failed to follow the physician orders and caused a delay in needed assessment and services. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure, (P/P) titled, Significant Change of Condition, Response revised December 2023, the P/P indicated it was the policy of the facility to ensure each resident receives the quality of care and services to attain and maintain the highest practicable physical mental and psychosocial well-being in accordance with the interdisciplinary comprehensive assessment and plan of care. The P/P indicated if at any time it was recognized by one of the team members that the condition or care needs of the resident have changed, like low/high blood sugar. The P/P indicted the nurse will implement existing orders and notify the resident's provider obtain new orders or interventions.
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

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 care plan interventions for three of four sampl...

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 care plan interventions for three of four sampled residents (Resident 1, 3, and 4) were implemented. The facility failed to implement: A. Resident 1's care plan intervention to use an air mattress (device used to prevent skin breakdown). B. Resident 3 and 4's care plan interventions to call the physician for blood glucose (sugar) levels over 400 milligrams (mg-unit of measurement) / deciliter (dL- unit of measurement). These deficient practices had the potential to result in delayed care and services and decline in Resident 1, 3, and 4's health. Findings: A. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including human immunodeficiency virus (HIV- is a virus that attacks the body's immune system), hemiplegia (unable to move one side of body) affecting right side, and percutaneous gastrostomy tube (PEG-Tube- surgically placed tube into the stomach, used to administer medication and nutrition). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 2/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment (ability to think, learn, remember, use judgement, and make decisions). During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan initiated on 12/4/2023, the Care Plan focus indicated Resident 1 had coccyx (tailbone area) stage 2 pressure ulcer (wound caused by pressure on the skin). The Care plan interventions indicated pressure ulcer will show signs of healing and remain free from infection through the review date, target on 3/1/2024. The care plan interventions indicated low air loss mattress for skin management. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/1/2024 at 10: 24 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, in Resident 1's room, Resident 1 was observed with a regular mattress. LVN 1 stated, Resident 1 used to have an air mattress, but currently, Resident 1 has a regular mattress. LVN 1 stated, Resident 1's air mattress had been removed several weeks ago but could not recall the date. During an interview on 3/1/2024, at 3:30 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), and the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated, the facility staff removed Resident 1's air mattress. The DON stated removing the air mattress was not in accordance with Resident 1's care plan. B. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (condition when blood sugar is too high), atrial fibrillation (irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm) and hyperlipidemia (too many fats in the blood). During a review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 3 had moderate cognitive impairment. During a review of Resident 3's Care Plan initiated on 3/9/2024, the Care Plan focus indicated Resident 3 has Diabetes Mellitus. The care plan interventions indicated for blood glucose above 400 mg/dL notify the Medical Doctor (MD). During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/5/2024 at 2 p.m., with the DON, Resident 3's Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated 2/1/2024 through 2/29/2024 was reviewed. The MAR indicated on 2/3/2024 at 11:30 a.m. the blood sugar was 405 mg/dL and the physician was not notified. The MAR indicated on 2/19/2024 at 11:30 a.m. the resident's blood sugar was 432 mg/dL, and the MD was not notified. The DON stated the licensed nurses should have called the MD as indicated in the care plan. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/5/2024 at 2:20 p.m., with the DON, Resident 3's EHR were reviewed. The DON stated there was no documentation reflecting that the nursing staff notified the MD of Resident 3's blood sugars. The DON stated nursing staff failed to follow MD orders and did not implement Resident 3's care plans which caused a delay in needed assessment and services. C. During a review of Resident 4's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 4 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, muscle weakness and hyperlipidemia. During a review of Resident 4's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 4 had moderate cognitive impairment. During a review of Resident 4's Care Plan Diabetes Mellitus, initiated on 9/17/2023, the intervention indicated for blood sugar levels 401 mg/dL to 999 mg/dL to notify the MD. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/5/2024 at 2:30 p.m., with the DON, Resident 4's MAR dated 2/1/2024 through 2/29/2024 and 3/1/2024 through 3/31/2024 were reviewed. The MAR indicated on 2/26/2024 at 6 p.m. the blood sugar was 428 mg/dL, and the physician was not notified. The MAR indicated on 2/28/2024 at 6 p.m. the blood sugar was 405 mg/dL, and the physician was not notified. The MAR indicated on 3/1/2024 at 6 p.m. the blood sugar was 425 mg/dL, and the MD was not notified. The DON stated the licensed nurses should have called the MD. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/5/2024 at 2:35 p.m., with the DON, Resident 4's EHR was reviewed. The DON stated there was no documentation reflecting that the nursing staff notified the MD of Resident 4's blood sugars. The DON stated nursing staff failed to follow MD orders and did not implement Resident 4's care plans which caused a delay in needed assessment and services. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure, (P/P) titled, Comprehensive Resident Centered Plan of Care revised January 2021, the P/P indicated it was the policy of the facility that the IDT shall develop and implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for each resident, consistent with residents' rights that includes measurable objectives and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, mental and psychosocial needs that are identified in the comprehensive assessment. The P/P indicated, to the extent possible the resident, the resident's family and or RP should participate in the development of the care plan.
Jan 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0557 (Tag F0557)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 1) was treated with respect and dignity by not providing not providing privacy bag for Resident 1 ' s indwelling urinary catheter bag (drains urine from the bladder into a bag outside your body). This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 1 to feel embarrassed and have low self-esteem (when someone lacks confidence about who they are and what they can do). Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet) indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (chronic condition that affects how the body processes sugar), and hypertension (high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set [(MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 12/11/23. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort. for toileting and showering. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/30/24 at 8:30 a.m. with License Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, in Resident 1 ' s room, observed Resident 1 ' s indwelling urinary catheter drainage bag did not have a privacy bag. LVN 2 stated it was the staff ' s responsibility to ensure that the residents (in general) have a privacy bag. LVN 2 stated the privacy bag provides privacy for Resident 1 ' s indwelling urinary catheter bag so Resident 1 will not feel embarrassed and self-conscious. During an interview on 1/30/24 at 8:35 a.m. in Resident 1 ' s room with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated all facility staff was responsible to ensure all residents (in general) who has indwelling urinary catheter have a privacy bag because the residents (in general) could feel degraded when the drainage bag was exposed. During an interview on 1/30/24 at 9:48 a.m. with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS), the RNS stated all facility staff were responsible for maintaining the residents (in general) indwelling urinary catheter. RNS stated a privacy bag was used for the resident ' s (in general) privacy. RNS stated it violates the residents (in general) right to privacy when they don ' t have a privacy bag. RNS stated without the residents (in general) having a privacy bag it could make them feel embarrassed and uncomfortable. During an interview on 1/30/24 at 11:30 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated all staff were responsible to ensure residents have a privacy bag with their indwelling urinary catheter bag, to provide privacy from everyone seeing the residents (in general) drainage bag. The DON stated with the drainage bag being exposed it could make the resident (in general) feel embarrassed, affect their self-esteem, and feel violated. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Indwelling Urinary Catheter Care, dated 2023, the P&P indicated, Cover the drainage bag with a privacy bag to maintain dignity.
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to identify resident using methods of identificati...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility staff failed to identify resident using methods of identification prior to medication administration of one of two sampled residents (Resident 2) according to the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P). This deficient practice had the potential for medication error for Resident 2 including receiving incorrect medications. Findings: During a review of Resident 2 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (chronic condition that affects how the body processes sugar), dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), and dysphagia (swallowing difficulties). During a review of Resident 2 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/28/23, indicated, Resident 2 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Minimum Data Set [(MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 11/3/23, indicated Resident 2 was dependent (helper does all of the effort) with personal hygiene, toileting, and utilized a manual wheelchair. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/30/24 at 8:45 a.m. with License Vocational Nurse (LVN 3) inside Resident 2 ' s room. Observed LVN 3 administered medication to Resident 2 without verifying Resident 2 ' s identification (name and date of birth ). LVN 3 stated Resident 2 did not have an identification band (wrist band that contains resident name and used to correctly identify resident). LVN 3 stated she failed to verify Resident 2 identity prior to administering the medications. LVN 3 stated Resident 2 should had been identified using methods of identification (identification band, checking photograph or verifying resident identification with another nurse) prior to administering the medication because she could have administered the wrong medication to the wrong resident. LVN 3 stated it could be detrimental (harmful) to Resident 2 and have negative outcome if incorrect medications were administered. LVN 3 stated Resident 2 ' s have five medications including Eliquis- (used to prevent serious blood clots from forming due to a certain irregular heartbeat), Losartan- (used to treat high blood pressure), Metformin- (used to treat diabetes), Colace- (used to treat occasional constipation), and Multi-Vitamin- (a combination of vitamins). During an interview on 1/30/24 at 9:48 a.m. with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS), the RNS stated licensed nurses should follow the facility ' s P&P when administering medications and staff should follow the 6 rights of medication administration (include the right patient, medication, dose, time, route, and documentation) to ensure that the right resident (in general) was receiving the correct medication. RNS stated prior to administering medications to the residents (in general) identification band, picture on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) and verification from staff were used to verify residents identity prior to medication administration. RNS stated verification of a resident (in general) was important because the potential outcome could be an allergic reaction or adverse effect could occur and Resident 2 could die. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/30/24 at 11:30 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the facility ' s P&P titled, Medication Administration-General Guidelines, dated 2021 was reviewed. the P&P indicated residents are identified before medication was administered using (two) methods of identification. Methods of identification include: checking identification band, checking photograph attached to medical record, verifying resident identification with another nurse.The DON stated, the facility ' s P&P should be followed and the 6 rights for medications should be implemented before administering medications to ensure that the right residents (in general) and right medications are given correctly. DON stated it was important to verify the resident because the residents (in general) could experience an adverse reaction such as rash or respiratory issues and die.
Dec 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodations to meet the residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide reasonable accommodations to meet the resident's needs by failing to ensure the resident's television was in working order for one of two sample residents (Resident 24). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact the psychosocial well-being of the resident. Findings: During a review of Resident 24's admission Face Sheet indicated Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 24 had diagnoses that included history of fall, congestive heart failure (CHF - a chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should), and cerebrovascular accident (CVA - stroke; damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply). During a review of History and Physical Examination, dated 5/ 2/ 2018, has the capacity to make decisions. During a review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized comprehensive assessment tool, and care-screening tool) dated 3/2/18, indicated the resident had moderate cognitive (ability to remember, understand, make decisions, and learn) impairment. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/27/2023 at 3:54 p.m., Resident 24 television was off, Resident 24 stated my television has not been working right for many days. Resident 24stated the television goes on and off and was not able to see my Christmas or thanksgiving shows. Resident 24 stated she told her nurse, but no one has fixed it During an interview on 12/28/2023 at 11:42 a.m., with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 4, CNA 4 stated she informs someone that Resident 24's television was not working and needs to be fixed. CNA 4 stated we have a maintenance book to document Residents things that need to be repaired. CNA 4 stated she did not put it in the log. During an interview on 12/28/2023 at 11:45 a.m., with Maintenance Supervisor (MS), MS stated there is a maintenance book where the nurses can write the items that need fixing. MS verified the television was not working and stated no one told me or charted in my book. During an interview on 12/29/2023 at 2:18 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RNS), RNS stated there is a binder where the staff record items that need to be fixed like for instance call light or television. RNS stated if a resident does not like to go to activities, and prefer to stay in their room we should provide alternatives,a part of our diversion and a way to help their needs to be met by having a working television During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Residents Rights Dignity and Respect ,revised 5/2022, indicated schedules of daily activities allow for maximum flexibility for residents to exercise choices about what they will do and when they will do it Residents' individual preferences regarding such things as menus, clothing, religious activities, friendships, activity programs, and entertainment are elicited and respected by the facility.
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, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 failed to checked blood sugar before meals...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 failed to checked blood sugar before meals as ordered by physician for one of three sampled residents (Resident 55). This failure had the potential to result in inaccurate assessment of effectiveness of diabetic medications related to the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus ([DM] a condition in which the body fails to metabolize (process) glucose (sugar) correctly) and can lead to hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). Findings: During an interview on 12/26/2023 at 2:10 p.m. with Resident 55, Resident 55 stated the licensed nurses always checked his blood sugar after he eats his breakfast, and the results are between 150-250 milligram per deciliter ([mg/dl]-unit of measurement). During a review of Resident 55's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 55 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis that include DM. During a review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 11/20/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 55 has moderate cognitive (ability to learn, remember, understand, and make decision) impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 55 has no acute change in mental status and does not show disorganized thinking. During a review of Resident 55's Physician Order Summary Report, dated 10/8/2023, indicated blood sugar check before breakfast and dinner and notify the physician if the result was greater than 250 mg/dl. During a concurrent observation, interview, and record review on 12/28/2023 at 9:26 a.m. with LVN 3 outside of Resident 55's room, observed LVN 3 performed a blood glucose check on Resident 55 with a result of 190 mg/dl. On Resident 55's blood glucose check order, the area was highlighted in red, LVN 3 stated the red highlight meant the task for checking the blood sugar was late and overdue. During an interview on 12/28/2023 at 10 a.m. with Resident 55, Resident 55 stated he ate his breakfast around 7:40 a.m. on 12/28/23. During an interview on 12/28/2023 at 10:57 a.m. with LVN 3, LVN 3 stated it was important to check blood sugar before breakfast to get a baseline of Resident 55's blood sugar before meal. LVN 3 stated checking it after breakfast will give an inaccurate result. During a review of Resident 55 care plan titled Diabetes Mellitus, dated 8/15/2023, indicated the goals were Resident 55 will free from any signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar), hypoglycemia and will have no complications related to DM. The care plan intervention indicated accucheck (machine that measures blood sugar) as ordered (blood sugar check before meals). During an interview on 12/28/2023 at 1 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated staff are performing blood glucose checks on the resident twice a day, before breakfast and before dinner and they need to notify the physician if the reading was above 250 mg/dl. RN 1 states it was important to follow physician's orders to get an accurate blood sugar reading because Resident 55 may be started on a medication that may be unnecessary which may lead to hypoglycemia.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

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 assess and provide intervention for pain for two of tw...

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 assess and provide intervention for pain for two of two sampled residents (Resident 10 and 168) when: a. Resident 10 was not assessed for pain before, during and after wound care dressing change. b. Resident 168 was not assessed for pain when Resident 168 was admitted under hospice care on 12/23/2023. These failures resulted in Resident 10 and Resident 168 continue to suffer from pain. Findings: a.During a review of Resident 10's admission Record ( Face sheet), the Face sheet indicated Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle weakness, stage 4 pressure ulcer ( wound that extend below the subcutaneous fat into your deep tissues like muscle, tendons, and ligaments) of sacral region (bottom of the spine), stage 2 pressure ulcer (wound that affect the upper layer of your skin, open wound), of left heel, right third, fourth, and fifth toes with scabs, diabetes mellitus (a condition in which the body fails to metabolize (process) glucose (sugar) correctly ), and hypertension (high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 10's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 9/13/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 10 had severely impaired cognitive (ability to learn, remember, understand, and make decision) skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 10 had been on prescribed pain medication. During a review of Resident 10's Physician Order summary report for December 2023, the Physician Order summary indicated Resident 10 must be assessed for pain before, during and after administration of treatment. During a review of Resident 10's Physician Order summary report for December 2023, the Physician Order summary indicated Norco ((opioid indicated for the treatment of pain) oral tablet 5-325 milligram ([mg]-unit of measurement) one tablet by mouth every six hours as needed for moderate to severe pain, give one tablet four times a day as needed. During the review of Resident 10's care plan titled Resident has potential for acute /chronic pain related to advanced age and disease process including sacral pressure ulcers. The care plan goal indicated Resident 10 will verbalize adequate relief of pain or ability to cope with incompletely relieved pain. The care plan indicated staff interventions including administer analgesia (pain medication) medication as per physician order, anticipate need for pain relief and respond immediately to any complaint of pain. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/27/2023 at 11:10 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4, observed Resident 10 grimaced (facial expression usually of disgust, disapproval, or pain) and moaned during wound care dressing change. Observed LVN 4 continued to perform wound care dressing change without assessing Resident 10 for pain. LVN 4 stated pain assessment should be done prior to performing wound care dressing change and during wound care dressing change to decrease discomfort and prevent Resident 10 from unnecessary pain. During an interview on 12/27/2023 at 12:29 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2, CNA 2 stated Resident was observed with facial expression of being in discomfort during wound care dressing change. CNA 2 stated before giving care to Resident 10, licensed staff should be assessed for pain to ensure Resident 10 was comfortable during wound care dressing change. b.During the review of Resident 168's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face sheet indicated Resident 168 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including myelodysplastic syndrome (are a group of cancers in which immature blood cells in the bone marrow do not mature or become healthy blood cells), muscle weakness, unsteady on feet and hospice care (care available to residents with a life expectancy of six months or less). During a review of Resident 168's Physician Order summary report of for December 2023, the Physician Order summary indicated Resident 168 was admitted to hospice care, assessed for pain before, during and after administration of treatment. During a review of Resident 168's care plan titled Hospice Care initiated on 12/23/2023, the care plan indicated Resident 168 will be comfortable and pain free through terminal status in the next three months. The care plan interventions indicated to obtain pain history, location, character, intensity, frequency . assess for nonverbal indicators of pain . administer and document prescribed analgesic (pain medication), and pain assessment every shift. During concurrent observation and interview on 12/26/23 at 12:52 p.m. with Resident 168, observed Resident 168 lying in bed, unable to verbalize pain or discomfort. Observed Resident 168 grunt (to make a short, low sound instead of speaking, usually because of anger or pain), no audible words when asked if he was in pain. During concurrent interview and record review on 12/27/23 at 1:16 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 5, LVN 5 stated Resident 168 has been prescribed Morphine Sulfate (opioid pain medication ) oral solution 20 mg/5 milliliter (ml) , give 0.25 ml orally every four hours as needed for pain/ shortness of breath (SOB), give 0.25ml orally/ sublingual every 4 hours as needed for moderate to severe pain (pain scale [tool used to help assess a resident's pain] of 4-10 and or SOB. During concurrent observation and interview on 12/27/23 1:24 p.m. with LVN 5, LVN 5 stated all residents (in general) must be assessed for pain. LVN 5 stated residents on hospice care must be kept comfortable and manage pain their pain issues. Observed LVN 5 asked Resident 168 if he was in pain, observed Resident 168 nodded and pointed to his abdomen indicating pain. LVN 5 then assessed Resident 168 abdomen for pain. LVN 5 gave prescribed medication of morphine sulfate oral solution 20 mg/5ml for pain. During a review of Resident 168 Medication Administration Record (MAR) for December 2023, indicated no documentation of pain assessment from 12/23/23-12/24/2023. The MAR indicated morphine sulfate 20 mg /5 ml was given on 12/27/2023 at 1:24 p.m. when LVN 5 was prompted to assess Resident 168 for pain. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/28/23 11:26 a.m., with LVN 3, reviewed Resident 168 care plan. LVN 3 stated the goals for Resident 168 under hospice care includes comfort care such as free of pain, free of nausea and anxiety. LVN 3 stated Resident 168 has pain medication morphine sulfate and Tylenol (pain medication). LVN 3 stated pain assessment should be done to ensure Resident 168 will be free of pain and be comfortable. During an interview on 12/28/2023 at 11:44 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated pain should be assessed for all residents (in general) prior to start of wound care dressing change. The DON stated pain medication should be given as prescribed by physician after licensed staff assessment of pain and should consider nonverbal facial expression like grimace and moaning. During an interview on 12/29/23 12:31 p.m. with Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated all residents (in general) were assessed for pain before, during and after wound care dressing change. DSD stated continuous assessment of pain during wound care dressing change was important to ensure Resident 10 was comfortable during the treatment (wound care dressing change). During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Pain Management, revised 5/2019, indicated The facility assists each resident with pain to maintain or achieve the highest practicable level of well-being and functioning by: screening to determine if the resident has been or was experiencing pain. Comprehensively assessing the pain. Identifying circumstances when pain can be anticipated. During a review of facility's titled End of Life Care; Hospice and/or Palliative Care, revised 1/22, indicated, The overall assessment will include determination of physical assessment will include: pain .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation interview and record review the facility failed to ensure medication refrigerator temperature was between 36-46 degrees Fahrenheit and the Refrigerator Temperature log were not mi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation interview and record review the facility failed to ensure medication refrigerator temperature was between 36-46 degrees Fahrenheit and the Refrigerator Temperature log were not missing readings on 11pm to 7am, 7am to 3pm, or 3pm to 11pm shifts on 12/27/2023. This deficient practice had the potential for harm to residents due to potential undetected temperature excursions, the potential loss of strength of the medications, and the potential for the residents to receive ineffective medication dosages. Findings: During a concurrent observation and record review on 12/27/2023 at 6 pm in the medication storage room at station one, the medication refrigerator temperature was noted to be 12 degrees Fahrenheit. Reviewed the Refrigerator Temperature Log indicated the temperature had not been checked on the 11pm to 7am, 7am to 3pm, or 3pm to 11pm shifts on 12/27/2023. The top of the Refrigerator Temperature Log indicated, Please maintain the refrigerator between 36-46 degrees Fahrenheit. During an interview on 12/27/2023 at 6:10 pm with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN) 1, RN 1 stated the medication refrigerator temperature should be between 36 to 46 degrees Fahrenheit. RN 1 stated when medication refrigerator temperature was not between 36-46 degrees Fahrenheit it could affect the medications inside the medication refrigerator which could compromised its effectiveness. During an interview on 12/28/2023 at 2:45 pm with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the refrigerator temperature should be checked every shift.
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 the storage, preparation and distribution of food was done under sanitary conditions for residents who eat food from t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the storage, preparation and distribution of food was done under sanitary conditions for residents who eat food from the kitchen by: 1.Failing to maintain refrigerated food temperatures at safe levels. 2. Putting open date and label the food stored in the refrigerator These deficient practices had the potential to result in pathogen (germ) exposure to residents and placed residents at risk for developing foodborne illness (food poisoning) with symptoms including upset stomach, stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting (throwing up), diarrhea (loose stool), and fever and can lead to other serious medical complications and hospitalization. Findings: During an initial kitchen tour on 12/26/2023 at 8:30 a.m.,observed in the walk-in refrigerator there were food items that were not labeled with a use by date as follows: a. Five plates of salad with lettuce, cheese, ham, and eggs wrapped with plastic wrap with no label and date. b.Four plates of cheesecake wrapped in plastic wrap with no label and date. c. Seven cups of salad with lettuce, tomato, ham, and cheese with no label and date. d. Two gallons of opened milk with no date. During an interview on 12/26/23 at 8:40 a.m. with the Dietary Aid DA) 1, DA 1 stated the kitchen staff shift forgot to label the items in the walk in refrigerator on 12/25/23. DA 1 stated kitchen staff should label or food items in the walk in refrigerator and if there was no date it must be thrown out because we do not know if it was spoiled. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/27/2023 at 8 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, observed resident refrigerator with multiple large bags with foods, half bottle of Ruby Red Juice,Chobani Yogurt,two cups of vanilla ice cream with no date or room number. LVN 2 stated that the temperature of the refrigerator was warm at 50 degrees Fahrenheit (ۥ°F-a unit of measurement of temperature) and food items were undated and labeled. LVN 2 stated the correct temperature should be 40 degrees °F and when storing residents' food in the refrigerator you must put a date and residents room number. During an interview on 12/27/2023 at 9 a.m. with the Housekeeper (HK) 1, HK 1 stated she checks the resident refrigerator daily if there was undated food, she was responsible to throw away food with no date or no residents name. HK 1 stated the facility dispose food that was stored for more than three days. HK 1 stated the refrigerator was warm she stated in will call maintenance. During an interview on 12/27/2023 at 9:30 a.m. with Dietary Supervisor (DS), DS stated we need to put dates on prepared and open foods ,so we can keep track on when to use the items and when to discard them. DS stated food was thrown out after 72 hours for residents' safety. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident/ Personal Food Storage, Revised 11/2016 the P&P indicated : 1.Food storage areas should be clean at all times. 2.All refrigeration units will have internal thermometers to monitor for safe food storage temperatures. Units must maintain safe internal temperatures below (41'F) in accordance with the state and federal standards for safe food storage temperatures. Staff will monitor unit refrigerator temperatures daily. All refrigeration units will have internal thermometers to monitor for safe food temperatures. Units must maintain safe internal temperatures in accordance with state and federal standards for safe food temperatures. Staff will monitor and document unit refrigerator temperatures. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Labeling and Dating of Foods, Dated 2023 the P&P indicated : All food items in the storeroom , refrigerator, and freezer need to be labeled and dated. Newley opened food items will need to be closed and labeled with an open date and used by date that follows the various storage guidelines. Leftovers will be covered, labeled, and dated.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · 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 15 of 34 residents rooms met the 80 square feet...

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 15 of 34 residents rooms met the 80 square feet ([sq. ft.] unit of area equal to a square one foot long on each side) per residents in multiple resident rooms. Rooms 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 housed two residents per room, Rooms 18, 20, 21, 35 and 36 housed four residents per room. This deficient practice had the potential to result in inadequate nursing care to the residents. Findings: During an observation on 12/26/2023 at 8:30 a.m., the following rooms were observed room [ROOM NUMBER], 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and room [ROOM NUMBER] did not meet the requirement of 80 square feet per residents. During a review of the Client Accommodations Analysis Form provided by the Administrator (ADM) on 12/29/2023, the Client Accommodations Analysis Form indicated Rooms 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 were occupied by two residents per room and had a total square feet measurement ranging from of 154 square feet to 155 square feet. The Client Accommodations Analysis Form indicated Rooms 18, 20, 21, 35 and 36 were occupied with four residents per room and had a total square feet measurement ranging from 287.28 square feet to 319 square feet. During an interview on 12/29/23 at 03:30 p.m. with Resident 8, Resident 8 stated there was no issues with the room space, Resident 8 stated having adequate space for all the belongings in the multiple resident room. During an interview on 12/29/23 3:51 p.m. with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated he has not received any complaints about care in multiple resident rooms, space was not an issue for providing care. ADM stated the facility has room waiver letter submitted for more than 2 residents in certain rooms. During an observation of rooms 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and room [ROOM NUMBER] from 12/26-12/29/2023 by the survey team, the residents care needs, and health were not affected by room size. The residents or the facility staff, who were providing care to the residents in these resident rooms, did not complain about not having enough space to provide adequate care. The facility provided a request to continue the room waivers.
Sept 2023 2 deficiencies
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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

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 family (FM 1) and physician for one of three sampled 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 the family (FM 1) and physician for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) were notified when transportation was not available to transport Resident 1 to a General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) on 9/1/2023, per the physician's order, and failed to notify Resident 1's physician when Resident 1 had no bowel movement from 9/3/2023 to 9/5/2023. This deficient practice resulted in a delay in evaluation and treatment when Resident 1 complained of abdominal pain and was not transferred to the GACH until 9/5/2023 (four days after the transfer was ordered by Resident 1's physician on 9/1/2023). Findings: a. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last readmitted on [DATE]. The Face Sheet indicated Resident 1's diagnosis included vascular dementia (a decline in thinking skills caused by conditions that blocks or reduces blood flow to various regions of the brain). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]), a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 7/7/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 required extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) from one staff to complete his personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's Nursing Progress Notes, dated 9/1/2023, and timed at 6:56 p.m., the Nursing Progress Notes indicated, LVN 2 notified Resident 1's Physician regarding Resident 1's complaint of stomach pain. The Nursing Progress Notes indicated a transfer order was received and carried out. During a review of Resident 1's Physician's Order, dated 9/1/2023 and timed at 6:30 p.m., the Physician's Order indicated Resident 1 may be transferred to a GACH for evaluation via a Basic Life Support ambulance (used to transport stable patients). During a review of Resident 1's Nursing Progress Notes dated 9/5/2023 (four days after the Resident 1's physician ordered the resident transferred to the GACH), the Nursing Progress Notes indicated, at 2:30 p.m., Resident 1 was transferred to a GACH via an ambulance for further investigation of abdominal pain. During an interview on 9/19/2023, at 3:11 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) stated, Resident 1 did not transfer to the GACH on 9/1/2023 because of transportation issues. LVN 1 stated, she did not know if anyone notified Resident 1's physician or Resident 1's family. LVN 1 stated, there was no documentation regarding a transportation issue or if notifications were made to Resident 1's physician or family. LVN 1 stated, the licensed nursing staff should have followed up with the transportation company and notified Resident 1's physician and family as soon as they found out about the transportation issues. During an interview on 9/19/2023, at 3:16 p.m., Registered Nurse Supervisor 1 (RNS 1) stated, it was RNS's responsibility to notify Resident 1's physician and family if Resident 1 had a change of condition (COC). RNS 1 stated, she did not work on 9/1/2023 and the night shift RNS did not endorse that there were transportation issues, nor was there anything documented in the nursing notes regarding issues with transportation, so there was no way to know what happened on 9/1/2023. During a telephone interview on 9/19/2023, at 4:45 p.m., FM 1 stated, he thought Resident 1 was transferred to the GACH on 9/1/2023, but he found out she was still at the facility on 9/5/2023. FM 1 stated, no one informed him that Resident 1 had not been transferred to the GACH. During an interview on 9/20/2023 at 11:42 a.m., LVN 2 stated, she did not notify Resident 1's physician or FM 1 when there were transportation issues and when Resident 1 was not transferred to the GACH. LVN 2 stated, there was a delay of treatment that could have resulted in Resident 1 having fecal impaction (a large mass of hardened stool that accumulates in the colon or rectum and cannot be evacuated spontaneously). During an interview on 9/20/2023, at 11:55 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, he was not notified of the transportation issue or the delay in transporting Resident 1 to the GACH until 9/5/2023. The DON stated, LVNs should have followed up with the transportation company right away, but they did not. b. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, (Physician's Order) dated 4/1/2023, the Physician's Order indicated to administer Lactulose (a medication uses to treat constipation [difficulty passing feces]) 30 milliliter ([ml] a unit of measurement) for constipation. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan, revised 7/8/2023, the Care Plan indicated, Resident 1 was at risk for constipation. The Care Plan's Interventions indicated to monitor, document and report to Resident 1's Physician regarding signs and symptoms of complications related to constipation such as confusion and abdomen tenderness. During an interview on 9/19/2023 at 4:45 p.m., FM 1 stated, Resident 1 had been having constipation issues and he believed she did not have a bowel movement for three days. FM 1 stated, Resident 1 needed to have bowel movement every day, otherwise, she would complain of stomach pain. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/20/2023, at 11:42 a.m., with LVN 2, Resident 1's Bowel Task Log, dated 9/1/2023 to 9/5/2023 was reviewed. The Bowel Task Log indicated Resident 1 had no bowel movements from 9/3/2023 to 9/5/2023. LVN 2 stated, Resident 1 had an order for Lactulose, but it was not given. LVN 2 stated, Lactulose should have been given as ordered when Resident 1 did not have bowel movements for three days. LVN 2 stated, she did not but should have notified Resident 1's physician and FM 1 when Resident 1 did not have a bowel movement for three days. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/20/2023, at 11:55 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 9/2023 was reviewed. The MAR indicated Lactulose was last given on 9/1/2023. The DON stated, the LVNs should have given Lactulose to Resident 1 as needed and notified Resident 1's Physician if it was not effective. The DON stated Resident 1's Physician should have been notified when Resident 1 had a COC in order to provide proper treatment. During a telephone interview on 9/25/2023, at 2:19 p.m., Resident 1's Physician stated, Resident 1 was having chronic (persisting for a long time) constipation and was receiving stool softeners and laxatives (a medication that helps relieve constipation) around the clock. Resident 1's Physician stated, he was contacted by LVN 2 on 9/1/2023 regarding Resident 1's abdominal pain and he ordered to transfer Resident 1 to the GACH for further evaluation. Resident 1's Physician stated, he was not notified that there were transportation issues that delayed Resident 1's transfer to the GACH or that Resident 1 had no bowel for three days. Resident 1's Physician stated, nursing staff called him on 9/5/2023 and asked for an order to transfer Resident 1 to the GACH and that was how he found out Resident 1 had not been transferred to the GACH on 9/1/2023. Resident 1's Physician stated, this delayed Resident 1's treatment and he did not appreciate how he was not notified right away. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure( P&P) titled, Change of Condition Reporting, dated 5/2019, the P&P indicated, all changes in resident condition will be communicated to the physician. The responsible party will be notified that there has been a change in the resident's condition and what steps are being taken. Document resident change of condition and response in change of condition and nursing progress notes, and update resident care plan as indicated. All attempts to reach the physician and responsible party will be documented in the nursing progress notes. Documentation will include time and response. The licensed nurse responsible for the Resident will continue assessment and documentation every shift for at least seventy-two (72) hours or until condition has stabilized. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Job Description: Registered Nurse Supervisor, dated 12/17/2021, the P&P indicated, to notify the resident's attending physician and next of kin when there is a change in the resident's condition. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Job Description: License Vocational Nurse/Licensed Practical Nurse, dated 12/17/2021, the P&P indicated, to prepare and administer medications as ordered by the physician, chart all changes in resident condition and the response to those changes, chart all communications with the resident's attending physician regarding the resident, the resident's treatment, or the response to that treatment.
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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

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 Lactulose (a medication use to treat constipation [difficult...

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 Lactulose (a medication use to treat constipation [difficulty passing feces]), as prescribed, was administered to one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1 did not have a bowel movement for three days. When an order was obtained for Resident 1 to be transferred to a General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) on 9/1/2023, Resident 1 was not transferred, per the physician's order, until 9/5/2023 (four days after the order to transfer to the GACH on 9/1/2023) These deficient practices resulted in Resident 1's complaints of abdominal pain and a delay in evaluation and treatment. Resident 1 was transferred to a GACH on 9/5/2023 and was treated with a soap suds enema (a mixture of a mild soap and warm water injected into the colon in order to stimulate a bowel movement) twice in the GACH's Emergency Department (ED). Findings: a. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last admitted on [DATE]. The Face Sheet indicated Resident 1's diagnosis included vascular dementia (a decline in thinking skills caused by conditions that blocks or reduces blood flow to various regions of the brain). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]), a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 7/7/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 required extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) from one staff for personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, (Physician's Order) dated 4/1/2023, the Physician's Order indicated to administer Lactulose (a medication uses to treat constipation [difficulty passing feces]) 30 milliliter ([ml] a unit of measurement) for constipation. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan, revised 7/8/2023, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 was at risk for constipation. The Care Plan indicated to administer medications as ordered such as Lactulose 30 milliliter ([ml] a unit of measurement) by mouth every 12 hours as needed for constipation and to keep Resident 1's physician informed of any problems. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/20/2023, at 11:42 a.m., with LVN 2, Resident 1's Bowel Task Log, dated from 9/1/2023 to 9/5/2023 was reviewed. The Bowel Task Log indicated Resident 1 had no bowel movements from 9/3/2023 to 9/5/2023. LVN 2 stated, Resident 1 had an order for Lactulose, but it was not given. LVN 2 stated, Lactulose should have been given as ordered when Resident 1 did not have bowel movements for three days. LVN 2 stated, the delay in treatment could lead to fecal impaction (a large mass of hardened stool that accumulates in the colon or rectum and cannot be evacuated spontaneously). During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/20/2023, at 11:55 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 9/2023 was reviewed. The MAR indicated Lactulose was last given to Resident 1 on 9/1/2023. The DON stated, the LVNs should have given Lactulose to Resident 1 as needed and notified Resident 1's Physician if it was not effective. During a telephone interview on 9/25/2023, at 2:19 p.m., Resident 1's Physician stated, Resident 1 was having chronic (persisting for a long time) constipation and was receiving stool softeners and laxatives (a medication that helps relieve constipation) around the clock b. During a review of Resident 1's Nursing Progress Notes, dated 9/1/2023, and timed at 6:56 p.m., the Nursing Progress Notes indicated LVN 2 notified Resident 1's Physician regarding Resident 1's complaint of stomach pain. The Nursing Progress Notes indicated a transfer order was received and carried. During a review of Resident 1's Physician's Order, dated 9/1/2023 and timed at 6:30 p.m., the Physician's Order indicated Resident 1 may be transferred to a GACH for evaluation via a Basic Life Support ambulance (used to transport stable patients). During a review of Resident 1's Nursing Progress Notes dated 9/5/2023 (four days after the Resident 1's physician ordered the resident transferred to the GACH), the Nursing Progress Notes indicated, at 2:30 p.m., Resident 1 was transferred to a GACH via ambulance for further investigation of abdominal pain. During an interview on 9/19/2023, at 3:11 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) stated, Resident 1 was not transferred to the GACH on 9/1/2023 because of transportation issues. During an interview on 9/20/2023, at 11:55 a.m., DON stated, he was not notified of any transportation issue or the delay in transporting Resident 1 to the GACH until 9/5/2023. The DON stated, the LVNs should have followed up with the transporting company right away, but they did not do it. During a telephone interview on 9/25/2023, at 2:19 p.m., Resident 1's Physician stated, he was contacted by LVN 2 on 9/1/2023 regarding Resident 1's abdominal pain and he ordered to transfer Resident 1 to the GACH for further evaluation. Resident 1's Physician stated, nursing staff called him on 9/5/2023 and asked for an order to transfer Resident 1 to the GACH and that was how he found out Resident 1 did not transfer to the GACH on 9/1/2023. During a review of the facility's Job Description: License Vocational Nurse/ Licensed Practical Nurse, dated 12/17/2021, the Job Description indicated, essential duties and responsibilities are to prepare and administer medications as ordered by the physician. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Admission, Transfer, and Discharge, revised 11/2016, the P&P indicated, when the facility transfers or discharges a resident, the facility shall ensure that the transfer or discharge is documented in the resident's medical record.
Aug 2023 2 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the residents' ordered medications were available for admin...

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 residents' ordered medications were available for administration and were administered to residents as prescribed by the physician for four out of five sampled residents (Residents 1, 2, 3, and 4). The facility failed to: 1. Ensure Resident 1 received Seroquel [Quetiapine] a medication used to treat psychotic disorders [a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality]), 150 milligrams [(mg) unit of measurement] twice a day (BID) as ordered for behavioral management. 2. Ensure Resident 2 received Prednisone (a medication used to decrease inflammation [body's response to injury marked by redness, heat, swelling and pain]) 10 mg three-times a day (TID) as ordered for knee inflammation. 3. Ensure Resident 3 received Empagliflozin ([Jardiance] a medication used to improve glucose [blood sugar (BS)] control in people with type 2 diabetes [(DM) a chronic condition which affects the way the body processes BS]), 10 mg daily as ordered for DM. 4. Ensure Resident 4 received injectable Dulaglutide ([Trulicity]) a medication used to improve BS in people with type 2 DM) 0.75 mg/0.5 milliliters ([ml] a unit of measurement) subcutaneously (under the skin) once a week as ordered for DM management. 5. Ensure the licensed nurses did not document the administration of Seroquel, Prednisone, Empagliflozin and Trulicity as given to Residents 1, 2, 3 and 4 when neither of the medications were present in the facility and available for administration. 6. Ensure the licensed nurses verified receipt of ordered medications Seroquel, Prednisone, Empagliflozin and Trulicity and followed-up with the pharmacy when medications were not available for administration to Resident 1, 2, 3 and 4. 7. Ensure the facility had a system in place to determine if the pharmacy received medications orders and to verify medications were dispensed/delivered. 8. Ensure the licensed nurses followed the facility policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Medication Ordering and Receiving from Pharmacy Provider, by contacting the pharmacy and informing of the need for prompt delivery of missing medications for Resident 1, 2, 3 and 4 and requesting delivery within four hours. a. These failures resulted in Residents 1, 2, 3 and 4 not receiving their prescribed medications as ordered placing the residents at risk for ineffective medication management. b. These failures placed Residents 1 at risk for exacerbation of symptoms of uncontrolled behavior compromising Resident 1's safety and safety of other residents and staff. Also, these failures placed Resident 1 and others at risk for injuries. c. These failures placed Resident 2 at risk for unresolved knee inflammation and pain and placed at risk for the potential for deteriorating physical function of a knee. d. These failures placed Resident 3 and Resident 4 at risk for hyperglycemia (high BS) with related adverse effect including coma (state of prolonged unconsciousness, including lack of response from which it is impossible to rouse a person) and possible death. On 8/18/2023 at 3:15 p.m., an Immediate Jeopardy ([IJ] a situation in which the provider's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation caused, or was likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident) related to lack of the system to ensure the residents receive ordered medications per physician's order was called in the presence of the Administrator (ADM) and the Director of Nursing (DON). On 8/21/2023 at 3:14 p.m., the ADM submitted an acceptable IJ removal plan ([IJRP] an intervention to immediately correct the deficient practices). After onsite verification of the IJRP implementation through observation, interview, and record review, the IJ was removed on 8/21/2023 at 3:42 p.m., in the presence of the ADM and the DON. The IJRP included the following: 1. On 8/3/2023, Resident 1 was transferred to a General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) for hypotension (low blood pressure) and bradycardia (slow heart rate) and did not return to the facility. Resident 1 was discharged from the facility on 8/10/2023. 2. On 7/14/2023, Resident 3 was transferred to the GACH for chest pain and did not return to the facility. Resident 3 was discharged from the facility on 7/21/2023. 3. On 8/18/2023 and 8/19/2023, the primary physicians and the residents Responsible Partys (RP) were notified regarding the residents' not receiving medications as ordered. A licensed nurse assessed Residents 2 and 4 to determine if there were any adverse effects identified related to their missed medications, no adverse effects were found. 4. On 8/14/2023, the facility's pharmacy nurses conducted a cart audit of the two medication carts in the facility to ensure all medications prescribed to residents were present and available for administration. The pharmacy nurses identified 19 medications that were not available in the medication carts and those medications were immediately ordered from the pharmacy. For those residents whose medications were unavailable, they were assessed by the facility's licensed nurses and the resident's physicians and RPs. There were no adverse effects identified. 5. On 8/18/2023, a repeat medication cart audit was conducted on the two medication carts in the facility, by the facility's pharmacy nurses, to ensure all medications prescribed to residents were present and available for administration. The pharmacy nurses identified four medications that were not available in the medication carts and those medications were immediately ordered from the pharmacy. For those residents whose medications were unavailable, they were assessed by the facility's licensed nurses and the resident's physicians and RPs. There were no adverse effects identified. 6. On 8/18/2023, the facility's Clinical Resource Registered Nurse (CRRN 1) observed a 5 p.m. medication administration to ensure residents received all medications prescribed to them. All 70 residents received their medications as ordered. 7. On 8/18/2023, in-services were initiated for all licensed nurses on documenting the correct medication to prevent falsification of medication administration records. 8. On 8/18/2023, in-services were initiated for all licensed nurses on the correct way (how, when, and what time) to document administration of medication on the electronic medical record ([EHR] an electronic version which automates the documentation, storage, and retrieval of patient records). 9. On 8/18/2023 and 8/19/2023, the facility's clinical resource nurses conducted an audit of all active residents (70) medication administration records (MAR) against the pharmacy delivery receipts to determine the extent to which other residents in the facility may not have received prescribed/ordered medications. There were two residents identified who did not receive their medications. A licensed nurse assessed the two resident and notification to the resident's physician and RP was made. There were no adverse effects identified. 10. On 8/18/2023, in-services were initiated for all licensed nurses on when and how to order medications from the pharmacy, how to follow up with the pharmacy to ensure medications were received, and how to follow up with the pharmacy if the medications were not received. 11. On 8/18/2023, in-services were initiated for all licensed nurses on the contents of the facility's emergency kits ([E-Kit] a small quantity of medications which can be dispensed when pharmacy services are not available). On narcotics (a medication which causes insensibility [unconsciousness] or stupor [unresponsiveness from which a person can be aroused only by vigorous, physical stimulation]), E-Kit intravenous ([IV] within a vein), E-Kit, intramuscular ([IM] in the muscle), nonantibiotic E-Kit medications, and on Kayexalate (medication used to treat high levels of potassium [a mineral found in the body which helps the body work properly] in the blood). The in-services also included the process to utilize medications from the E-Kit and the process for ordering a replacement E-Kit. 12. Twenty-five licensed nurses were identified as needing one-to-one in-services. 16 of the licensed nurses were registry staff who will not be returning to the facility and the other 9 licensed nurses received written disciplinary action and one to one ([1:1] one teaching or giving information to the other) in-service by the DON/designee. Findings: A. A review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet) indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including major depressive disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life) and schizoaffective disorder (a mental condition which causes both a loss of contact with reality and mood problems). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/12/2023, indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills for daily decision-making were severely impaired and he was sometimes understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 exhibited physical (which can include hitting, kicking, pushing, scratching, grabbing, and abusing others sexually) and verbal (which can include threatening others, screaming at others, and cursing at others) behaviors that were directed towards others one to three days in a seven-day period. The MDS indicated Resident 1's behavioral symptoms put Resident 1 and others at significant risk for physical injury, significantly interfered with the Resident 1's care, significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others, and significantly disrupted the care or living environment of others and received antidepressant medication (a class of medications used for the treatment of depression). A review of Resident 1's Care Plan (CP), untitled and dated 7/19/2023, indicated Resident 1 had a potential for mood problems related to depression and schizoaffective disorder. The CP's goal indicated Resident 1 would have an improved mood state through review date of 8/15/2023. The CP's interventions included to administer medications as ordered. A review of Resident 1's CP untitled and dated 7/19/2023, indicated Resident 1 had behavior problems as evidenced by aggressive, combative behaviors, and attempting to hit staff members related to his diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. The CP's goal indicated Resident 1 would have fewer episodes of aggressive, combative behaviors, decreased episodes of attempting to hit staff members and would have no evidence of behavior problems through the review date of 8/15/2023. The CP's interventions included to administer medications as ordered. A review of Resident 1's Nurses Progress Notes (NPN), dated 7/13/2023 and timed at 3:26 p.m., and a Change of Condition ([COC] a document indicating a deterioration or improvement in a resident's physical or behavioral health which may require a modification in the resident's treatment) dated 7/14/2023 and timed at 6:35 a.m., and a NPN dated 7/20/2023 and timed at 4:30 p.m., indicated Resident 1 exhibited behaviors which included wiping feces on his body, kicking, slapping, making racial remarks to facility staff, irritability and being easily annoyed by staff. A review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report ([OSR] physician's orders), dated 7/20/2023 indicated Resident 1 had a physician's order dated 7/20/23 for Seroquel 150 mg BID for behavior management for administration at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. daily. A review of Resident 1's Pharmacy Delivery Receipt dated 8/16/2023, indicated 186 tablets of Seroquel 150 mg were delivered to the facility on 7/30/2023, which was 10 days later from the order date (7/20/23). A review of Resident 1's MAR, dated 7/2023, indicated Seroquel 150 mg was signed off as administered to Resident 1 from 7/20/2023 to 7/29/2023 at 9 a.m., and/or 5 p.m. The MAR indicated documentation that Seroquel 150 mg was not available from the pharmacy on 7/21/2023, 7/23/2023, 7/28/2023, and 7/30/2023 for the 9 a.m., and/or 5 p.m., doses. The MAR indicated Resident 1 missed 20 doses of Seroquel from 7/20/2023 to 7/29/2023 due to the medication not being available at the facility. A review of Resident 1's MAR, dated 7/2023, indicated Seroquel 150 mg was documented as given to Resident 1 when the medication was not available at the facility as follows: 1. On 7/20/2023, at 5 p.m. 2. On 7/21/2023, at 5 p.m. 3. On 7/22/2023, at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 4. On 7/23/2023, at 9 a.m. 5. On 7/24/2023, at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 6. On 7/25/2023, at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 7. On 7/26/2023, at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. 8. On 7/27/2023, at 5 p.m. 9. On 7/28/2023, at 5 p.m. 10. On 7/29/2023, at 5 p.m. A review of Resident 1's MAR comments dated 7/2023, indicated the licensed nurses documented Resident 1's Seroquel 150 mg as not available from the pharmacy as follows: 1. On 7/21/2023, for the 9 a.m. dose. 2. On 7/23/2023, for the 5 p.m. dose. 3. On 7/28/2023, for the 9 a.m. dose. 4. On 7/30/2023, at 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. A review of Resident 1's NPN, dated 7/20/2023 to 7/31/2023, indicated there was no documentation by the licensed nurses indicating the facility's pharmacy was notified Resident 1's Seroquel had not been delivered to the facility. During an interview on 8/17/2023 at 4:35 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) acknowledged he documented that he administered Seroquel to Resident 1 on 7/21/2023, 7/26/2023, 7/27/2023, and 7/28/2023, at 5 p.m. LVN 1 stated he was probably in a hurry and did not verify Seroquel was in the medication cart prior to documenting he administered it to Resident 1. LVN 1 stated, it was hard to stay focused and pay attention during his medication pass because there were so many interruptions during his shift. During an interview on 8/18/2023 at 3:54 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN 2) stated on 7/30/2023 at 9 a.m., she documented on the NPN Seroquel was not available. RN 2 stated she did not call the pharmacy to follow up on the missing Seroquel because she thought someone else had already called the pharmacy and the Seroquel was going to be delivered. RN 2 stated she did not know Seroquel was available in the nonantibiotic Emergency-Kit. B. A review of Resident 2's admission Record (Face Sheet) indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including history of falling, difficulty in walking and displaced fracture (bone breaks into two or more parts) of the right femoral neck (region just below the hip joint [where two bones meet]). A review of Resident 2's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 2's cognitive skills for daily decision-making were severely impaired and Resident 2 was usually understood by other and was usually able to understand others. A review of Resident 2's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/3/2023, indicated Resident 2 was able to make her own medical decisions. A review of Resident 2's OSR, dated 7/6/2023 indicated a physician's order for Prednisone 10 mg TID at 7:30 a.m., 12 noon and 5 p.m.) for knee inflammation. The OSR indicated Prednisone was to be discontinued on 7/9/2023 at 11:59 p.m. A review of Resident 2's Pharmacy Delivery Receipt dated 8/16/2023, indicated there was no documentation to indicate Prednisone 10 mg was delivered to the facility for Resident 2 and was available for administration. A review of Resident 2's MAR, dated 7/2023, indicated Prednisone 10 mg was administered to Resident 1 from 7/7/2023 to 7/9/2023 at 12 p.m., and/or 5 p.m. The MAR indicated the licensed nurses documented Prednisone 10 mg was not available on 7/8/2023 and 7/9/2023 at 7:30 a.m., and/or 12 p.m. The MAR indicated Resident 2 received five doses of Prednisone from 7/7/2023 to 7/9/2023 when the medication was not available at the facility. Resident 2 did not receive a total of seven doses of Prednisone. A review of the facility's nonantibiotic E-Kit Binder dated 7/2023 indicated there was no documentation that Prednisone 10 mg was removed from the E-Kit for administration to Resident 2. A review of Resident 2's NPN, dated 7/20/2023 to 7/29/2023, indicated there was no documentation by the licensed nurses they followed up with the facility's pharmacy regarding Resident 2's Prednisone order. During an interview on 8/16/2023 at 1:23 p.m., Resident 2 stated there were several days when she got a different number of pills when she received her medications, some days I got five pills, and some days six pills. Resident 2 stated, she asked the licensed nurses to explain what medications they were giving her and why the number of pills were inconsistent, and they (the licensed nurses) were not able to explain. During an interview on 8/21/2023 at 2:21 p.m., LVN 2 acknowledged she documented Prednisone as given to Resident 2 at 12 p.m., on 7/7/2023 and 7/12/2023 when she actually did not administer Prednisone to her (Resident 2). LVN 2 stated she thinks she was working too fast and documented the medication as given by accident. C. A review of Resident 3's admission Record (Face Sheet) indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including type 2 DM and congestive heart failure ([CHF] a chronic condition in which the heart doesn't pump blood as well as it should). A review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 3 made independent decisions that were reasonable and consistent. A review of Resident 3's OSR dated 3/28/2023, indicated a physician's order to Resident 3 for Empagliflozin 10 mg once a day for DM. A review of the facility's Pharmacy Consolidated Delivery Sheet dated 6/8/2023, indicated 14 tablets of Empagliflozin 10 mg were delivered to the facility for Resident 3 on 6/8/2023. If Resident 3 was receiving Empagliflozin 10 mg one tablet daily as ordered, 14 tablets received on 6/8/23 would have lasted until 6/22/2023. A review of Resident 3's MAR, dated 6/2023, indicated Empagliflozin 10 mg was administered to Resident 3 daily from 6/23/2023 to 6/30/2023. A review of Resident 3's Pharmacy Delivery Receipt dated 8/16/2023, indicated there was no documentation that Empagliflozin 10 mg was delivered to the facility for Resident 3 after 6/8/2023. A review of Resident 3's MAR, dated 7/2023, indicated Empagliflozin 10 mg was administered to Resident 3 daily from 7/1/2023 to 7/4/2023, and from 7/7/2023 to 7/11/2023. The MAR indicated documentation by the licensed nurses that Empagliflozin 10 mg was not available from the pharmacy on 7/5/2023, 7/6/2023 and 7/12/2023. The MAR indicated the licensed nurses documented Resident 3 received 17 doses of Empagliflozin from 6/23/2023 to 7/12/2023 when the medication was not available in the facility. Resident 3 subsequently missed a total of 19 doses of Empagliflozin 10 mg. A review of Resident 3's NPN, dated 6/23/2023 to 7/12/2023, indicated there was no documentation by the licensed nurses to indicate the licensed nurses notified the pharmacy of missing Empagliflozin 10 mg when the medication ran out. A review of Resident 3's Grievance Resolution Form (GRF) dated 7/4/2023, indicated Resident 3 had concerns with his diabetes medication. The GRF indicated the summary of findings/conclusion and corrective actions sections were left blank. D. A review of Resident 4's admission Records (Face Sheet) indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including type 2 DM and acute kidney failure (a sudden episode of kidney failure or kidney damage which happens within a few hours or days). A review of Resident 4's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 4's cognitive skills for daily decision-making were moderately impaired and the resident was usually understood others and was usually understood by others. A review of Resident 4's OSR dated 6/22/2023, indicated a physician's order for Trulicity 0.75 mg/0.5 milliliters ([ml] a unit of measurement) once a week, every Sunday at 9 a.m., for diabetes management. A review of Resident 4's MAR from 6/25/2023 to 7/16/2023 indicated Resident 4 missed three doses of Trulicity. A review of the facility's Pharmacy Delivery Receipt (PDR) dated 6/23/2023, indicated one dose of Trulicity 0.75 mg/0.5 ml was delivered to the facility on 6/23/2023 at 2:02 a.m. There were no additional PDRs for June 2023. A review of the facility's PDR dated 8/16/2023, containing information of medications delivered to the facility in July 2023, indicated there was no documentation to indicate Trulicity 0.75 mg/0.5 ml was delivered to the facility after 6/23/2023. A review of Resident 4's MAR dated 6/2023, indicated Resident 4's Trulicity 0.75 mg/0.5ml was not available from the pharmacy on 6/25/2023. A review of Resident 4's MAR dated 7/2023, indicated Resident 4's Trulicity 0.75 mg/0.5 ml was not available from the pharmacy on 7/2/2023 and 7/16/2023. A review of Resident 4's NPN, dated from 6/25/2023 to 7/16/2023 indicated there was no documentation by the licensed nurses that they notified the pharmacy and followed up on Resident 4's Trulicity order when it was not available for administration as prescribed. During a phone interview on 8/16/2023 at 3:49 p.m. with the Pharmacy Owner (PO 1), the PO 1 stated there was no documentation of Trulicity 0.75 mg/0.5 ml being delivered to the facility after 6/23/23. During a phone interview on 8/17/2023 at 1:38 p.m. with Pharmacy Receptionist (PR 1), PR 1 stated one dose of Trulicity 0.75 mg/0.5 ml was delivered to the facility on 6/23/2023 at 2:02 a.m. The PR 1 stated this was the only dose of Trulicity delivered to the facility for Resident 4. During an interview on 8/17/2023 at 2:28 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated the facility received one dose of Trulicity 0.75 mg/0.5ml on 6/23/2023 at 2:02 a.m. The DON stated he does not have any documentation indicating any additional doses of Resident 4's Trulicity 0.75 mg/0.5 ml was delivered to the facility after 6/23/2023. During an interview on 8/14/2023 at 12:59 p.m., Resident 4 stated the facility previously had issues with the pharmacy not delivering his medications timely. A review of the facility's Resident Council Minutes (RCM), dated 6/22/2023, indicated the residents' concerns included medications not being refilled in a timely manner. The RCM indicated in-services were given to the licensed nurses regarding medications refills. A review of the facility's RCM, dated 7/20/2023, indicated residents were concerned because medications were not being refilled, were not available, and the licensed nurses from the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m., shift were not able to find the resident's medications. During a concurrent interview and RCM review with the DON on 8/17/2023 at 10:06 a.m., the DON confirmed the RCM had no documented resolution to the residents' concerns about medications refill and availability. The DON stated he only looked at timeliness of the medication administration. During a telephone interview on 8/17/2023 at 11:47 a.m., the facility's Pharmacist Consultant (PC) stated accurate documentation of medication administration on the MAR is important because it is reviewed to determine the next time a dose of medication should be administered, to determine if the ordered dosage was effective or needs to be adjusted. The PC stated it is the licensed nurse's responsibility to follow-up with the pharmacy if the medications are not available so the resident can receive their medications as quickly as possible. The PC stated if residents go several days without taking their prescribed medications, it is considered a medication error and poses a risk to that residents to have a negative outcome including uncontrolled pain, behavioral issues, hyperglycemia potentially leading to unnecessary hospitalizations. During an interview on 8/17/2023 at 2:28 p.m., the DON stated the correct way to prepare medications for administration is to take the medication cart to the resident's doorway, verify using the resident's MAR with the medications ordered, prepare the medications, identify the correct resident, administer the medication to the resident, and document the medication as given. The DON stated the licensed nurses should not document medications as given when they (licensed nurses) have not actually administered the medications to the residents. The DON stated if residents do not get their medications as prescribed, the residents are at risk for adverse effects including hyperglycemia, pain, increased inflammation, uncontrolled behaviors which could potentially lead to hospitalizations. During an interview on 8/19/2023 at 10:39 a.m., the Pharmacy Owner (PO) stated the nonantibiotic E-Kit has a list of common medications which are available for the facility's use if there is a delay in receiving medications from the pharmacy or a medication order is not placed. The PO stated the medications in the E-kit can be used until the regular order arrives to the facility. The PO stated the purpose of having the E-Kit is to prevent a delay in medication administration. A review of the facility's undated P/P titled, Medication Ordering and Receiving from Pharmacy Provider, indicated new medications are ordered if needed before the next regular delivery, phone in the pharmacy after faxing the medication order. Inform the pharmacy of the need for prompt delivery and request delivery within four hours. Timely delivery of new orders is required so that medication administration is not delayed. The emergency kit is used when the resident needs a medication prior to the pharmacy delivery. A review of the facility's undated P/P titled, Specific Medication Administration Procedures, indicated after administration, the licensed nurses are to document the administration in the MAR. A review of the facility's LVN Job Description (JD), dated 12/17/2021, indicated duties and responsibilities include the following: 1. Prepares and administers medications as ordered by the physician. 2. Ensure accuracy of documentation. 3. Ensures that adequate stock levels of medications are maintained. A review of the facility's RN JD dated 12/17/2021 indicated duties and responsibilities of the RN include to ensure adequate stock levels of medications are maintained.
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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

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 documentation on the Medication Administration Record ([MAR]...

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 documentation on the Medication Administration Record ([MAR] a record of all mediations administered to a resident) accurately reflected medications administered to three out of five sampled residents (Residents 1, 2 and 3). These deficient practices resulted in the inaccurate documentation that Seroquel ([Quetiapine] a medication used to treat psychotic disorders [a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality]), was administered to Resident 1, Prednisone (a medication used to decrease inflammation [swelling]) was administered to Resident 2 and Empagliflozin ([Jardiance] a medication used to improve glucose [blood sugar (b/s)] control in people with type 2 diabetes ([DM] a chronic condition which affects the way the body processes b/s) was administered to Resident 3. These deficient practices placed Residents 1, 2 and 3 at risk for increased and/or uncontrolled behaviors which could affect the safety of other residents, staff and visitors and had the potential for inflammation (body's response to injury marked by redness, heat, swelling and pain) to be unresolved, pain, hyperglycemia (high b/s), coma (state of prolonged unconsciousness, including lack of response from which it is impossible to rouse a person), and death. Findings: A. A review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet) indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including major depressive disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life)and schizoaffective disorder (a mental condition which causes both a loss of contact with reality and mood problems. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/12/2023, indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills for daily decision-making were severely impaired and he was sometimes understood by others and sometimes understood others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 exhibited physical (which can include hitting, kicking, pushing, scratching, grabbing, and abusing others sexually) and verbal (which can include threatening others, screaming at others, and cursing at others) behaviors that were directed towards others one to three days in a seven-day period. The MDS indicated Resident 1's behavioral symptoms put Resident 1 and others at significant risk for physical injury, significantly interfered with the Resident 1's care, significantly intruded on the privacy or activity of others, and significantly disrupted the care or living environment of others and received antidepressant medication (a class of medications used for the treatment of depression). A review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report ([OSR] physician's orders), dated 7/20/2023 indicated Resident 1 was to receive Seroquel 150 mg two times daily (9 a.m. and 5 p.m.) for behavior management. A review of Resident 1's MAR, dated 7/2023, indicated Seroquel 150 mg was administered to Resident 1 from 7/20/2023 to 7/29/2023 at 9 a.m., and/or 5 p.m. Continued review of the MAR indicated documentation that Seroquel 150 mg was not available from the pharmacy on 7/21/2023, 7/23/2023, 7/28/2023, and 7/30/2023 for the 9 a.m., and/or 5 p.m., doses. During an interview on 8/17/2023 at 4:35 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) acknowledged he documented that he administered Seroquel to Resident 1 on 7/21/2023, 7/26/2023, 7/27/2023, and 7/28/2023, at 5 p.m. LVN 1 stated he was probably in a hurry and did not verify Seroquel was in the medication cart prior to documenting he administered it to Resident 1. LVN 1 stated, it was hard to stay focused and pay attention during his medication pass because there were so many interruptions during his shift. B. A review of Resident 2's admission Record (Face Sheet) indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including history of falling, difficulty in walking and displaced fracture (bone breaks into two or more parts) of the right femoral neck (region just below the hip joint [where two bones meet]). A review of Resident 2's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 2 ' s cognitive skills for daily decision-making were severely impaired and Resident 2 was usually understood by other and was usually able to understand others. A review of Resident 2's OSR, dated 7/6/2023 indicated an order for Prednisone 10 mg TID (three times daily at 7:30 a.m., 12 noon and 5 p.m.) for knee inflammation on 7/6/2023. The OSR indicated Prednisone was to be discontinued on 7/9/2023 at 11:59 p.m. A review of Resident 2's Pharmacy Delivery Receipt dated 8/16/2023, indicated there was no documentation that Prednisone 10 mg was delivered to the facility for Resident 2. A review of Resident 2's MAR, dated 7/2023, indicated Prednisone 150 mg was administered to Resident 1 from 7/7/2023 to 7/9/2023 at 12 p.m., and/or 5 p.m. Continued review of Resident 2's MAR indicated licensed nurses documented that Prednisone 10 mg was not available on 7/8/2023 and 7/9/2023 at 7:30 a.m., and/or 12 p.m. The MAR indicated Resident 2 received five doses of Prednisone from 7/7/2023 to 7/9/2023 when the medication was not available in the facility. Resident 2 did not receive a total of seven doses of Prednisone. During an interview on 8/16/2023 at 1:23 p.m., Resident 2 stated there are several days when she gets a different number of pills when she receives her medication, some days she may get five pills, and some days she may get six pills. Resident 2 stated, she asked the licensed nurses to explain what the medications were that they were giving her and why the number of pills were inconsistent, and they (the licensed nurses) were not able to explain. During an interview on 8/21/2023 at 2:21 p.m., LVN 2 acknowledged she documented that she administered the 12 p.m., dose of Prednisone to Resident 2 on 7/7/2023 and 7/12/2023 when she did not administer it to her (Resident 2). LVN 2 stated she thinks she was working too fast and documented the medication as given by accident. C. A review of Resident 3's admission Record (Face Sheet) indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including type 2 DM and congestive heart failure ([CHF] a chronic condition in which the heart doesn ' t pump blood as well as it should). A review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 3 made independent decisions that were reasonable and consistent. A review of Resident 3's OSR dated 3/28/2023, indicated Resident 3 was to receive Empagliflozin 10 mg once a day for DM. A review of the facility's Pharmacy Consolidated Delivery Sheet dated 6/8/2023, indicated 14 tablets of Empagliflozin 10 mg were delivered to the facility for Resident 3 on 6/8/2023. If Resident 3 was receiving Empagliflozin 10 mg one tablet daily as ordered, 14 tablets received on 6/8/23 would have lasted until 6/22/2023. A review of Resident 3's Pharmacy Delivery Receipt dated 8/16/2023, indicated there was no documentation that Empagliflozin 10 mg was delivered to the facility for Resident 3 after 6/8/2023. A review of Resident 3's MAR, dated 6/2023, indicated Empagliflozin 10 mg was administered to Resident 3 daily from 6/23/2023 to 6/30/2023. A review of Resident 3's MAR, dated 7/2023, indicated Empagliflozin 10 mg was administered to Resident 3 daily from 7/1/2023 to 7/4/2023, and from 7/7/2023 to 7/11/2023. Continued review of Resident 3's MAR indicated documentation by the licensed nurses that Empagliflozin 10 mg was not available from the pharmacy on 7/5/2023, 7/6/2023 and 7/12/2023. Continued review of Resident 3's MAR indicated licensed nurses documented Resident 3 received 17 doses of Empagliflozin from 6/23/2023 to 7/12/2023 when the medication was not available in the facility. During a telephone interview on 8/17/2023 at 11:47 a.m., the facility's Pharmacist Consultant (PC) stated accurate documentation on the MAR is important because the MAR is reviewed to determine the next time a dose of medication should be administered, if the ordered dosage was effective or needs to be adjusted. During an interview on 8/17/2023 at 2:28 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the correct way to prepare medications for administration is to take the medication cart to the resident ' s doorway, verify using the resident's MAR with the medications ordered, prepare the medications, identify the correct resident, administer the medication to the resident, and document the medication as given. The DON stated the licensed nurses should not document on the MAR that medications as given when they (licensed nurses) have not actually administered the medications to the residents. The DON stated if residents do not get their medications as prescribed, the residents are at risk for adverse reactions which including hyperglycemia, pain, increased inflammation, behaviors which could potentially lead to hospitalizations. A review of the facility's undated (P/P) titled, Preparation for Medication Administration, indicated prior to administration, the medication and dosage schedule on the resident's MAR is compared with the medication label. At the end of each medication pass, the person administering the medications reviews the MAR to ensure necessary doses were administered and documented. A review of the facility's LVN Job Description (JD), dated 12/17/2021, indicated duties and responsibilities include the following: 1. Prepares and administers medications as ordered by the physician. 2. Ensure accuracy of documentation. 3. Ensures that adequate stock levels of medications are maintained.
Jan 2023 14 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the call light device was within reach for one of eight sampled residents (Resident 7). Resident 7, who had a high risk for falls, call light was not accesible. This deficient practice had the potential to prevent Resident 7 from receiving necessary care and services and increased the resident's risk for falls. Findings: During an observation on 1/13/2023 at 10:10 a.m., while in the resident's room, Resident 7 was lying in bed. Resident 7's call light cord was hanging off the top of the left side of the bed out of reach. Resident 7 stated the call light was too far and she could not reach it. During an interview on 1/13/2023 at 10:10 a.m., while in Resident 7's room, Certified Nursing Assistant 3 (CNA 3) entered the room and stated Resident 7's call light was out of reach and the resident would not be able to call for nursing assistance if needed. CNA 3 stated Resident 7's call light should be clipped onto her gown, and placed within her reach at all times. During a review of Resident 7's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (a type of disease that affects memory, thinking, and behavior), rheumatoid arthritis (painful swelling and stiffness of the joints caused by the body attacking the healthy tissues and joints by mistake), and glaucoma (eye condition in which the nerve that connects the eye to the brain is damaged leading to vision loss). During a review of Resident 7's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a comprehensive assessment and care-screening tool, dated 10/1/2022, the MDS indicated the resident was cognitively (mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension, includes thinking, knowing, remembering, judging, problem-solving) impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 7 required extensive assistance for bed mobility (moving in bed to and from different positions such as side to side), transfers (moving from one surface to another such as bed to chair), dressing and personal hygiene, supervision for eating, and total dependence (full staff assistance) for toilet use and bathing. The MDS indicated the resident had functional limitations in range of motion ([ROM] full movement potential of a joint) on one lower extremity (hip, knee, ankle, foot). A review of Resident 7's Fall Risk Assessment (FRA), dated 9/29/2022, the FRA indicated the resident had fallen one to two times in the last three months and received a total score of 19, indicating the resident had a high fall risk. During an interview on 1/13/2023 at 12:55 p.m. the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated call lights should always be accessible and within the resident's reach. The ADON stated that if the call light was not within the resident's reach, the resident would have an increased fall risk and would be unable to call for assistance if needed. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) revised 3/2021 and titled, Answering the Call Light the P/P indicated call lights were to be placed within the resident's reach at all times to enable staff to meet the needs of the resident in a timely manner.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate completion of two of two residents (R...

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 accurate completion of two of two residents (Residents 56 and 62) Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment and care-screening tool by: a. Failing to ensure Resident 56's influenza vaccination status was accurately coded and documented to reflect the resident's immunization status for the year of 2022-2023. b. Failing to ensure Resident 62's influenza vaccination status was accurately coded and documented to reflect the resident's immunization status for the year of 2022-2023. These deficient practices had the potential to result in Residents 56 and 62 inaccuracy in the plan of care and delivery of services to the residents. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 56' admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included encephalopathy (any disease of the brain that alters brain function or structure), hyperlipidemia (blood has too many lipids (or fats), such as cholesterol and triglycerides), hypokalemia (lower than normal potassium level in your bloodstream), unspecified dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities) and benign prostatic hyperplasia ([BPH] a noncancerous enlargement of the prostate gland). During a review of Resident 56's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident did not receive the influenza vaccination for the 2022-2023 seasonal year. During a review of Resident 56's immunization record, the immunization record indicated Resident 56 consented to receiving the influenza vaccine from the facility on 10/21/2022. During an interview and a concurrent review of Resident 56's MDS on 1/13/2023 at 1:57 p.m., the MDS nurse stated she was responsible for the information entered on the MDS. The MDS nurse was asked the process of knowing whether a resident has been vaccinated or not upon admission or when the facility offers seasonal vaccinations, the MDS nurse stated, When a resident comes into the facility, we would know if a resident has had a vaccine from the hospital or anywhere, then as we are given a record or report of the resident receiving the immunization. During the review of Resident 56's MDS with the MDS nurse, the MDS, under Section O0250 indicated Resident 56 refused the seasonal influenza vaccination for 2022-2023 on 1/6/2023 and the facility offered the vaccination with Resident's 56 refusal. The MDS nurse then reviewed Resident 56's influenza vaccination record and acknowledged the discrepancy of it indicating the resident received it on 10/21/2022 at the facility. The MDS nurse stated, It should've been marked as the resident has received it at this facility. The MDS nurse was also asked if the resident was supposed to receive the same vaccination as more than one dose during the same season, the MDS nurse stated, No. The MDS nurse stated the risks for offering the same vaccination more than once, which included being a potential medication error if they received the same vaccination twice. During a concurrent interview and observation on 1/13/2023 at 2:24 p.m., Resident 56 was observed sitting in his wheelchair at the door of his room. Resident 56 was asked if he received an influenza vaccination for the year 2022-2023, the resident stated, Yes, I get it every year. I remember I took it, but I don't remember where. Resident 56, when asked, was unable to recall the current year or place. b. During a review of Resident 62's Face Sheet (admission Record), the Face Sheet indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Gullian-Barre syndrome (a rare disorder in which your body's immune system attacks your nerves), myocardial infarction (blood flow to the heart muscle is blocked), atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm (arrhythmia) that can lead to blood clots in the heart), acute respiratory failure (occurs due to a disease or injury that interferes with the ability of the lungs to deliver oxygen), hypothyroidism (thyroid gland does not make enough thyroid hormone), and hyperlipidemia (blood has too many lipids (or fats), such as cholesterol and triglycerides). During record review of Resident 62's immunization record, the immunization record indicated that Resident 62 received the influenza vaccination on 10/21/2022. During an interview on 1/13/2023 at 1:51 p.m. with Resident 62, Resident 62 stated, Yes, I got my flu shot, pneumonia shot, and whooping cough shot at the grocery store (Vons) in September of last year. I don't have the record though. I could get a copy from Vons. Resident 62 was asked if facility offered her the influenza vaccine upon admission and she stated, Yes but I told them I already got it. During an interview and concurrent review of Resident 62's MDS on 1/13/2023 at 1:58 p.m., the MDS nurse stated she was responsible for the information entered on the MDS of all residents' medical records. Upon review of Resident 62's MDS, under Section O0250, with the MDS nurse, she stated the MDS indicated Resident 62 refused the seasonal influenza vaccination for 2022-2023 on 12/7/2022 after being offered. The MDS nurse reviewed Resident 62's influenza vaccination record and acknowledged the discrepancy and stated, I see, it was coded incorrectly. I should have coded the resident had the vaccine. She was asked again if the resident was supposed to receive the same vaccination more than one dose during the same season, she stated No. During an interview with the director of nurses (DON) on 1/13/2023 at 3:13 p.m., the DON stated she and the ADON were responsible to check the accuracy of the MDS documentation. The DON stated the Infection Preventionist ([IP] are professionals who make sure healthcare workers and patients are doing all the things they should to prevent infections) documents on the MDS section for immunizations. The DON stated the risks of discrepancies in the MDS vaccination section included the potential for not being vaccinated and potential illness.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop a baseline individualized care plan to reflec...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review, and interview, the facility failed to develop a baseline individualized care plan to reflect the assessment and meet the immediate needs for one of one sampled residents (Resident 372). Resident 372, who required urinary, nephrostomy care (care of a tube that is in the kidney to drain urine directly from the kidney) and hospice care (end of life care), and was receiving oxygen and pain management had no care plans to address the needs. These deficient practices placed the resident at risk for the goals and interventions to not be met without plans of care. Findings: During a review of Resident 372's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and last re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 372's diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of the bladder (cancer of the bladder), acute and chronic respiratory failure (a serious condition that makes it difficult to breathe), hydronephrosis (the swelling of a kidney due to a build-up of urine) with retention of urine (a condition when a person is unable to empty all the urine from the bladder). During a review of Resident 372's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 12/3/2022, the MDS indicated the resident's functional status required extensive or total dependance from staff in performing activities of daily living. During a review of Resident 372's care plans, the care plans indicated there was no plan of care developed to address the care and need of the resident having an indwelling urinary catheter, nephrostomy, need for oxygen administration, pain management and hospice care during admission to the facility. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/12/2023 at 3:07 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated there was only one care plan initiated for Resident 372 and it was for fall risk. The ADON stated the risk of not having care plans in place for residents meant there was no plan to care of the resident's active conditions, which should identify the problem, goals, interventions and evaluations. During an interview with the ADON on 1/13/2023 at 10:14 a.m., the ADON stated, We have a care plan coordinator and we did see there was only a fall risk care plan. The ADON stated the plan of care should have been created for Resident 372's concerns. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P), dated 12/2016 and titled, Care Plans-Baseline, the P/P indicated a baseline care plan shall be developed for each resident withing forty-eight (48) hours of admission. The P/P also indicated the baseline care plan will be used until the staff can conduct the comprehensive assessment and develop an interdisciplinary person-centered care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of eight sampled residents (Resident 7), 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 ensure one of eight sampled residents (Resident 7), who had high risk for falls with a history of falls, bed was maintain at the lowest position as per the physician's order and plan of care. This deficient practice of not adhering to the physician's order and the resident plan of care placed Resident 7 at increased risk for falls and injuries. Findings: During an observation on 1/13/2023 at 10:10 a.m., while in the resident's room, Resident 7 was lying in bed. Resident 7's bed was approximately two feet off the ground. During an interview on 1/13/2923 at 10:10 a.m., while in Resident 7's room, Certified Nursing Assistant 3 (CNA 3) confirmed Resident 7's bed was approximately two feet off the ground and not at the lowest position. CNA 3 stated the bed should be at the lowest position since Resident 7 was a fall risk. During a review of Resident 7's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]) the FS indicated the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (a type of disease that affects memory, thinking, and behavior), rheumatoid arthritis (painful swelling and stiffness of the joints caused by the body attacking its own healthy tissues and joints by mistake), and glaucoma (eye condition in which the nerve that connects the eye to the brain is damaged leading to vision loss). During a review of Resident 7's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a comprehensive assessment and care-screening tool, dated 10/1/2022, the MDS indicated the resident was cognitively (mental processes involved in gaining knowledge and comprehension, includes thinking, knowing, remembering, judging, problem-solving) impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 7 required extensive assistance (staff providing weightbearing support) for bed mobility (moving in bed to and from different positions such as side to side), transfers (moving from one surface to another such as bed to chair), dressing and personal hygiene, supervision for eating, and total dependence (full staff assistance) for toilet use and bathing. The MDS indicated Resident 7 had functional limitations in range of motion (full movement potential of a joint) on one lower extremity (hip, knee, ankle, foot). During a review of Resident 7's Fall Risk Assessment (FRA) dated 9/29/2022, the FRA indicated the resident had fallen one to two times in the last three months and had a total score of 19, indicating the resident had a high fall risk. A review of Resident 7's Order Summary Report, the report indicated physician's order on 12/22/2022 to adjust the bed in lowest position for fall reduction measures. A review of Resident 7's care plan dated 2/18/2022, the care plan indicated the resident had a high fall risk. The care plan interventions included to maintain a low bed. During an interview on 1/13/2023 at 12:55 p.m. the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated the bed should be as low to the ground as possible for residents at high risk for falls. The ADON stated residents were placed at risk for increased severity of injury if sustaining a fall if the bed was not placed low to the ground. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) revised 7/2017 and titled, Safety and Supervision of Residents the P/P indicated resident safety and supervision and assistance to prevent accidents were facility-wide priorities. The P/P indicated staff would ensure interventions to reduce accident risks and hazards were implemented.
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's staff failed to ensure a physician's order for oxygen adminis...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's staff failed to ensure a physician's order for oxygen administration was implemented for one of one residents (Resident 372). Resident 372 was supposed to receive two (2) liters of oxygen continuously per the physician's order, but was receiving five (5) liters. This deficient practice had the potential to cause complications associated with receiving more oxygen than prescribed by the physician. Findings: During a review of Resident 372's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated Resident 372 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs). During a review of Resident 372's physician's order dated 1/9/2023, the order indicated to administer oxygen at 2 liters per minute via nasal cannula (a medical device to provide supplemental oxygen) as needed for oxygen saturation (a measure of the amount of hemoglobin bound to molecular oxygen at a given time point) less than 92 percent ([%] normal level of oxygen is usually 95% or higher). During a review of Resident 372's care plan indicated there was no care plan initiated for the resident's use of oxygen. During an observation on 1/10/2023 at 9:35 a.m., Resident 372 was in bed lying on the left side with the head of the bed elevated. Attempts were made to speak to resident 372, but the resident did not respond, but continued to watch television. Resident 372 was receiving oxygen via nasal cannula at five (5) liters per minute. During an interview on 1/11/2023 at 9:28 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant 2 (CNA 2), while at Resident 372's bedside, CNA 2 stated Resident 372 was recently admitted back to the facility on 1/9/2023. CNA 2 stated the resident was previously a smoker and once she returned to the facility, she was no longer smoking. CNA 2 stated the oxygen flow rate was infusing at 5 liters per minute via nasal cannula. During a subsequent observation on 1/11/2023 at 2:55 p.m., Resident 372's oxygen flow rate remained infusing at 5 liters per min via nasal cannula. During an interview with the ADON on 1/12/2023 at 4:17 p.m., the ADON reviewed Resident 372's oxygen order and confirmed the physician's order indicated for the resident to receive 2 liters of oxygen per minute via nasal cannula. The ADON was shown a picture of resident's oxygen infusing at 5 liters per minute for the past three (3) days (1/10/2023 through 1/12/2023). The ADON stated the resident should not have been receiving 5 liters of oxygen. The ADON stated, The risk of oxygen toxicity is an altered mental status. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P), dated 10/2010 and titled, Oxygen Administration, the P/P indicated to verify and review physician's orders for oxygen administration.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

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 admitting nurse had specific competencies ...

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 admitting nurse had specific competencies and skills sets necessary to provide assessment and care for one of 20 residents (Resident 372). Resident 372 was admitted to the facility with Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus ([MRSA] staph infection difficult to treat because of resistance to some antibiotics) and the nurse failed to follow the resident's admission protocol and hospital discharge orders and place the resident on contact isolation precautions. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 372 being placed in a room with other residents and had the potential to cross contaminate the other residents. Findings: During a review of Resident 372's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated the resident was admitted initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included malignant neoplasm of bladder (bladder cancer). During a review of Resident 372's Hospital record, dated 12/12/2022, the record indicated the resident's diagnosis included MRSA of the nares. During an interview with the Director of Staff Development (DSD) on 1/13/2023 at 9:42 a.m., the DSD stated she has worked at the facility for three years and was the admitting nurse for Resident 372 on the evening of 1/9/2023. The DSD stated the resident's hospice nurse from an outside company brought the hospice binder to the facility on the night of 1/9/2023 after her shift ended. The DSD stated she worked overtime on 1/9/2023 from 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. to help out the evening shift. The DSD stated, There was no supervisor for evening shift, I worked extra that day after my first shift of being DSD for the first 8 hours. The DSD stated the process for admitting/re-admitting a hospice resident included obtaining the inquiry and giving it to the supervisor to check, then we get a report from the nurse from the transferring hospital. Once a resident was admitted we do a body assessment, check the resident's inventory, look at the discharge orders and clarify them with the admitting physician. The DSD stated she only skimmed the resident's discharge and admission notes and did not read it thoroughly, but should have, because she missed that the resident had MRSA. During an interview with the ADON on 1/13/2023 at 10:14 a.m., the ADON stated the process of admitting a change of status for hospice resident included the nurse ensuring and verifying all orders are correct and communicate to the staff. The ADON stated all the paperwork was supposed to be checked and read thoroughly to prevent missing pertinent information. The ADON stated, That was why Registered nurses usually do admissions. During an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) on 1/13/2023 at 3:06 p.m., the DON was asked how the nurses were trained to admit residents, the DON stated, They have proper training from me, the infection preventionist (are professionals who make sure healthcare workers and patients are doing all the things they should to prevent infections) and the PCC (electronic chart). I ensure they are competent with the training of hospital discharge orders and summaries, the staff have to review it. The DON stated, We are expected to review physician orders and the risk includes infection, potential complications, and potential for spread of infection. The risk of not reviewing resident discharge orders included infection, potential complications, potential for spread of infection. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P), dated 12/2006 and titled, Admissions to the Facility, the P/P indicated the administrator, through the admissions department, shall assure the resident and the facility follow applicable admission policies.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to do a gradual dose reduction ([GDR] an attempt to decre...

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 do a gradual dose reduction ([GDR] an attempt to decrease or discontinue psychotropic (any drug that affects behavior, mood, thoughts, or perception) medication after no more than three months after starting on the psychotropic medication, unless clinically contraindicated) for one of 20 sampled residents (Resident 13). Resident 13, who was receiving psychotropics medications had not been seen by a psychiatrist in months and there was no GDR attempted in 12 months. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 13 receiving Quetiapine (brand name Seroquel, a medication to treat schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depressive disorder) without monitoring medication dosage for potential adjustment. Findings: During an observation on 1/10/2023 at 9:20 a.m., Resident 13 was asleep in bed, lying in supine position (face up) with head turned to the left side. During a review of Resident 13's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated the resident was admitted initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included encephalopathy (a disease in which the functioning of the brain is affected by some agent or condition) and schizoaffective disorder (a mood disorder such as bipolar disorder or depression). During a review of Resident 13's Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment and care-screening tool, dated 11/10/2022, the MDS indicated the resident had memory problems and was non-ambulatory requiring much assistance from staff for care. During a subsequent observation on 1/10/2023 at 12:45 p.m., Resident 13 was awake in bed with the head of bed elevated and a lunch tray at the bedside. Resident 13 opened her eyes but was non-verbal. During an interview with Resident 13's family member (FM 1), while at the bedside, on 1/11/2023 at 8:40 a.m., Resident 13 was observed feeding herself and FM 1 stated, This facility is better than where she was before. This is her 7th or 8th facility she's has been in; It's been a journey. She's been here for about a year. I know she refuses everything: range of motion and activities. I think she may be losing her hearing, but she speaks when she wants to. During an interview and concurrent record review with the Director of Nurse (DON) and Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) of Resident 13's clinical record on 1/12/2023 at 10:09 a.m., the ADON stated she was responsible for the Pharmacy Audit and residents' GDR forms are in the resident's physical hard chart. The ADON stated the facility's psychiatrist (a medical practitioner specializing in the diagnosis and treatment of mental illness) responds through email regarding his residents. Once he replies to me, the resident's paperwork is placed in hard chart. During a review of Resident 13's physical chart, the ADON noted there were no GDR forms for the months of 11/2022 and 12/2022 for the resident. When asked about the timeframe to complete GDR forms, she stated, It should be in the hard chart. The pysician usually emails the GDR recommendations, or no recommendations with a list of residents' names then it is placed in the chart under the Psych tab. It is usually here but it is not in the hard chart at this time. The DON stated to the ADON, There are an overflow of GDR forms that hasn't been filed, we will search for the documents. During an interview with the ADON on 1/12/2023 at 10:45 a.m., the ADON stated, There is no GDR documentation form for the resident (Resident 13). The facility's psychiatrist only sees Medicare patients, but there's been a change in Resident 13's insurance so she hasn't been seen. The ADON stated the pharmacist usually submits a letter to the psychiatrist for a GDR but he thinks it was too early for her to be seen so there was no letter. The ADON stated, Whenever the psychiatrist email back the letter for a GDR, I read it and I tell the director of medical records (DMR). If the psychiatrist says he will see a resident on his next visit, we file it in the physical chart. The ADON acknowledged there were no GDR forms for Resident 13 for the months of 11/2022 and 12/2022 along with any letters from the facility's psychiatrist. The ADON stated they just caught that the GDR forms were not in the resident's chart. The ADON admitted Resident 13 had not been seen by the psychiatrist in two or more months. During a subsequent interview with the ADON on 1/12/2023 at 2:42 p.m., the ADON was asked if she had any documentation of facility's psychiatrist e-mail regarding GDR for Resident 13. The ADON stated, So basically the facility's psychiatrist did not get the letter from the consultant pharmacist, but I printed the e-mail that I have. A review of the e-mail, dated on 11/22/2022 and titled Pharm Recs/GDR REQ Nov, Resident 36's name was not listed in the e-mail under columns labeled seen, eligible and not eligible by the facility's psychiatrist. The ADON stated, For the December GDR, I realize there's no letter to attending physician either, but the facility's psychiatrist said that he saw the resident on 12/6/2022 or 12/16/2022 for the month of December. During a review there was no psychiatrist notes were available for the month of 12/2022. During an interview with the DON on 1/12/2023 at 3:38 p.m., the DON stated the process of medication record review done monthly by the consultant pharmacist. He will go over it and email us making notation to the attending doctor if it's psych doctor that needs to do any adjustments or communicate any new recommendations. Nursing follows up with recommendations and the timeframe is within 72 hours. By 72 hours, we should have an answer by the doctor. If a resident is not under psychiatric care, then the resident primary doctor should be notified. The threshold for doctors to respond are 7 days, we have to keep checking to see if they replied. We call attending physicians when we don't get a response from them after 7 days. We have to have it completed before the month ends. During an interview and record review with the DON on 1/12/2023 at 3:54 p.m., the DON reviewed the facility's Medication Regimen Review (MRR) policy, which indicated the DON or charge nurse would be notified by the consultant pharmacist. The MRR was reviewed with the DON for 12 months for the year of 2022 (January through December), the MRR did not include recommendations for GDR for Resident 13. During an interview with the ADON and DON on 1/12/2023 at 4:09 p.m., they both stated Resident 13's GDR was not attempted for the past 12 months. During a review of the facility's Pharmacy Audit binder indicated Resident 13 did not have a GDR conducted for the months of 11/2022 and 12/2022. During a review of Resident 13's psychiatric visit progress report, dated 1/12/2023 for a 12/13/2022, the psychiatric indicated, Patient is nonverbal. During a review of Resident 13's Psychotherapeutic Drug Summary Sheet, indicated the resident had no behavioral episodes for the months of June, October, and November 2022. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P/P) revised on 11/21/2017 and titled, Administrative Manual, the P/P indicated a gradual dose reduction (GDR) decrease must be attempted unless clinically contraindicated. After the first year, a GDR will be attempted annually, unless clinically contraindicated. During a review of the facility's P/P, dated 8/2019 and titled, Medication Regimen Review (Monthly Report) Unnecessary Medication, the P/P indicated the consultant pharmacist will identify medication that may be considered unnecessary. The attending physician will be notified for clarification or alteration of the medication order.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans for ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans for 11 of 11 sampled residents (Residents 3, 4, 24, 25, 46, 51, 56, 60, 62, 65, and 371) who tested positive (presence of virus in the body) for Corona Virus Disease 2019 ([COVID-19] highly contagious respiratory disease) for the need to monitor the residents vital signs as per the physician's orders and the facility's policy and procedure. This deficient practice resulted in the potential delay in needed services and interventions for the residents to attain or maintain their highest practicable, physical, mental and psychosocial well-being. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (a group of diseases that affect how the body uses blood sugar [glucose]), anemia (a condition in which the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells [RBCs provide oxygen; gas needed for life] to the body) and major depressive disorder (affects how you feel, think and behave and can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems). During a review of Resident 3's physician order, dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 such as shortness of breath (SOB), cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, and diarrhea. The order also indicated to monitor vital signs (heart rate, breathing, temperature, pain level and oxygen saturation (amount of oxygen in the body) twice every shift, every four (4) hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m., with the infection preventionist ([IP] are professionals who make sure healthcare workers and patients are doing all the things they should to prevent infections), the IP stated Resident 3 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/10/2023. b. During a review of Resident 4's FS, the FS indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including colitis (swelling [inflammation] of the large intestine [colon]), supraventricular tachycardia ([SVT] a condition where the heart suddenly beats much faster than normal) and Parkinson's disease (brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking, stiffness, and difficulty with balance and coordination). During a review of Resident 4's Physician's order dated 1/6/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every four (4) hours. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 4 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/5/2023. c. During a review of Resident 24's FS, the FS indicated Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis [inability to move or feel] that affects one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on half of the body), diabetes mellitus and hypertensive kidney disease (a medical condition referring to damage to the kidney due to chronic high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 24's Physician order dated 1/8/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 24 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/8/2023. d. During a review of Resident 25's FS, the FS indicated Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, osteoarthritis ([DJD] degenerative joint disease, in which the tissues in the joint break down over time) and atherosclerotic heart disease (buildup of fats, cholesterol and other substances in and on the artery walls). During a review of Resident 25's physician order, dated 1/10/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 25 tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/30/2022. e.During a review of Resident 46's FS, the FS indicated Resident 46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, atrial fibrillation ([AF] an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm (arrhythmia) that can lead to blood clots in the heart), and pulmonary hypertension (the pressure in the blood vessels leading from the heart to the lungs is too high). During a review of Resident 46's physician order, dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 46 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/1/2023. f. During a review of Resident 51's FS, the FS indicated Resident 51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, cerebral infarction (stroke-damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area) and diabetes mellitus. During a review of Resident 51's physician order dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 51 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/1/2023. g. During a review of Resident 56's FS, the FS indicated Resident 56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, encephalopathy (damage or disease that affects the brain) and dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life). During a review of Resident 56's physician order dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 56 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/1/2023. h. During a review of Resident 60's FS, the FS indicated Resident 60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diverticulitis (condition that occurs when small pouches, or sacs, form and push outward through weak spots in the wall of the colon), atherosclerotic heart disease, and diabetes mellitus. During a review of Resident 60's physician order, dated 12/31/2022, the order indicated to monitor resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for positive polymerase chain reaction ([PCR] test used to detect COVID-19 infection) for COVID-19 until 1/10/2023. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 60 tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/29/2022. i. During a review of Resident 62's FS, the FS indicated Resident 62 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Guillain-Barre Syndrome, (the immune system attacks its own nerves), myocardial infarction ([MI] heart attack, occurs when blood flow decreases or stops flowing to the heart) and COVID-19. During a review of Resident 62's physician order, dated 12/31/2022, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for positive PCR for COVID-19 until 1/10/2023. During an interview on 1/10/23, at 11:22 a.m., with the IP, the IP stated Resident 62 tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/30/2022. j. During a review of Resident 65's FS, the FS indicated Resident 65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, diabetes mellitus, and leukemia (cancer of the early blood-forming cells). During a review of Resident 65's physician order dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the infection preventionist (IP), the IP stated Resident 65 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/3/2022. k. During a review of Resident 371's FS, the FS indicated Resident 371 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), COVID-19, and hydronephrosis (swelling of one or both kidneys). During a review of Resident 371`s physician order dated 1/11/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours related to COVID-19. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 371 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/9/2023. During an interview on 1/13/2023 at 10:51 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated there should have been care plans developed for Residents 3, 4, 24, 25, 46, 51 ,56, 60, 62, 65, and 371 after they were confirmed positive for COVID-19. The IP stated the care plans should have reflected the physician's orders that indicated the residents must have their vital signs monitored every 4 hours. The IP stated by not creating a COVID-19 positive specific care plans put the residents at risk for not being closely monitored for changes of condition of COVID-19. During an interview on 1/13/2023 at 12 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated resident care plans must be developed and updated based on changes in the residents' condition or changes in the needs of the resident. The ADON stated physician orders should be included in the care plan interventions so all staff caring for the resident are aware of the residents' needs. The ADON stated failing to create and update the care plans puts the resident at risk for not getting the care he or she needs. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Care Plans Comprehensive, Person-Centered, revised 12/2016, the P/P indicated a comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident, will describe the services that are to be furnished to attain or maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, incorporate identified problem areas, incorporate risks associated with identified problems, identify the professional services that are responsible for each element of care and residents assessments are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' condition change.
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

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 physician's orders were implemented for monitoring/assessing...

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 physician's orders were implemented for monitoring/assessing vital signs for 12 of 12 sampled residents (Residents 3, 4, 24, 25, 46, 51, 56, 60, 62, 65, 67, and 371) who tested positive (presence of virus in the body) for Corona Virus Disease 2019 ([COVID-19] a highly contagious disease that affect the lungs) for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 including vital signs (heart rate, temperature, oxygen saturation [amount of oxygen [gas needed for life] in the blood, breathing rate, and pain level]) every 4 hours in accordance with the physician orders and the facility's policy titled, Monitoring of Vital Signs. This deficient practice resulted in the physician's orders and the facility's policy and procedure not being implemented for assessing the residents' vital signs and had the potential to result in the delay in identifying a change of condition for the residents with COVID-19. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (a group of diseases that affect how the body uses blood sugar [glucose]), anemia (a condition in which the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells [RBCs provide oxygen; gas needed for life] to the body) and major depressive disorder (affects how you feel, think and behave and can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems). During a review of Resident 3's physician order, dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 such as shortness of breath (SOB), cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, and diarrhea. The order also indicated to monitor vital signs (heart rate, breathing, temperature, pain level and oxygen saturation (amount of oxygen in the body) twice every shift, every four (4) hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m., with the infection preventionist ([IP] are professionals who make sure healthcare workers and patients are doing all the things they should to prevent infections), the IP stated Resident 3 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/10/2023. b.During a review of Resident 4's FS, the FS indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including colitis (swelling [inflammation] of the large intestine [colon]), supraventricular tachycardia ([SVT] a condition where your heart suddenly beats much faster than normal) and Parkinson's disease (brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking, stiffness, and difficulty with balance and coordination). During a review of Resident 4's Physician's order dated 1/6/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 4 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/5/2023. c. During a review of Resident 24's FS, the FS indicated Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis [inability to move or feel] that affects one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on half of the body), diabetes mellitus and hypertensive kidney disease (a medical condition referring to damage to the kidney due to chronic high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 24's Physician order dated 1/8/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 24 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/8/2023. d. During a review of Resident 25's FS, the FS indicated Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, osteoarthritis ([DJD] degenerative joint disease, in which the tissues in the joint break down over time) and atherosclerotic heart disease (buildup of fats, cholesterol and other substances in and on the artery walls). During a review of Resident 25's physician order, dated 1/10/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 25 tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/30/2022. e.During a review of Resident 46's FS, the FS indicated Resident 46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, atrial fibrillation ([AF] an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm (arrhythmia) that can lead to blood clots in the heart), and pulmonary hypertension (the pressure in the blood vessels leading from the heart to the lungs is too high). During a review of Resident 46's physician order, dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 46 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/1/2023. f. During a review of Resident 51's FS, the FS indicated Resident 51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, cerebral infarction (stroke-damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area) and diabetes mellitus. During a review of Resident 51's physician order dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 51 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/1/2023. g. During a review of Resident 56's FS, the FS indicated Resident 56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, encephalopathy (damage or disease that affects the brain) and dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life). During a review of Resident 56's physician order dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 56 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/1/2023. h. During a review of Resident 60's FS, the FS indicated Resident 60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diverticulitis (condition that occurs when small pouches, or sacs, form and push outward through weak spots in the wall of the colon) , atherosclerotic heart disease and diabetes mellitus. During a review of Resident 60's PO , dated 12/31/22, the PO indicated monitor resident for signs and symptoms of covid 19 such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for positive polymerase chain reaction ([PCR] test is used to detect COVID-19 infection) for COVID-19 until 1/10/2023. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 60 tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/29/2022. i. During a review of Resident 62's FS, the FS indicated Resident 60 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Guillain-Barre Syndrome (a condition when the immune system attacks its own nerves) myocardial infarction (heart attack, occurs when blood flow decreases or stops to the heart) and COVID-19. During a review of Resident 62's physician's order, dated 12/31/2022, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of cOVID-19 such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for positive PCR for COVID-19 until 1/10/2023. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 62 tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/30/2022. j. During a review of Resident 65's FS, the FS indicated Resident 65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, diabetes mellitus, and leukemia (cancer of the early blood-forming cells). During a review of Resident 65's physician order dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the infection preventionist (IP), the IP stated Resident 65 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/3/2022. k. During a review of Resident 67's FS, the FS indicated Resident 67 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Covid 19, fractured right femur (broken thigh bone) and dysthymic disorder (long-lasting form of depression [feelings of sadness and loss of interest that interfere with daily activities]). During a review of Resident 67's PO dated 1/3/23, the PO indicated monitor resident for signs and symptoms of covid 19 such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days, positive for Covid 19. During an interview on 1/1020/23 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 67 tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/27/2022. l. During a review of Resident 371's FS, the FS indicated Resident 371 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), COVID-19, and hydronephrosis (swelling of one or both kidneys) During a review of Resident 371`s physician order dated 1/11/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours related to COVID-19. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 371 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/9/2023. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/13/2023 at 11 a.m., with the IP, Residents 3, 4, 24, 25, 46, 51 ,56, 60, 62, 65, 67, and 371's, physician orders and Vital summary record, from 12/2022 through 1/2023 were reviewed. The IP stated the vitals summary indicated the residents' vital signs were not accessed and documented as per the physician orders. The IP stated vital signs, which included heart rate, breathing rate, temperature, oxygen saturation and pain must be assessed in order to detect if the residents' COVID-19 symptoms were worsening. The IP stated by not following the physician's order, the assessments were not done timely and had the potential to experience a delay in needed care. During an interview on 1/13/2023 at 12 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated the physician orders must be implemented and carried out immediately by the nursing staff. The ADON stated by the nurses not monitoring residents every 4 hours as ordered by the physician, the staff could miss signs the residents' condition worsening. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Monitoring of Vital Signs, the P/P indicated the following, the purpose of the policy was to ensure optimum resident assessment and to insure optimum monitoring of resident change of condition, residents with special needs or problems may warrant more frequent monitoring of vital signs. Monitoring of vital signs shall be performed on good nursing practice and/or as ordered by the physician, all vital signs must be documented on the permanent health record.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

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 two of eight sampled residents (Residents 38 a...

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 two of eight sampled residents (Residents 38 and 59) received appropriate services to prevent a decline in mobility by failing to ensure the following: a. Resident 38 received interventions to maintain the distance of 200 feet of ambulation (walking ability) after discharge from Physical Therapy ([PT] profession aimed in the restoration, maintenance, and promotion of optimal physical function) on 8/26/2022. b. Resident 59 received interventions to maintain the distance of 300 feet of ambulation after discharge from Physical Therapy on 12/30/2022. These deficient practices had the potential for Residents 38 and 59 to have a decline in functional mobility. Findings: a. During an observation on 1/11/2023 at 2:34 p.m., while in the facility's hallway, Resident 38 was observed ambulating with Restorative Nursing Aide 2 ([RNA 2] a nursing program that helps residents maintain their function and joint mobility) using a four wheeled walker (mobility device used for stability with a wide base of support). RNA 1 was following Resident 38 and RNA 2 with a wheelchair. Resident 38 walked down three hallways before transferring into the wheelchair and returning to the room. During a review of Resident 38's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated Resident 38 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including kidney disease, subdural hematoma (a collection of blood between the skull and surface of the brain), and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (condition in which the body does not process blood sugar correctly). A review of Resident 38's Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment and care-screening tool, dated 11/3/2022, the MDS indicated Resident 38 was cognition (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember) was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 38 required limited assistance from staff for bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, toileting, and personal hygiene. According to the MDS, Resident 38 was unsteady when walking and required staff assistance to maintain balance. During a review of Resident 38's Physical Therapy Discharge summary dated [DATE], the summary indicated Resident 38 walked 200 feet with supervision (the resident requires only supervision for safety and did not require physical assistance) using a four wheeled walker. The PT discharge recommendations included a referral to RNA program for ambulation. A review of Resident 38's Order Summary Report, the report indicated the resident had an order, dated 8/29/2022, for the RNA to ambulate with Resident 38 with a four wheeled walker every day, five times a week, as tolerated. The RNA order did not indicate the distance Resident 38 should ambulate. During a review of Resident 38's RNA documentation record for the month of November 2022, the record indicated Resident 38's total distance walked during the RNA sessions were as follows: 11/1/2022, 11/2/2022, 11/3/2022, 11/4/2022, 11/7/2022, 11/8/2022, 11/9/2022, 11/10/2022, 11/11/2022, 11/14/2022, 11/15/2022, 11/16/2022, 11/17/2022, 11/18/2022, 11/21/2022, 11/22/2022, 11/23/2022, 11/28/2022, 11/29/2022, and 11/30/2022: 120 feet 11/25/2022: 75 feet During a review of Resident 38's RNA documentation record for the month of December 2022, the record indicated Resident 38's total distance walked during the RNA sessions were as follows: 12/1/2022, 12/2/2022, 12/5/2022, 12/6/2022, 12/7/2022, 12/8/2022, 12/9/2022, 12/12/2022, 12/13/2022, 12/14/2022, 12/16/2022, 12/17/2022, 12/19/2022, 12/20/2022, 12/21/2022, 12/22/2022, 12/23/2022, 12/26/2022, 12/27/2022, and 12/30/2022: 120 feet 12/15/2022 and 12/28/2022: 75 feet 12/29/2022 and 12/30/2022: 65 feet During a review of Resident 38's RNA documentation record for the month of 1/2023, the record indicated Resident 38's total distance walked during the RNA sessions were as follows: 1/2/2023, 1/3/2023, 1/4/2023, 1/5/2023, 1/6/2023, 1/9/2023, and 1/10/2023: 120 feet 1/11/2023: 190 feet b. During an observation on 1/12/2023 at 10:37 a.m., while in the hallway, Resident 59 was observed ambulating using a single point cane (mobility device used with one hand for stability when walking) with RNA 2. RNA 1 was following Resident 59 and RNA 2 with a wheelchair. Resident 59 walked about 60 feet and took a seat for a rest break. After a short break, Resident 59 stood up, walked down the hallway, and took another seated rest break. Resident 59 stated he was fatigued and RNA 2 transported the resident back to his room. During an interview on 1/12/2023 at 10:42 a.m. RNA 1 stated Resident 59 walked 115 feet based on the ambulation chart (chart created by nursing to associate distance in feet between landmarks in the facility). RNA 1 stated Resident 59 usually walks only half that distance during RNA sessions. A review of Resident 59's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated Resident 59 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last re-admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including sepsis (illness caused by the body's response to an infection), end stage renal disease ([ESRD] chronic kidney disease that causes gradual loss of kidney function), and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (condition in which the body does not metabolize blood sugar correctly). During a review of Resident 59's Minimum Data Set (MDS), dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 59's cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 59 required limited assistance from staff for bed mobility, transfers, walking, toileting, and bathing. According to the MDS, Resident 59 was unsteady when walking and required staff assistance to maintain balance. A review of Resident 59's Physical Therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE], the summary indicated Resident 59 walked 300 feet with supervision using a single point cane. The PT discharge recommendations included a referral to RNA for ambulation. A review of Resident 59's Order Summary Report, the report indicated the resident had an order dated 12/31/2022 for RNA to ambulate with Resident 59 with a single point cane and wheelchair following behind the resident for safety five times a week as tolerated. The RNA order did not indicate the distance Resident 59 should ambulate. During a review of Resident 59's RNA documentation record for the month of 1/2023, the record indicated Resident 59's total distance walked during the RNA sessions were as follows: 1/2/2023: 70 feet 1/3/2023: 100 feet 1/4/2023: 120 feet 1/5/2023 and 1/6/2023: 70 feet 1/9/2023: 70 feet 1/11/2023: 80 feet During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 4:16 p.m., RNA 1 stated the RNAs guess how far to walk with a resident since there was no specified distance written in the RNA order and/or electronic record. RNA 1 stated the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) gave them a verbal report and demonstration of how far a resident could walk when the resident was discharged from therapy and transitioned to an RNA program, but stated they had to rely on memory because the distance was not documented in the RNA order. RNA 1 stated the RNAs document the distance a resident walked in their daily charting. During an interview on 1/11/2023 at 3:30 p.m., the DOR who was a Physical Therapist, stated she did not know the RNAs included the distance the residents walked during RNA treatment sessions in their daily charting and did not know how to locate that information. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/12/2023 at 12:21 p.m., the DOR confirmed Resident 38's RNA order dated 8/29/2022 and Resident 59's RNA order dated 12/31/2022 did not include how far to walk the resident during RNA treatment. The DOR stated she gave verbal instruction and demonstration of how far to walk the resident during report before transitioning the resident to the RNA program after discharge from therapy. The DOR stated it was the role of the PT to determine the distance the RNA should walk the resident during treatment to maintain his/her maximal functional level rather than have the RNA determine the distance since they did not have the training or expertise to change a prescribed RNA order. The DOR stated the only way to know if a resident was declining in mobility was in their monthly meetings with the DOR, RNAs, Director of Staff Development (DSD), and licensed nurse since the resident's maximal functional level was not documented in the order. The DOR stated Resident 38 walked 200 feet with a four wheeled walker after discharge from PT services on 8/26/2022. The DOR confirmed the RNAs walked 65-190 feet with Resident 38 upon discharge from PT services - which was less than the distance Resident 38 was walking upon discharge from therapy. The DOR stated Resident 59 walked 300 feet with a cane after discharge from PT services on 12/30/2022. The DOR confirmed the RNAs walked 70-120 feet with Resident 59 upon discharge from PT services -- which was less than the distance Resident 59 was walking upon discharge from therapy. The DOR stated the RNA order should have included the distance the RNAs should walk with a resident to ensure mobility was being maintained and/or to detect any declines. The DOR stated there was a potential for decline in a resident's function and mobility if mobility was not being monitored. During an interview and record review on 1/12/2023 at 12:23 p.m., the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated the purpose of an RNA program was to maintain a resident's functional status while in the facility and after discharge from PT services. The DSD stated RNA orders did not include the distance to ambulate residents. The DSD stated there was no objective documentation for staff to evaluate if the RNA orders for ambulation were carried out correctly and/or if the resident's walking ability was being maintained or declined. The DSD stated both Residents 38 and 59 walked significantly less distances with RNA than when they were discharged from PT. The DSD stated there was a potential for decline in a resident's function and mobility if mobility was not being monitored. During an interview and record review on 1/12/2023 at 1:02 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the RNA orders did not include the distance to ambulate residents. The DON stated the RNAs provided treatment solely on what the RNA order said and did not have the training or expertise to determine how far a resident should walk. The DON stated the RNAs would not know how far to walk a resident to maintain his/her mobility from the time of discharge from PT and/or be able to detect a decline if the distance was not written in the RNA order. The DON stated both Residents 38 and 59 walked significantly less distances with RNA than when they were discharged from PT. The DON stated it was important to include a distance in the RNA order so staff would be able to ensure a resident's mobility was being maintained and/or to detect any declines. The DON stated there was a potential for decline in a resident's functional mobility if mobility was not being monitored. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Resident Mobility and Range of Motion, revised 7/2017, the P/P indicated residents with limited mobility will receive appropriate services, equipment and assistance to maintain or improve mobility unless reduction in mobility is unavoidable.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the diets met nutritional needs as prescribed by not ensuring residents received correct serving size as prescribed fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the diets met nutritional needs as prescribed by not ensuring residents received correct serving size as prescribed for small portions as indicated on the therapeutic diet spread sheet. This deficient practice placed residents at risk to received inappropriate amount of carbohydrates (sugar) as indicated for small portion sizes, by the dietary staff not using the appropriate scoop size. Findings: During an observation on 1/11/2023 at 12:30 p.m., Dietary Aide 2 (DA 2) called out the diet type and the size of the portions. DA 1 and CK 1 used a beige scooper number (#) 10 (equivalent to 3/8 cup) to serve tater tots to residents on CCHO (consistent, constant, or controlled carbohydrate diet [eating the same amount of carbohydrates every day; helps keep the blood sugar, or glucose, levels stable]) diet with small portions; instead of using #16 scoop (equivalent to ¼ cup) during lunch tray line service. During a concurrent interview and record review with Dietary Aide (DA 1) on 1/11/2023 at 1:10 p.m., stated that the beige scooper was used to serve the tater tots. DA1 stated the beige scooper was a #10 which was the equivalent to 3/8 cup. DA1 identified on the Cooks Spreadsheet the residents on CCHO diet with small portions should have received ¼ cup and used a #16 scoop to serve the tator tots. During concurrent interview and record review with [NAME] 1 (CK 1) on 1/11/2023 at 1:15pm, CK 1 stated the beige scooper was used to serve the tater tots. CK 1 stated the beige scooper was a #10 which is the equivalent to 3/8 cup and using a blue scooper was a #16 (1/4 cup). CK 1 identified on the Cooks Spreadsheet the residents on CCHO diet with small portions should have received the #16 scoop whih was equal to ¼ cup of tater tots. CK 1 stated by receiving the 3/8 cup instead of the ¼ cup the residents could have higher sugar levels. During an interview with the dietary supervisor (DS) on 1/11/2023 at 1:20 p.m., the DS stated the #16 scooper (1/4 cup) should have been used instead of the #10 scooper (3/8 cup) to serve the residents. The DS stated the residents that are on the CCHO diet with small portions should receive a small portion of tater tots. The DS stated the use of the incorrect scooper size, put the resident at risk for a spike in glucose. During an interview with a Registered Dietician (RD 1) on 1/13/2023 at 2:40 p.m., RD 1 stated it was important to make sure the portions of food are the correct size during the trayline so the residents can receive the correct caloric intake. RD 1 stated when residents was on a CCHO with small portion diet and receive a larger portion they are at risk for gaining weight and can become hyperglycemic (increase blood sugar). During a review of the facility's menu titled, Cook Spreadsheet Winter Menu dated (12/14/2022, 1/11/2023, and 2/9/2023), the menu indicated Tater Tots: small ¼ cup with a #16 scoop = ¼c (cup). During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P), dated 2020 and titled, Menu Planning the P/P indicated the menus are planned to meet nutritional needs of residents in accordance with established national guidelines and physician's orders .The menu provide a variety of foods in adequate amount each meal .Available equipment necessary for preparation and serving of food .The facilitiy's diet manual and the diets ordered by the physician should mirror the nutritional care provided by the facility. During a review of the facility's undated P/P titled, Cook the P/P indicated Serve food in accordance with established portion control procedures .Prepare food for therapeutic diets in accordance with planned menus.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food storage in the kitchen when canned goods were stored for use past the best before use date (exp...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food storage in the kitchen when canned goods were stored for use past the best before use date (expired date of use). There were eight cans of 108 ounces of chili with beans stored in the dry storgare area. This failure had the potential of residents receiving decreased nutritional value and possible illness to the residents who reside in the facility. Findings: During an observation in the kitchen on 1/9/2023 at 8:40 a.m., eight 108 ounce cans of chili with beans were observed in the kitchen's dry storage room. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/9/2023 at 8:40 a.m. with [NAME] 1, she was observed picking up the expired cans of chili with beans and stated four cans had best before date of 9/3/2022 and four cans had a best before date of 12/9/2022. [NAME] 1 stated, The canned food were expired and needed to be thrown out, because they should not be used after the best before used date. During an interview 1/13/2023 at 9:57 a.m. with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), the DS stated the cans are rotated and canned foods that are about to expire should be rotated to the front of the shelf. The DS stated the expired cans of chili with beans were bundled together with the emergency supply section and was missed in identifying the expiration date by the kitchen staff. The DS stated, If the expired cans of chili with beans were consumed by residents, if could have caused foodborne illness (caused by consuming contaminated food, beverages, or water and can be a variety of bacteria, parasites, viruses and/or toxins) to the residents. A record review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P), with a dates of 2018 and 2020 and titled, Storage of Food and Supplies the P/P indicated, Food stores should be arranged in food groups to facilitate storing, locating, and taking inventories . Labels should be visible, and the arrangement should permit rotation of supplies so that oldest items will be used first . No food will be kept longer than the expiration date on the product.
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** d. A review of Resident 372's hospital discharge orders indicated that Resident 372 had tested positive for MRSA of the blood on...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** d. A review of Resident 372's hospital discharge orders indicated that Resident 372 had tested positive for MRSA of the blood on 12/27/2022 and 1/1/2023 when Resident 372 was re-admitted back to the facility on 1/9/2023. During an observation on 1/10/2023 at 9:35 a.m., Resident 372 was observed lying in bed watching television. Resident 372 was observed to be sharing a room with three (3) other residents. During interview and concurrent review on 1/13/2023 at 9:42 a.m. with the DSD, the DSD was shown hospital discharge order of Resident 372 testing positive for MRSA. The DSD reviews the paperwork and states I should've found out about MRSA upon admission. I skimmed through the paperwork, but I didn't read it thoroughly. The DSD statedb. Resident 372 should be on contact precautions and in a single room. DSD continues The risk of Resident 372 not being placed on contact precautions can result in the potential spread of infection to roommates and staff, also potential complications for the resident. No contact precautions were in place upon Resident 372's return to facility on 1/9/2023. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P/P) titled MRSA-Management of Recurrent Skin and Soft Tissue Infection, revised on 9/2017, the P/P indicated when the infection preventionist or infection prevention and control committee deems MRSA to be of special clinical and/or epidemiologic significance to a resident or the facility, contact precautions will be initiated. The components of contact precautions may be adapted for use, especially if the resident has draining wounds or difficulty controlling body fluids. e. During an observation on 1/10/2023 at 11:40 a.m., while in the facility's hallway, Physical Therapy Assistant 1 ([PTA 1] provide physical therapist services under the direction and supervision of a physical therapist) was observed performing walking exercises with Resident 371. Resident 371 was walking down the hallway using a front-wheeled walker (type of mobility aid with wide base of support) and had a cloth gait belt (an assistive device which can be used to help safely transfer a person from a bed to a wheelchair, assist with sitting and standing) around her waist. At the end of the hallway, Resident 371 sat in a wheelchair and PTA 1 transported the resident to the rehabilitation gym. Once in the gym, PTA 1 measured the resident's vital signs (clinical measurements, specifically pulse rate, temperature, respiration rate, and blood pressure), removed the cloth gait belt from the resident's waist, wiped down the cloth gait belt with a white cloth, and laid the gait belt on a table. During a review of Resident 371's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated the facility admitted Resident 371 on 12/14/2022 with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD], lung disease that causes obstruction of airflow and can limit normal breathing) and dyspnea (shortness of breath). During an observation on 1/10/2023 at 1:40 p.m., while in the rehabilitation gym, PTA 1 was observed performing standing and leg exercises with Resident 419. Resident 419 had a cloth gait belt around his waist. When the treatment session was completed, PTA 1 removed the cloth gait belt from Resident 419's waist, draped the gait belt over his right shoulder, and transported the resident back to his room. PTA 1 performed hand hygiene, walked to the nurse's station to speak with Resident 419's nurse, walked back to the Rehabilitation gym, wiped down the cloth gait belt with a white cloth, and laid the gait belt on a table. During a review of Resident 419's FS, the FS indicated the facility admitted Resident 419 on 12/31/2022 with diagnoses including left sided hemiplegia (weakness to one side of the body) and hemiparesis (inability to move one side of the body) following a cerebral infarction (stroke-blockage of the flow of blood brain, causing or resulting in brain tissue death) and cardiac arrhythmia (irregular heartbeat). During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 3:01 p.m., PTA 1 stated he cleaned and disinfected the cloth gait belts with Sani-Cloth Plus wipes (disposable wipes used to disinfect surfaces) after working with Residents 371 and 419. PTA 1 stated cloth gait belts were made of fabric, a porous material. During an interview on 1/11/2023 at 2:56 p.m., the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) stated cloth gait belts were cleaned and disinfected by wiping down the gait belts with Sani-Cloth Plus wipes after each resident use. The DOR stated cloth gait belts were made of fabric, a porous material. During an interview and record review on 1/11/2023 at 4:30 p.m. with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IP) and the DOR, the IP stated cloth gait belts were cleaned and disinfected using either Sani-Cloth Plus wipes and/or Lysol Disinfectant Spray. The IP and DOR stated cloth gait belts were made of porous material. The IP and DOR confirmed, after reading the manufacturer instructions for both the Sani-Cloth Plus wipes and Lysol Disinfectant Spray indicated cleaners were to be used on non-porous, hard surfaces only. The IP and DOR stated Sani-Cloth Plus wipes and Lysol Disinfectant Spray were ineffective because cloth gait belts were made of porous materials. The IP stated the only way to properly clean and disinfect cloth gait belts was to launder them after each resident use. The IP and DOR stated it was important to clean and disinfect shared equipment properly to prevent the spread of infection and avoid cross contamination. A review of the facility's policy and procedures (P/P) revised 10/2018 and titled, Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Items and Equipment, the P/P indicated resident care equipment, including reusable items and durable medical equipment will be cleaned and disinfected according to current CDC recommendations for disinfection and the OSHA Bloodborne Pathogens Standard. The P/P further indicated reusable resident care equipment will be decontaminated and/or sterilized between residents according to manufacturer's instructions. b. During an observation on 1/10/2023 at 8:10 a.m., while in the facility's front lobby, nine State Survey Agency (SSA) staff were not screened for symptoms of COVID-19 by Medical Records Assistant (MRA) prior to entering the facility. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/13/2023 at 11:03 a.m., with the Infection Prevention Nurse ([IP] a professional who make sure healthcare workers and patients are doing all the things they should to prevent infections), the facility's Visitor COVID-19 Screening Log, dated 1/10/2023, was reviewed. The Visitor Screening Log indicated there were no visitors screened during the time the SSA entered the facility. The IP stated, All persons should be screened for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 upon entering the facility, which included the following: date, time in, name of visitor, current temperature, sore throat, shortness of breath, diarrhea/loose stool, muscle pain, fever/chills in past twenty-four hours, new loss of taste or smell, and COVID-19 vaccination. If persons are not screened for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 prior to entering the resident care area, then there is a potential to spread and contract COVID when in the facility. During a review of the facility's COVID-19 Mitigation Plan (MP), updated on 4/8/2022, the MP indicated the receptionist and/or entrance monitors, screens, and documents every individual entering the facility (including staff) for COVID-19 symptoms that included the following: temperature checks, cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, chills, new loss of taste or smell, muscle pain, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, nasal congestion/running nose, fatigue, headache. c. During an observation on 1/10/2023 at 8:15 a.m., the Occupational Therapist Registered ([OTR 1] health care professionals who specialize in helping people with health issues that affect everyday activities) was not wearing a mask while in the rehabilitation room. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:42 a.m. with OTR 1, OTR 1 confirmed he was not wearing a mask while in the rehabilitation room. OTR 1 stated, I was charting and needed some air, so I took the mask off. I know there were residents receiving therapy at the time, but I didn't think it was a problem since I was not within six feet of them. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/13/2023 at 11:03 a.m. with the IP, the facility's COVID-19 MP, last updated on 4/8/2022 was reviewed. The MP indicated all staff entering the facility are required to wear a facemask and throughout their shift. The IP stated, All staff need to wear their masks while in the facility, especially in the resident care areas, and when around residents to help mitigate the spread of COVID-19. When a staff member does not wear their mask while in the facility it poses a risk of getting and spreading COVID-19 to staff, residents, and visitors throughout the facility, especially since our facility is in the middle of a COVID-19 outbreak. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were implemented in accordance with the facility's policies as follows: a.The facility did not monitor and document vital signs (heart rate, temperature, oxygen saturation [amount of oxygen [gas needed for life] in the blood, breathing rate, pain level) for residents twice a day in accordance with the facility's Corona Virus 2019 Mitigation Plan for Residents 3, 4, 24, 25, 46, 51, 56, 65, and 371, who tested positive (presence of virus in the body) for COVID 19. b.The facility did not perform entry screening for signs and symptoms (temperature checks, cough, shortness of breath, sore throat, chills, new loss of taste or smell, muscle pain, nausea/vomiting, diarrhea, nasal congestion, runny nose, fatigue and headache) of Corona Virus 2019 ([COVID-19] a highly contagious disease caused by a virus upon entry to the facility. c.The facility did not ensure staff wore a face mask while in the rehabilitation room while two residents were receiving physical therapy. d.The facility did not place Resident 372 on contact precautions (measures intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents which are spread by direct or indirect contact) after the resident was confirmed to have Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus ([MRSA], bacteria that is resistant to several antibiotics. e.The facility did not disinfect cloth gait belts used on residents for ambulation assistance in accordance with manufacturers' guidelines. These deficient practices placed the residents, employees, and visitors at risk for acquiring infections and cross contaminations that could cause a potential decline in the residents' health and quality of life; it also resulted in the delay of necessary assessments and had the potential to result in the delay of the need of care and services. Findings: a1. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record (Face Sheet [FS]), the FS indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (a group of diseases that affect how the body uses blood sugar [glucose]), anemia (a condition in which the body does not have enough healthy red blood cells [RBCs provide oxygen; gas needed for life] to the body) and major depressive disorder (affects how you feel, think and behave and can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems). During a review of Resident 3's physician order, dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 such as shortness of breath (SOB), cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, and diarrhea. The order also indicated to monitor vital signs (heart rate, breathing, temperature, pain level and oxygen saturation (amount of oxygen in the body) twice every shift, every four (4) hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m., with the infection preventionist ([IP] are professionals who make sure healthcare workers and patients are doing all the things they should to prevent infections), the IP stated Resident 3 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/10/2023. a2. During a review of Resident 4's FS, the FS indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including colitis (swelling [inflammation] of the large intestine [colon]), supraventricular tachycardia ([SVT] a condition where your heart suddenly beats much faster than normal) and Parkinson's disease (brain disorder that causes unintended or uncontrollable movements, such as shaking, stiffness, and difficulty with balance and coordination). During a review of Resident 4's Physician's order dated 1/6/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 4 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/5/2023. a3. During a review of Resident 24's FS, the FS indicated Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis [inability to move or feel] that affects one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on half of the body), diabetes mellitus and hypertensive kidney disease (a medical condition referring to damage to the kidney due to chronic high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 24's Physician order dated 1/8/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19 such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 24 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/8/2023. a4. During a review of Resident 25's FS, the FS indicated Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, osteoarthritis ([DJD] degenerative joint disease, in which the tissues in the joint break down over time) and atherosclerotic heart disease (buildup of fats, cholesterol and other substances in and on the artery walls). During a review of Resident 25's physician order, dated 1/10/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 25 tested positive for COVID-19 on 12/30/2022. a5. During a review of Resident 46's FS, the FS indicated Resident 46 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, atrial fibrillation ([AF] an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm (arrhythmia) that can lead to blood clots in the heart), and pulmonary hypertension (the pressure in the blood vessels leading from the heart to the lungs is too high). During a review of Resident 46's physician order, dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 46 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/1/2023. a6.During a review of Resident 51's FS, the FS indicated Resident 51 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, cerebral infarction (stroke-damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area) and diabetes mellitus. During a review of Resident 51's physician order dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 51 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/1/2023. a7. During a review of Resident 56's FS, the FS indicated Resident 56 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, encephalopathy (damage or disease that affects the brain) and dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life). During a review of Resident 56's physician order dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 56 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/1/2023. a8. During a review of Resident 65's FS, the FS indicated Resident 65 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including COVID-19, diabetes mellitus, and leukemia (cancer of the early blood-forming cells). During a review of Resident 65's physician order dated 1/3/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours for 10 days. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the infection preventionist (IP), the IP stated Resident 65 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/3/2022. a9. During a review of Resident 371's FS, the FS indicated Resident 371 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] a group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), COVID-19, and hydronephrosis (swelling of one or both kidneys) During a review of Resident 371`s physician order dated 1/11/2023, the order indicated to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, such as SOB, cough, fever, loss of taste, sore throat, body aches, diarrhea. Monitor vital signs twice every shift, every 4 hours related to COVID-19. During an interview on 1/10/2023 at 11:22 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated Resident 371 tested positive for COVID-19 on 1/9/2023. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/13/2023 at 11 a.m. with the IP, of Residents' 3, 4, 24, 25, 46, 51, 56, 65 and 371's physician orders and Vital summary record, dated 12/2022 through 1/2023, the IP stated the vitals summary indicated vital signs on Residents' 3, 4, 24, 25, 46, 51, 56, 65 and 371 were not accessed and documented as per the physician orders. The IP stated vital signs, which included heart rate, breathing rate, temperature, oxygen saturation and pain must be assessed in order to detect if the residents' symptoms of COVID-19 were becoming more severe. The IP stated by not following the physician's order, the residents did not get timely assessments and had the potential to experience a delay in needed care. During an interview on 1/13/2023 at 11:30 a.m. with the IP, the IP stated it was the facility's policy to monitor residents as ordered by the physician and per the facility's COVID-19 Mitigation policy. During an interview on 1/13/2023 at 12 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated physician orders must be implemented and carried out immediately. The ADON stated by not monitoring residents every 4 hours as ordered by the physician, the staff could miss signs the residents' condition was worsening. The ADON stated the facility's COVID-19 Mitigation policy indicated how often residents must be monitored for signs and symptoms of COVID-19, including vital signs. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, COVID-19 Mitigation Plan for Residents updated on 4/8/2022, the P/P indicated the following: all residents will be screened and assessed for symptoms of COVID-19 with vital signs monitored, including temperature and oxygen saturation at least twice a day (AM and PM) shift and documented in the clinical records. According to the P/P, residents with suspected respiratory or infectious illness are assessed (including documentation of temperature, respiratory rate and oxygen saturation) at least twice a shift to quickly identify residents who require transfer to a higher level of care.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · 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 15 of 34 residents rooms met the 80 square feet...

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 15 of 34 residents rooms met the 80 square feet ([sq. ft.] unit of area equal to a square one foot long on each side) per residents in multiple resident rooms. Rooms 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 housed two residents per room, Rooms 18, 20, 21, 35 and 36 housed four residents per room. This deficient practice had the potential to result in inadequate nursing care to the residents. Findings: During an observation on 1/10/2023 at 8:30 a.m., the following rooms were observed room [ROOM NUMBER], 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and room [ROOM NUMBER] and did not meet the requirement of 80 square feet per residents. During a review of the Client Accommodations Analysis Form (CAAF), provided by the Administrator (ADM) on 1/10/2023, the CAAF indicated Rooms 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, and 34 were occupied by two residents per room and had a total square feet measurement ranging from of 154 square feet to 155 square feet. The CAAF indicated Rooms 18, 20, 21, 35 and 36 were occupied with four residents per room and had a total square feet measurement ranging from 287.28 square feet to 319 square feet. During an interview on 1/11/2023 at 3:30 p.m. with the survey team, the team indicated residents and staff did not have concerns with the room waiver rooms and the staff was able to care and meet the residents needs in the rooms. During a review of the facility's Room Waiver request letter dated 2/12/2022, the Room Waiver letter indicated the subject waiver will not have an adverse effect on the residents' health and safety and will not impede the ability of any resident to attain his or her highest practicable well-being. The following rooms were included in the Room Waiver request letter Rooms 18, 20, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, and 36. During an interview on 1/13/2022 at 3:38 p.m. with the ADM, the ADM stated the facility had requested a room waiver on 2/12/2022 but could not find the approval letter.
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
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s), $65,656 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 74 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $65,656 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in California. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (13/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 13/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns EDGEWATER SKILLED NURSING CENTER an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much below average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center Staffed?

CMS rates EDGEWATER SKILLED NURSING CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 54%, compared to the California average of 46%.

What Have Inspectors Found at Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center?

State health inspectors documented 74 deficiencies at EDGEWATER SKILLED NURSING CENTER during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 70 with potential for harm, and 2 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 Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center?

EDGEWATER SKILLED NURSING CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by THE ENSIGN GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 81 certified beds and approximately 76 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LONG BEACH, California.

How Does Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, EDGEWATER SKILLED NURSING CENTER's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (54%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center?

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

Is Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center Stick Around?

EDGEWATER SKILLED NURSING CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 54%, which is 8 percentage points above the California average of 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 Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center Ever Fined?

EDGEWATER SKILLED NURSING CENTER has been fined $65,656 across 4 penalty actions. This is above the California average of $33,735. 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 Edgewater Skilled Nursing Center on Any Federal Watch List?

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