VILLA SERENA HEALTHCARE CENTER

723 E 9TH STREET, LONG BEACH, CA 90813 (562) 437-2797
For profit - Limited Liability company 52 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
36/100
#497 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

Villa Serena Healthcare Center in Long Beach, California, has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided, which is considered poor. Ranking #497 out of 1,155 facilities statewide places them in the top half, but their county rank of #79 out of 369 suggests many local options may offer better care. The facility is getting worse, with reported issues increasing from 13 in 2024 to 23 in 2025. Staffing is rated average at 3 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 41%, which is similar to the state average but could indicate instability. The facility has faced concerning fines totaling $53,370, higher than 91% of California facilities, and has less RN coverage than 91% of its peers, which is troubling as registered nurses can catch issues that less-trained staff might overlook. Specific incidents of concern include a critical failure to provide timely assessments and necessary interventions for a resident who developed breathing difficulties, ultimately leading to their death. Additionally, staff did not follow proper procedures during a medical emergency, failing to administer CPR to a resident who was in distress. There was also a lack of a documented water management plan, raising concerns about potential infections. While there are strengths, such as good health inspection ratings, these serious issues highlight the need for careful consideration.

Trust Score
F
36/100
In California
#497/1155
Top 43%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
13 → 23 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
41% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$53,370 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 17 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
42 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 13 issues
2025: 23 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (41%)

    7 points below California average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 41%

Near California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $53,370

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 42 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening
Mar 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

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 initiate a change of condition (COC) when one of five sampled resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to initiate a change of condition (COC) when one of five sampled residents (Resident 1) was found with unknown skin discoloration on his right arm and not doing a pain assessment when Resident 1 was found with a skin tear. This deficient practices placed Resident 1 not being monitored for the COC and had the potential for delay in care. 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 was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), muscle wasting and atrophy, and Type 2 (II) Diabetes Mellitus (DM-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool) dated 1/3/2025 the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) were moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required moderate assistance for performing Activities of Daily Living (ADL: bathing, dressing, toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, chair/bed-to-chair transfer, and required supervision for oral hygiene and eating. During a review of the Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR: structured communication tool used to ensure clear and concise information exchange) Communication Form and progress note dated 3/22/2025 at 9:16a.m., the SBAR indicated Resident 1 was being monitored following an incident where another resident was found on top of Resident 1 with a skin tear on the left arm. The SBAR indicated Resident 1 had a left antecubital skin tear and does not indicate Resident 1's pain status. During a review of Resident 1's progress note dated 3/25/2025, the progress note indicated the Nurse Practitioner 1 (NP) assessed Resident 1. Resident 1's left arm skin tear was reclassified to left forearm skin tear. The skin assessment was done with two other licensed nurses with findings of: left forearm skin tear, left upper arm multiple abrasions, and multiple discolorations on right upper extremity. During an interview on 3/27/2025 at 11:49a.m. with Treatment Nurse (TXN), TXN stated he did a skin assessment on 3/25/2025 and indicated there was a skin tear on the left arm and discoloration on the right arm and is not sure if the skin discoloration was observed on 3/24/2025 TXN stated when the new skin discoloration was identified, he notified the doctor and updated the care plan. TXN stated the skin assessment is done when there is a change of condition (COC) or at admission TXN stated he wrote a licensed note indicating the doctor was aware but indicated a COC was not done since this was more of a follow up. A COC is done when there are new findings or if the condition has gotten worse. During an interview on 3/28/2025 at 6:12a.m with Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 (LVN 3), LVN 3 stated she noticed Resident 1 had a skin tear on his arm when she observed another resident on top of Resident 1 and does not know where it came from LVN 3 stated a COC is done when something is different from the resident's baseline such as a cough. LVN 3 stated a COC will still be completed despite the doctor being onsite when the COC is occurring for documentation purposes and as the resident would need to be on continuous monitoring and would additionally indicate the time the doctor was notified. During an interview on 3/28/2025 at 9:08a.m. with DON, DON stated if there was a division from baseline, the nurses do a COC. DON stated the SBAR specify the COC that was observed, assess, stay at bedside until stable, notify the doctor, provide nursing intervention, notify the family, and carry out doctors' orders. DON stated if the resident is having pain, the pain assessment is initiated. DON stated Resident 1 is prone to discoloration due to his frail skin but does not know what caused the skin discoloration. DON stated if the skin discoloration was observed, an SBAR needs to be initiated. DON stated the TXN admitted he should have done an SBAR the day the skin discoloration was identified. DON stated the COC still needs to be initiated as the nurses need to monitor the resident for 72 hrs to identify any changes . DON stated they should have had a pain assessment when Resident 1 had the skin tear on 3/22/2025. DON stated if a pain assessment was not done, there are no documentation that the pain was addressed at that time and there will be a possibility that the pain will be uncontrolled. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Change of Condition dated 2/9/2024, the P&P indicated the licensed nurse will assess the resident's change of condition and document the observations and symptoms. Notification to the Attending Physician will include a summary of the condition change and an assessment. A licensed nurse will document the following: date, time and pertinent details of the incident and the subsequent assessment in the Nursing Notes. The time the Attending Physician was contacted, the method by which he was contacted, the response time .the time the family/responsible person was contacted. A Licensed Nurse will document each shift for at least seventy-two (72) hours. Documentation pertaining to a change in the resident's condition will be maintained in the resident's medical record and on the 24-hour report. During a review of the P&P titled, Pain Management dated 2/9/2024, the P&P indicated the purpose is to ensure accurate assessment and management of the resident's pain.
Jan 2025 22 deficiencies 2 IJ
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the Resident's right to be free from neglect when licensed ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to protect the Resident's right to be free from neglect when licensed nurses did not provide needed services to prevent the resident, who had difficulty breathing, from becoming unresponsive and die for one of one sampled resident (Resident 45). The facility failed to: 1. Ensure licensed nurses conducted timely assessments of Resident 45's physical condition when the resident developed breathing difficulty. 2. Ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 had Resident 45 vital signs (measurements of the body's basic functions including oxygen saturation [amount of oxygen in blood], blood pressure [force of blood pushing against the blood vessels walls in the heart], respiration [process of breathing in and out], heart rate ( pulse : number of times the heart beats per minute), and temperature (measure how well the body can make and get rid of heat) taken and monitored when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) notified LVN 1 on [DATE] at 11:10 p.m., that the resident was having difficulty breathing. 3. Ensure Registered Nurse (RN) 1 monitored Resident 45's condition when she noted Resident 45 was having out of range oxygen saturation level (measure of how much oxygen is in the blood cells. For residents with Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary [referencing to lungs] disease ([COPD] a progressive lung disease that causes difficulty breathing) the reference range is 88% to 92%) on room air and was weak. 4. Ensure RN 1 notified Resident 45's physician of the resident's weakness and refusal to wear a LifeVest (a wearable device that help treat heart failure by monitoring for abnormal heart rhythms and deliver a shock to restore normal rhythm) upon admission. 5. Ensure staff followed the facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Abuse Prevention and Prohibition Program, dated February 9, 2024, which indicated residents would be protected from neglect. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 45 not being monitored by the licensed nurses when Resident 45 had difficulty breathing and weakness on [DATE] at 11:10 p.m. On [DATE] at 4:26 a.m., Resident 45 was found unresponsive and was pronounced dead at 5:07 a.m., by the Paramedics (emergency medical response staff). These deficient practices placed 48 residents in the facility at risk to be neglected by licensed nurses in case their condition was changed. On [DATE] at 6:55p.m., an Immediate Jeopardy ([IJ] a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had cause, or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident) was called in the presence of the Administrator (ADM) and the Director of Nursing (DON). On [DATE] at 2:57 p.m., the ADM submitted an acceptable IJ removal plan ([IJRP], an intervention to immediately correct the deficient practices). After verification of the IJRP implementation through observation, interview, and record reviews, the IJ was removed on [DATE] at 5:50p.m. in the presence of the ADM and the DON. The IJRP included the following: 1. Resident 45 expired on [DATE]. 2. On [DATE], the DON provided RN 1 with a one-to-one in-service (education) regarding responsibilities of a licensed nurse when assessment findings are outside the normal range. The in-service emphasized the importance of monitoring and reassessing the resident to determine the effectiveness of interventions and the resident's response to the interventions. 3. On [DATE], at 8:34 p.m., LVN 1 was sent home on an administrative leave pending the results of the facility's investigation of the allegation. 4. The facility has 48 residents in-house. All residents have the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice. 5. On [DATE], the DON reviewed changes in condition that occurred in the last 24 hours to ensure that the residents were assessed timely and appropriately. There were four residents with changes in condition. Licensed nurses assessed the residents timely and appropriately. 6. On [DATE] and [DATE] the Administrator and Director of Staff Development (DSD) provided an in-service to 47 facility's employees (62.6% of the total staff) regarding the facility's policy on Abuse and Neglect Prohibition. The in-service emphasized the following: a. Different types of abuse, including neglect. b. The definition and examples of neglect. c. The responsibility of the staff to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. 7. The facility staff were given a post-test at the end of the in-service to evaluate their knowledge of the information they received. Passing score is 6 out of 6. Staff who don't pass will be asked to attend the in-service and take the post-test again. Staff who are currently on vacation or on leave (three licensed nurses) will be provided the in-service and post-test upon their return to work. 8. All new hires will be provided with an in-service and post-test by the Director of Staff Development (DSD) regarding the facility's policy on Abuse and Neglect Prohibition. Staff who don't pass will be asked to attend the in-service and take the post-test again. The in-service will address the following: a)Different types of abuse, including neglect; b)The definition and examples of neglect; c)The responsibility of the staff to provide goods and services to a resident that are necessary to avoid physical harm, pain, mental anguish, or emotional distress. 9. Starting [DATE], the Administrator or designee will provide Abuse and Neglect Prevention in-service to staff quarterly for 1 year and twice a year thereafter. 10. On [DATE], the DON and Nurse Consultant provided an in-service to three RNs (100% of facility RNs) and 10 LVNs (76.9% of facility LVNs) regarding managing changes of condition. The in-service emphasized the following points: a) Conducting timely assessments, including vital signs, of a resident who has a change in condition; b) Notifying the physician of changes in condition; c) Monitoring the resident's condition; d) Reassessing the resident to determine the resident's response and the effectiveness of the interventions. 11. The licensed nurses were given a post-test at the end of the in-service to evaluate their knowledge of the information they received. Passing score is 5 out of 5. Licensed nurses who don't pass will be asked to attend the in-service and take the post-test again. Staff who are currently on vacation or on leave (three licensed nurses) will be provided the in-service and post-test upon their return to work. 12. Starting [DATE], the DON will provide training on managing changes in condition for all newly hired licensed nurses. 13. The DON will review changes in condition daily, from Monday through Friday, to ensure that prompt resident assessment was conducted in response to the change in condition. Changes in condition that occur on the weekend will be reviewed the following Monday. Findings will be corrected immediately. 14. The Medical Records Director will audit changes in condition daily, from Monday through Friday, to ensure that the medical provider was notified of changes in condition. Changes in condition that occur on the weekend will be audited the following Monday. Findings will be reported to the DON for follow-up. 15. The DSD will report the number of new hires for the month and if the abuse in-service training was provided for them to the Quality Assessment and Assurance ([QAA] process to identify how the facility is performing and maintain quality of care) Committee during the Quality Assurance Performance improvement ([QAPI] process to improve services and outcomes) meeting monthly for three months. 16. The DON will report findings and trends from the change in condition review to the QAA Committee during the QAPI meeting monthly for three months. 17. The Medical Records Director will report findings and trends from the change in condition audits to the QAA Committee during the QAPI meeting monthly for three months. Findings: During a review of Resident 45's admission record, the admission Record indicated Resident 45 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted from a general acute care hospital (GACH) on [DATE] with diagnoses including COPD, End Stage Renal Disease ([ESRD] irreversible kidney failure), Congestive Heart Failure ([CHF] a disorder which causes the heart not to pump blood efficiently, sometimes resulting in leg swelling), and Type II Diabetes Mellitus ([DM] a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing). During a review of Resident 45's History and Physical (H&P) dated [DATE], the H&P indicated Resident 45 had fluctuating (varied) capacity to understand and make decisions. The H&P indicated Resident 45 was a full code (resident chooses to receive all life saving measures in case of an emergency) status. During a review of Resident 45's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool), dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 45's cognitive (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) skills for daily decision making were mildly impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 45 required moderate assistance for most of her activities of daily living (sit to stand, chair/bed to chair transfer, walking 10 feet, shower transfer, dressing, bathing, oral and toileting hygiene), required supervision (no physical assistance) for personal hygiene, and required set up for eating. The MDS indicated Resident 45 utilized a wheelchair and did not have any impairments on both upper (arms/shoulders) and lower extremities (hip/legs). During a review of Resident 45's Order Summary Report (Physician's orders), the Order Summary Report indicated an order dated [DATE] to monitor the resident's vital signs every shift for 72 hours (every shift for baseline vital signs for three days). During a review of the Nurses Progress Notes dated [DATE] and timed at 7:25 a.m., completed by LVN 1, the Nurses Progress Notes indicated that on [DATE] around 2:20 a.m., Resident 45 was resting and was responsive to verbal stimuli (sounds or words produced by a speaker to get attention) with no complications. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated at 4:25 a.m., Resident 45 was unresponsive even after a Sternal Rub (painful stimulus with the knuckles at the center of the chest) to the center of the chest, so Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR an emergency procedure to restart a person's heart [chest compressions] and breathing after one or both have stopped) was initiated, 911 was called, and the doctor was notified. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated at 4:41a.m., Paramedics arrived at the facility and took over Resident 45's CPR. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated at 5:07a.m., Paramedics pronounced Resident 45 deceased . During a review of the Nurses Progress Notes dated [DATE] at 8:49 p.m., documented by RN 1, the Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 45 was alert and oriented, her respirations were even and unlabored (easy, effortless breathing, without any signs of difficulty or struggle), her blood pressure was 146/88 millimeters of mercury ([mmHg] unit of measure. Reference range 120/80 mmHg), heart rate of 80 beats per minute (reference range 60 to 100), respiratory rate of 17 breath per minute (reference range 12 to 20 breaths per minute), and 94% oxygen saturation on 3.0 ([L]unit of measure) per minute (min) L/M through a nasal cannula ([NC] device that delivers oxygen through thin tube s placed into nostrils). RN 1 stated she was uncomfortable with the way Resident 45 presented as she (Resident 45) seemed being out of it. RN 1 stated Resident 45 was too weak to sign the admission documents and the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment ([POLST]residents' preferences for medical treatment) and said she would do it tomorrow on [DATE]. RN 1 stated when a resident is newly admitted or readmitted , the nurse that admits the resident completes a head-to-toe assessment, reviews the residents' medications and notifies the admitting physician for admission orders. RN 1 stated Resident 45 came to the facility with her LifeVest but she was not wearing it. RN 1 stated the nurse, who gave report over the phone from the GACH, told her Resident 45 refused the LifeVest. RN 1 stated when Resident 45 was admitted she did not look right. RN 1 stated she relayed this information to LVN 1 to ensure LVN 1 would monitor Resident 45 closely. RN 1 stated she should have informed the doctor that Resident 45 was not doing well upon admission. RN 1 stated the interventions to implement when a resident found unresponsive and pulseless (no heartbeat) include the following: 1. Do an assessment. 2. Get the crash cart (trays and drawers on wheels that contains emergency medication and equipment for life threatening emergencies). 3. Put the back board under the resident. 4. Announce a Code Blue (an announcement that signifies a medical emergency where a patient is experiencing a life-threatening situation) through the overhead paging system. 5. Take vital signs. 6. Put a nonrebreather mask (oxygen mask that delivers high concentrations of oxygen) on the resident. 7. Initiate chest compressions immediately. RN 1 stated the chest compressions should continue until the paramedics arrive at the room and take over. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:55p.m., LVN 1 stated he worked on [DATE] during the night shift (11 p.m. to 7 a.m.). LVN 1 stated when he came to work, he made rounds and visual checks on all residents to see if the residents were breathing. LVN 1 stated he received report from the outgoing RN 1, read Resident 45's H&P, and continued to provide care to other residents after he observed Resident 45 was doing okay at 2:20 a.m., on [DATE]. LVN 1 stated he normally makes rounds every one to two hours. LVN 1 stated facility residents' vital signs are taken at the beginning of the shift. LVN 1 stated around 4:00 a.m., he noticed Resident 45 was not communicating and unresponsive. LVN 1 stated Resident 45 was lying in bed and was warm to the touch. LVN 1 stated assessing a resident included to check vital signs and to document in the progress notes. LVN 1 stated vital signs are taken to identify the actual state of the resident since he would not know what is going on with the resident otherwise. During an interview on [DATE], at 9:15 a.m., CNA 1, stated on [DATE] at 11:10 p.m., she notified LVN 1 that Resident 45 was gasping for air and did not look well. CNA 1 stated she went to Resident 45's room with LVN 1. CNA 1 stated she did not witness LVN 1 assessing the resident or taking Resident 45 vital signs. CNA 1 stated LVN 1 told her he would go and look in Resident 45's chart. CNA 1 stated she went to check on Resident 45 again between 4:00 a.m. and 4:05 a.m., and she was still breathing. CNA 1 stated she went back to Resident 45's room around 4:26 a.m., when she heard LVN 1 in Resident 45's room calling Resident 45's name out loud four times. CNA 1 stated LVN 1 told her that Resident 45 was unresponsive, and they did not need to do anything. CNA 1 stated LVN 1 told her we do not need to check Resident 45's vitals. CNA 1 stated she still went to get the vital signs machine and asked CNA 2, who was in the hallway, to join her to assist. CNA 1 stated when CNA 2 and her went back into Resident 45's room with the vitals machine, LVN 1 instructed CNA 2 and her (CNA 1) to start CPR. CNA 1 stated when they started CPR Resident 45 was cold to the touch on her face, hands, and legs. CNA 1 stated LVN 1 brought in the crash cart, did not provide oxygen rescue breaths to Resident 45 during CPR, did not take the vital signs, and did not place the Back Board under Resident 45. CNA 1 stated she did not witness LVN 1 perform CPR on Resident 45 at any time. CNA 1 stated LVN 1 stated he was going to call the Paramedics and did not return to Resident 45's room after that. CNA 1 stated she and CNA 2 took turns to do Resident 45's chest compressions, but they did not provide any rescue breaths as they did not have an Ambu-Bag (handheld device to provide respiratory support to patients who are not breathing). CNA 1 stated while CNA 2 was doing chest compressions, she heard the Paramedics entering the facility and she instructed CNA 2 to stop doing chest compressions since the Paramedics were in the building. During an interview on [DATE], at 10:07 a.m., CNA 2 stated when he was going to take the trash out after changing a resident, he saw CNA 1 walking towards him. CNA 2 stated he did not know what was going on as he did not hear any Code Blue called. CNA 2 stated he walked with CNA 1 to Resident 45's room per CNA 1's request and observed Resident 45 laying in bed with the head of bed elevated. CNA 2 stated CNA 1 asked LVN 1 if he wanted to take vitals and he said, no it is fine and instructed him and CNA 1 to begin CPR, as he (LVN 1) left the room to call Paramedics. CNA 2 stated CNA 1 was looking out in the hallway and heard the Paramedics were coming so she told him (CNA 2) to stop doing chest compressions. CNA 2 stated Paramedics came in and took over the situation. CNA 2 stated at the beginning of the shift (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), CNA 1 notified him (CNA 2) that Resident 45 did not look well so CNA 1 and him went to observe Resident 45 together. CNA 2 stated upon observation, Resident 45 had the oxygen via nasal cannula on, but seemed weak as she was not able to move her arms or change positions in her bed and appeared to have issues with breathing. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 1:47 p.m., with RN 1, Resident 45's Medication Administration Record ([MAR] document that tracks medications given to residents) dated [DATE] - [DATE] was reviewed. RN 1 stated there were no vital signs documented but considering Resident 45's history of COPD, the oxygen saturation should have been checked and documented. RN 1 stated a review of the doctor's order indicated to monitor vital signs every shift for 72 hours (every shift for baseline vital signs for three days) on [DATE]. RN1 stated since Resident 45's vital signs were not taken; the doctors' orders were not followed. RN 1 stated if it was not documented it was not done. RN 1 stated doctors' orders have to be followed, not following the orders can compromise the residents' health. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:32 p.m., the DSD stated if a Code Blue is called, someone gets supplies, check oxygen saturation, have someone documenting the vital signs, get the crash cart, and call 911. The DSD stated the blood pressure cuff will not be taken off and the vital signs will be continuously checked. The DSD stated every resident's vital signs should be checked at the beginning of the shift. The DSD stated there is a nonrebreather (a manual device used to deliver oxygen) mask on the crash cart, and a Back Board that is needed to provide effective chest compressions. The DSD stated during a Code Blue, while one staff is performing chest compressions another staff member gives rescue breaths with the Ambu-Bag. The DSD stated someone calls the code blue on the overhead paging system to ensure everyone in the facility is aware of the emergency and can respond immediately. The DSD stated CPR needs to be continuous until there is a pulse or until Paramedics arrive and take over the CPR. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:21p.m., the DON stated if a resident is nonresponsive the most important body systems to assess are airways (a passage where air reaches a person's lungs), breathing, and blood circulation. The DON stated if it is appropriate, to start chest compressions, have someone call 911, bring the crash cart, use the Ambu-Bag for rescue breaths. The DON stated chest compressions will be continuously provided until the Paramedics will arrive and take over. During an interview on [DATE] at 4:22 p.m., the DON, stated when a new admission or readmission arrives at the facility, the licensed nurse should accompany the resident to the room to observe the resident's condition and ensure the resident is stable. The DON stated when a resident has a change in condition (COC) the licensed staff are expected to check the resident's blood sugar level and vital signs to see if they are within normal reference range. The DON stated when a resident is having shortness of breath, the licensed nurse cannot leave the resident unmonitored until the resident's condition is stable. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 4:42 p.m., LVN 1's Progress Notes were reviewed. The DON stated Resident 45 was admitted back to the facility on [DATE] and passed at the facility on [DATE]. The DON stated the vital signs should have been taken within the shift 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. The DON stated the vital signs were not recorded and if it was not documented it was not done The DON stated LVN 1 and/or RN 1 did not check Resident 45's blood sugar level since Resident 45 was a diabetic and was unresponsive. The DON stated the licensed nurses did not check Resident 45's vital signs during 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. shift and the last vital signs were taken on [DATE] at 8:49 p.m. during the resident's admission. The DON stated there were no documentations to indicate whether LVN 1 checked Resident 45's pulse prior to instructing CNA 1 and CNA 2 to start CPR. The DON stated when CNA 1 reported to LVN 1 that Resident 45 was not doing well, LVN 1 should have assessed Resident 45 immediately when he went to the resident's room and to check vital signs. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 4:53 p.m., with the DON, Resident 45's the Cardiology (a department responsible for concerns with diagnosis and treatment of heart-related diseases and disorders) Note and Supportive Care and Palliative (care focused on improving quality of life for individuals with serious illness without curing the condition) Visit Notes from the GACH were reviewed. The DON stated the Cardiology Note dated [DATE], indicated Resident 45 had a risk for sudden cardiac arrest (an unexpected condition where the heart stops breathing). The DON stated since Resident 45 refused the LifeVest and further implantable cardioverter defibrillator ([ICD] small device that monitors and responds to abnormal heart rhythm), Resident 45 was a high risk for cardiac arrest without interventions from the LifeVest or the ICD. The DON stated the Supportive Care and Palliative Visit Note from the GACH indicated Resident 45 wanted CPR. The DON stated when a resident has a Full Code status, the CPR is expected to be initiated when a resident unresponsive. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 5:13 p.m., with the Emergency Medical Services Captain (EMSC), the Paramedic Run Sheet dated [DATE] was reviewed. The EMSC stated when the Paramedics arrived on scene, Resident 45 was found lying on her back in bed pulseless and apneic (involuntarily and temporarily stoped breathing). The EMSC stated the facility's staff were not doing CPR when they arrived. The EMSC stated initiating CPR may increase the chances of a resident survival. During an interview on [DATE] at 6:28 p.m., the DON stated neglect constitutes when staff does not provide needed care and staff is not doing their job in such instances if a resident needs medication and it is not given, that would be considered negligence. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Abuse Prevention and Prohibition Program, dated February 9, 2024, the P&P indicated each resident has the right to be free from neglect, and mistreatment. The facility has zero-tolerance for neglect, staff must not permit anyone to engage in neglect, and mistreatment. The facility maintains adequate staffing on all shifts to ensure that the needs of each resident are met. Neglect: inadequate provision of care, caregiver indifference to resident's personal care and needs. During a review of the facility's P&P, titled, Change of Condition Notification, dated February 9, 2024, the P&P indicated an acute change of condition (ACOC) is a sudden, clinically important deviation from a patient's baseline in physical, cognitive, behavior, or functional domains. Clinically important means a deviation that, without intervention, may result in complications or death. The Licensed Nurse will assess the resident's change of condition and document the observations and symptoms. A Licensed Nurse will document the following: Date, time, and pertinent details of the incident and the subsequent assessment in the Nursing Notes. The time the Attending Physician was contacted, the method by which he was contacted, the response time, and whether or not orders were received. A Licensed Nurse will document each shift for at least seventy-two (72) hours. During a review of the facility's P&P, titled, admission Assessment, dated February 9, 2024, the P&P indicated the assessment process must include direct and indirect observation and communication with the resident, as well as communication with licensed and non-licensed direct care staff members on all shifts. Assessment findings may necessitate communication with attending physician for treatment or care orders. The assessment will be documented and will be communicated with licensed and nonlicensed direct care staff members on all shifts. During a review of the facility's P&P, titled, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, dated February 21, 2024, the P&P indicated to sustain or support a resident's cardiac and/or pulmonary function(s) until medical emergency personnel are available to take over the resuscitation efforts. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is instituted on all residents except those designated as No Code or No CPR. In the absence of a DNR order, CPR will be performed. The facility will perform CPR in accordance with the guideline set forth by the American Heart Association. Establish unresponsiveness, verify code status prior to the initiation of CPR, alert the emergency response team (call 911), check for pulse, CPR will be initiated using the standards outline in the American Heart Association's most current CPR guidance, continue CPR until paramedics arrive and take over.
CRITICAL (J)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0678 (Tag F0678)

Someone could have died · 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 had a Full Code (resident wants all life s...

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 had a Full Code (resident wants all life saving measures in case of emergencies) status and was in distress received Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation ([CPR] an emergency procedure to restart a person's heart (chest compressions) to increase the chances of a resident's survival for one of 39 residents who had a Full Code status (Resident 45). The facility failed to: 1. Ensure facility staff were knowledgeable what actions to take when responding to a resident in distress. 2. Ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN )1 announced a Code Blue (an announcement that signifies a medical emergency where a patient is experiencing a life-threatening situation) when he found Resident 45 unresponsive. 3. Ensure LVN 1 provided resuscitation (action or process of reviving someone from unconsciousness or apparent death) and basic life support ([BLS], basic care healthcare professionals provide to anyone who's heart stops beating suddenly) such as CPR, immediately without loss of critical time to Resident 45 when the resident was found unresponsive (a person is unable to respond to their surrounding and do not react to stimulation like touch, sound, or pain) on [DATE] at 4:30 p.m. 4. Ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 and CNA 2 did not stop delivering chest compressions (involves giving strong, rapid pushes to the chest to keep blood moving through the body) to Resident 45's before the Paramedics were able to take Resident 45's CPR over. 5. Ensure staff implemented the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation dated February 21, 2024, which indicated to sustain or support a resident's cardiac (related to heart) and/or pulmonary (related to lungs) function(s) until medical emergency personnel are available to take over the resuscitation efforts and the American Heart Association ([AHA] the leader in resuscitation science, education, and training, and publisher of the official Guidelines for CPR) guidelines that indicated First responder would call for help, send available staff to call a Code Blue and retrieve emergency medical equipment, assess the residents' level of consciousness, circulation, airway, and breathing and begin CPR, call 911, CPR will continue until the paramedics arrive and assume responsibility. These deficient practices resulted in the delay of life saving measures such as CPR for Resident 45 when she was found unresponsive on [DATE] at 4:30 p.m., and pronounced dead on [DATE] at 5:07 a.m. These deficient practices placed 38 residents, who had a Full Code status at risk not to receive CPR. On [DATE] at 6:55 p.m., an Immediate Jeopardy ([IJ] a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation had caused, or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident) was called in the presence of the Administrator (ADM) and the Director of Nursing (DON) due to the facility's failure to ensure the facility staff provided basic life support to Resident 45, including CPR immediately upon discovering the resident had difficulty breathing and became unresponsive. On [DATE] at 2:57 p.m., the Facility submitted an acceptable IJ removal plan ([IJRP], an intervention to immediately correct the deficient practices). After verification the IJRP was implemented through observation, interview, and record reviews, the IJ was removed while onsite on [DATE] at 5:50 p.m., in the presence of the ADM and the DON. The IJRP included the following: 1. Thirty eight of the 48 residents in the facility were Full Code. All 38 residents have the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice. There were no medical emergencies that occurred in the last 24 hours. 2. On [DATE], a BLS certified instructor provided BLS training to 11 licensed nurses (91.6% of total licensed staff) and 18 CNAs (64.2%). The training consisted of in person instructions on when to initiate CPR and how to perform the CPR correctly according to the American Heart Association guidelines, and skills demonstration of the proper CPR procedure. 3. On [DATE], the DON and the Nurse Consultant conducted a Code Blue drill for nursing staff to simulate a medical emergency. The drill emphasized the staff's responsibility to respond to a medical emergencies, the various roles and responsibilities of the staff when responding to a medical emergency, how to operate emergency equipment found in the crash cart (cart stocked with emergency medical equipment, supplies, and drugs for use by medical personnel especially during efforts to resuscitate a patient experiencing cardiac arrest), including the Ambu-bag (a medical device that helps patients breathe by forcing air into their lungs) and cardiac board (a rigid board used to provide a firm surface for chest compressions during CPR). There were 12 licensed nurses (92.3% of total number of licensed nurses) and 18 CNAs (64.2%) who participated in the drill. Nursing staff who were currently on vacation or on leave will be provided the in-service and post-test upon their return to work. 4. Starting [DATE], the DON and Nurse Consultant will conduct a Code Blue drill for nursing staff quarterly for one year and then annually thereafter. 5. On [DATE], the DON and Nurse Consultant provided an in-service to three Registered Nurses (RNs) (100%) and 10 LVNs (76.9%) regarding managing changes of condition. The in-service emphasized the following points: a. Conducting timely assessments, including vital signs, of a resident who has a change in condition. b. Notifying the physician of changes in condition. c. Monitoring the resident's condition. d. Reassessing the resident to determine the resident's response and the effectiveness of the interventions. e. Initiating CPR promptly when the resident is not breathing and/or does not have a pulse. f. The licensed nurses were given a post-test at the end of the in-service to evaluate their knowledge of the information they received. Passing score was 5 out of 5. Licensed nurses who don't pass will be asked to attend the in-service and take the post-test again. Staff who are currently on vacation or on leave (three licensed nurses) will be provided the in-service and post-test upon their return to work. g. The DON will review changes in condition daily, from Monday through Friday, to ensure that prompt resident assessment was conducted in response to the change in condition. Changes in condition that occur on the weekend will be reviewed the following Monday. Findings will be corrected immediately. h. The DON will report findings and trends from the change in condition review to the Quality Assessment and Assurance ([QAA ] process to identify how the facility is performing and maintain quality of care) Committee during the Quality Assurance Performance improvement ([QAPI] process to improve services and outcomes) meeting monthly for three months. i. The Medical Records Director will report findings and trends from the change in condition audits to the QAA Committee during the QAPI meeting monthly for 3 months. Findings: During a review of Resident 45's admission record, the admission Record indicated Resident 45 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted from a general acute hospital (GACH) on [DATE] with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary disease (COPD: progressive lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD: irreversible kidney failure), Congestive Heart Failure (CHF: a heart disorder which causes the heart to not pump the blood efficiently, sometimes resulting in leg swelling), and Type II Diabetes Mellitus (DM: a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing). During a review of Resident 45's History and Physical (H&P) dated [DATE], the H&P indicated Resident 45 had fluctuating (varied) capacity to understand and make decisions. The H&P indicated Resident 45 was a Full Code (FC) status. During a review of Resident 45's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool), dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 45's cognitive (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) skills for daily decision making were mildly impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 45 required moderate assistance for most of her activities of daily living (sit to stand, chair/bed to chair transfer, walking 10 feet, shower transfer, dressing, bathing, oral and toileting hygiene), required supervision (no physical assistance) for personal hygiene, and required set up for eating. The MDS indicated Resident 45 utilized a wheelchair and did not have any impairments on both the upper (arms/shoulders) and lower extremities (hip/legs). During a review of Resident 45's Order Summary Report (physician's orders), the Order Summary Report indicated an order dated [DATE] to monitor the resident's vital signs (measurements of the body's basic functions including oxygen saturation [amount of oxygen in blood], blood pressure [force of blood pushing against the blood vessels walls in the heart], respiration [process of breathing in and out], heart rate (pulse : number of times the heart beats per minute), and temperature (measure how well the body can make and get rid of heat) every shift for 72 hours (every shift for baseline vital signs for three days). During a review of the Paramedics (emergency medical responders) report dated [DATE] at 4:45 a.m., the Paramedics report indicated when the Paramedics arrived to Resident 45's room, Resident 45 was lying on her back, pulseless (no heart beat), apneic (involuntarily and temporarily stops breathing), had an oxygen saturation (amount of oxygen in blood) of 79 percent (%) (COPD resident reference rate 88% to 92%), and a blood glucose (amount of sugar in blood) level of 45 (reference range 70 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dL: unit of measure used to report concentration of a substance in a fluid) to 100mg/dL). The Paramedics report indicated the staff did not conduct CPR prior to the Paramedics arrival. The report indicated the Paramedics initiated CPR at 4:45a.m., and after 20 minutes of performing CPR with no change, Resident 45 was pronounced dead at 5:07 a.m. During a review of the Nursing admission assessment dated [DATE] at 8:43 p.m., the Nursing admission Assessment indicated Resident 45 was admitted on [DATE] at 6:55p.m. Resident 45 was alert, oriented to person, had weakness in both upper and lower extremities. During a review of the Nurses Progress Notes dated [DATE] at 7:25 a.m., documented by LVN 1, the Nurses Progress Notes indicated around 2:20 a.m., Resident 45 was resting and responsive to verbal stimuli (sounds or words produced by a speaker to get attention) with no complications. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated at 4:25a.m., Resident 45 was unresponsive to sternal rub (painful stimulus with the knuckles at the center of the chest), CPR was initiated, 911 was called, and the doctor was notified. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated at 4:41 a.m., Paramedics arrived at the facility and took over Resident 45's CPR. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated at 5:07a.m., Paramedics pronounced Resident 45 deceased . During an interview on [DATE] at 2:32p.m., RN 1 stated when Resident 45 arrived at the facility on [DATE], she appeared unkempt, speech was clear and seemed tired. RN 1 stated during Resident 45's admission assessment, Resident 45 was able to state her name, her oxygen saturation (measure of how much oxygen is in the blood cells [COPD resident reference rate 88% to 92%] was in the low 90s. so she gave the resident oxygen at 3.0 liters ([L] unit of measure) per minute (min) via nasal canula ([NC] device that delivers oxygen through a very small thin tubes placed into each nostril ). RN 1 stated she was uncomfortable with the way Resident 45 presented because she seemed out of it. RN 1 stated Resident 45 was too weak to sign admission documents or the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment ([POLST] residents' preferences for medical treatment) and indicated she would do it tomorrow. RN 1 stated at the end of her shift she gave report to LVN 1 (the incoming nurse) to monitor Resident 45. RN 1 stated Resident 45 came to the facility with her LifeVest (a wearable device to monitor for abnormal heart rhythms and deliver a shock to restore normal rhythm) but she was not wearing it. RN 1 stated 1. RN 1 stated when Resident 45 was admitted , she did not look right. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:55p.m., LVN 1 stated he worked on [DATE] during the night shift (11p.m. to 7 a.m.). LVN 1 stated when he came to work, he made rounds and visually checked on all the residents, to see if the residents were breathing. LVN 1 stated he received report from the outgoing RN 1 read Resident 45's H&P and continued to provide care to other residents after he observed Resident 45 at 2:20 a.m. was doing okay. LVN 1 stated he normally makes rounds every one to two hours. LVN 1 stated around 4:00 a.m., he noticed Resident 45 was not communicating and unresponsive. LVN 1 stated Resident 45 was laying down and was warm to the touch. LVN 1 stated he initiated CPR, went to call 911, and had to go back to continue CPR. LVN 1 stated CNA 1 and CNA 2 were in Resident 45's room to help with CPR while he called 911. LVN 1 stated CNA 1 and CNA 2 took turns to do CPR. LVN 1 stated Resident 45 was wearing her nasal canula and he placed the flat board (provide a firm surface when chest compressions are performed to provide adequate and effective compressions) underneath the resident. During an interview on [DATE], at 9:15 a.m., CNA 1, stated she went to check on Resident 45 between 4:00 a.m. and 4:05 a.m., and the resident was breathing. CNA 1 stated she went back to Resident 45's room around 4:26 a.m., when she heard LVN 1 calling Resident 45's name out loud four times. CNA 1 stated LVN 1 told her that Resident 45 was unresponsive. CNA 1 stated LVN 1 to her nothing needed to be done, and she did not need to check Resident 45's vital signs. CNA 1 stated she still went to get the vital signs machine and asked CNA 2, who was in the hallway, to join her to assist. CNA 1 stated when CNA 2 and her went back into Resident 45's room with the vitals machine, LVN 1 instructed CNA 2 and her (CNA 1) to start CPR. CNA 1 stated when they started CPR, Resident 45 was cold to the touch on her face, hands, and legs. CNA 1 stated LVN 1 brought in the crash cart. CNA 1 stated no one provided rescue breaths to Resident 45 during CPR, no one took her vital signs and no one placed a Back Board under Resident 45. CNA 1 stated she did not witness LVN 1 perform CPR on Resident 45 at any time. CNA 1 stated LVN 1 stated he was going to call the Paramedics and never came back to Resident 45's room after that. CNA 1 stated she and CNA 2 took turns doing compressions, but they did not provide any rescue breaths as they did not have an Ambu-bag. CNA 1 stated while CNA 2 was doing compressions, she heard the Paramedics entering the facility and she instructed CNA 2 to stop doing compressions since the Paramedics were in the building. During an interview on [DATE], at 10:07 a.m., CNA 2 stated at the on [DATE] at the beginning of the shift (11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.), CNA 1 notified LVN 1 that Resident 45 did not look-well and they together went to observe Resident 45. CNA 2 stated upon observation Resident 45 had oxygen via nasal cannula, but seemed weak as she was not able to move her arms and could not change positions in bed and appeared to have issues breathing. CNA 2 stated on [DATE], when he was going to take the trash out after changing one of the residents, he saw CNA 1 walking towards him and asked for his help with Resident 45, who was in distress. CNA 2 stated he did not know there was a Code Blue because he did not hear the code to be announced overhead . During an interview on [DATE] at 2:32 p.m., with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated during any shift, if a resident is in respiratory distress, licensed staff must assess the resident, call the doctor, check vital signs, and to give oxygen if the resident is desaturating (blood oxygen level is dropping). The DSD stated someone will call a Code Blue on the overhead to ensure everyone in the facility is aware and can respond immediately. The DSD stated staff must work together to gather supplies such as the crash cart, check and document the vital signs, and call 911. The DSD stated if a resident has a change of condition staff should take vital signs. The DSD stated an Ambu-bag is on the Crash Cart to provide breaths during compressions. The DSD stated staff should use a Back Board from the Crash Cart to provide effective compressions, if there is no Back Board, then staff need to put the resident on the floor for effective compressions. The DSD stated CPR needs to be continuous until there is a pulse or until the Paramedics arrive and take over. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:56 p.m., CNA 3 stated she worked the 11 p.m. to 7 p.m. shift on [DATE]. CNA 3 stated she did not hear any Code Blues called on [DATE] during the 11:00p.m. to 7:00a.m. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:21 p.m., the DON stated if a resident is nonresponsive the licensed nurses should assess the resident's breathing, heartbeat, and if indicated start chest compressions while another staff member calls 911, bring the Crash Cart, use the Ambu-bag. The DON stated chest compressions should be continuous until the Paramedics come and take CPR over. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 4:42 p.m., with the DON, Resident 45's Nurses Progress Notes dated [DATE] were reviewed. The DON stated Resident 45 was admitted back to the facility on [DATE] and passed at the facility on [DATE]. The DON stated the resident's vital signs were not recorded during the 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift. The DON stated if it was not documented, it was not done. The DON stated during a life-threatening emergency someone will call a Code Blue on the overhead speaker to ensure everyone in the facility is aware and can respond immediately. The DON stated on [DATE] at 11:10 p.m. when CNA 1 reported to LVN 1 that Resident 45 was having difficulty breathing, LVN 1 should have assessed Resident 45 immediately, including taking vital signs and checking oxygen saturation. The DON stated since Resident 45 was a Full Code, the life saving measures such as CPR should have been initiated immediately when the resident was found unresponsive. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 4:53 p.m., with the DON Resident 45's GACH records were reviewed. The DON stated on the Cardiology Note dated [DATE], Resident 45 had a risk for sudden cardiac arrest as she had refused the LifeVest and further implantable cardioverter defibrillator ([ICD] small device that monitors and responds to abnormal heart rhythm) workup. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 5:13 p.m., the Paramedic Run Sheet dated [DATE] was reviewed with the Emergency Medical Services Captain (EMSC).The EMSC stated when the Paramedics arrived on scene (Resident 45's bedside), Resident 45 was found pulseless and apneic lying on her back in bed. The EMSC stated staff did not start CPR prior to the Paramedics arrival. The EMSC stated initiating CPR timely may increase the chances of survival of the resident and the facility was not doing CPR when they arrived. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation dated February 21, 2024, the P&P indicated to sustain or support a resident's cardiac and/or pulmonary function(s) until medical emergency personnel are available to take over the resuscitation efforts. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation is instituted on all residents except those designated as No Code or No CPR. In the absence of a Do Not Resuscitate ([DNR] medical order that instructs healthcare providers not to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) order, CPR will be performed. The facility will perform CPR in accordance with the guideline set forth by the American Heart Association. Establish unresponsiveness, verify code status prior to the initiation of CPR, alert the emergency response team (call 911), check for pulse, CPR will be initiated using the standards outline in the American Heart Association's most current CPR guidance, continue CPR until paramedics arrive and take over, Documentation: Whether the incident was witnessed: A. Date and time event was recognized. B. When you found the resident and started CPR. C. Condition of the resident when ventilation (respiration status), chest compressions or defibrillation needed. D. How long the resident received CPR. E. The resident's response to CPR. F. Any interventions taken to correct complications. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Change of Condition Notification, dated February 9, 2024, the P&P indicated an acute change of condition (ACOC) is a sudden, clinically important deviation from a patient's baseline in physical, cognitive, behavior, or functional domains. Clinically important means a deviation that, without intervention, may result in complications or death. The Licensed Nurse will assess the resident's change of condition and document the observations and symptoms. A Licensed Nurse will document the following: Date, time, and pertinent details of the incident and the subsequent assessment in the Nursing Notes. The time the Attending Physician was contacted, the method by which he was contacted, the response time, and whether or not orders were received. A Licensed Nurse will document each shift for at least seventy-two (72) hours. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Medical Emergencies-Code Blue dated February 9, 2024, the P&P indicated to ensure the prompt and effective response by Facility personnel during medical emergencies through the use of the Code Blue procedure. A medical emergency is defined as one of the following conditions requiring immediate medical intervention and the initiation of the Code Blue procedure: Respiratory or cardiac arrest (when the heart suddenly and unexpectedly stops beating). Once CPR is initiated, it will continue until Paramedics arrive. I. First Responder A. The first of Facility personnel to arrive and find a resident with any of the above conditions will: 1. Call for help. 2. Send available staff to call a Code Blue and retrieve emergency medical equipment. 3. Assess the resident's level of consciousness, circulation, airway, and breathing; begin CPR according to the current practice. Note: The first responder should not leave the victim to call for help unless absolutely necessary according to the situation. 4. When the second responder arrives, have the second responder place the cardiac arrest board under the resident and assist with two-rescuer CPR. II. Subsequent Responder(s): A. Active the Emergency Response System-Call 911. B. Direct all needed personnel to the Code Blue site. C. Send a Staff member to the entrance door to wait where the ambulance is expected to arrive. D. The first RN to respond will lead the code unless responsibility is transferred to another licensed staff member (RN or Medical Doctor). E. If no other RN or MD is available, the RN will follow the procedure as given in the Unit Nurse or Designee section below. F. Note: One person CPR will be maintained until there is a second responder available to begin two person CPR. G. CPR will continue until the paramedics arrive and assume responsibility. III. Roles During the Code: Any available Nursing Staff will complete the tasks as directed in the First Responder and Subsequent Responder sections of this procedure. IV. Licensed Nurse: A. In the absence of an Attending Physician, it will be the responsibility of the first licensed staff member responding to the code to lead, and coordinate the resuscitation efforts until paramedics arrive. B. The nurse will assure that the following tasks have been completed and/or assigned: 1. CPR has been initiated. 2. 911 has been called. 3. Code Blue or STAT (immediately) has been paged overhead. 4. Emergency Cart is on the scene. 5. Staff have been assigned to monitor other residents and move them to a safe area during the code blue. 6. Attending MD and/or MD on-can has been notified Director of Nursing/Nurse Manager has been notified. 7. Document the event in the resident record. 8. Charting of time and condition of the resident at the time of discovery, CPR initiated, when Code Blue called, when physician and family notified, and when nursing staff responded.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

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 interdisciplinary team (IDT-a coordinated group of experts fro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility's interdisciplinary team (IDT-a coordinated group of experts from several different fields who work together) failed to ensure one of one resident (Resident 41) was assessed to determine if the resident was capable of self-administering medications. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 41 to self-administer medications incorrectly resulting in subtherapeutic (below the level necessary to treat effectively) medication effects which can lead to health issues. Findings: During a review of Resident 41's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 41 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including allergic rhinitis (inflammation [redness and swelling] of the inside of the nose) and asthma (a chronic lung disease caused by inflammation and muscle tightening around the airways which makes it harder to breathe). During a review of Resident 41's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 8/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 41's cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 41 needed set up assistance with all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs- activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily). During a review of Resident 41's Physician Order Report: active orders as of 1/15/2025, the report indicated the following: 1) Ordered 8/21/2024, Artificial Tears ophthalmic solution (eye drops to treat dry eyes) instill one drop in both eyes four times a day. 2) Ordered 8/21/2024, Fluticasone Salmeterol Inhalation aerosol powder breath activated (medication to treat asthma) 250-50 micrograms/ actuation (unit of measure) 3) Ordered 8/21/2024, Ipratropium Bromide Nasal Solution 0.03 percent (medication to treat allergic rhinitis), 2 spray each nostril three times a day. 4) Sodium chloride nasal solution 0.65% (salt mixed with water used to rinse sinuses) 1 spray both nostrils two times a day. During an observation and interview on 1/14/2025 at 8:12 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, Resident 41 was observed self-administering artificial tears, Fluticasone Salmeterol Inhalation aerosol powder, Ipratropium Bromide Nasal Solution, Sodium chloride nasal solution 0.65% in front of LVN 2. LVN 2 confirmed and stated Resident 41 had capacity, was very independent, and have been self-administering eye drops, nasal sprays, and inhaler daily. During an interview and record review on 1/15/2025 at 1:19 p.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN) 1, Resident 41's medical records were reviewed and indicated Resident 41 did not have an order to self-administer medications and the IDT did not assess Resident 41 if the resident was able to self-administer medications. RN 1 stated Resident 41 needed an order to self-administer medications, and the IDT team need to assess Resident 41 if the resident can self-administer medications. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/17/2025 at 6:10 p.m., the DON stated a resident may self-administer medications only if physician ordered and if the resident was assessed by the IDT team that they can administers their own medication. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication - Self-Administration, revised 2/9/2024, the P&P indicated, Residents who desire to self-administer medications are permitted to do so if the facility's interdisciplinary team and physician has determined that the practice would be safe for the resident and the result of the assessment are recorded in the resident's medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

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 residents' medical records were updated to show document...

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' medical records were updated to show documentation that a resident has an advance directive (written statement of a person's wishes regarding medical treatment made to ensure those wishes are carried out should the person be unable to communicate them to a doctor) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 42). This deficient had the potential to cause conflict with the residents' wishes regarding health care. During a review of Resident 42's admission record, the admission record indicated Resident 42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder (MDD: a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), and hypertension (high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 42's History and Physical (H&P) dated 9/18/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 42 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 42's Minimum Data Set (MDS a resident screening tool), dated 12/20/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 42'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 42 required supervision for toilet transfer and bathing, required set up for toilet hygiene, chair/bed to chair transfer, dressing the lower body (below waist), and was independent on all other aspects of activities of daily living (ADL: eating, oral hygiene, personal hygiene). The MDS indicated Resident 42 utilized a wheelchair and a walker and did not have any impairments on both the upper (arms/shoulders) and lower extremities (hip/legs). During a review of Resident 42's Advance Directive Acknowledgement dated 9/20/2024, the advance directive acknowledgement indicated Resident 42 had an advance directive currently in place. During an interview on 1/15/2025 at 12:41 p.m., with the Social Service Director (SSD), the SSD stated an Advance Directive is a document that indicates if they want to assign a representative to make medical decisions in case they do not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The SSD stated she is responsible for the Advance Directives and upon admission, the admitting nurse provides an Advance Directive form to the resident and the SSD will follow up with the Resident. The SSD stated if the resident already has an advance directive, she will reach out to the family to ensure they provide the document as soon as possible (within 48 to 72 hours). During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/5/2025 at 12:46 p.m. with the SSD Resident 42's medical records were reviewed. The SSD stated when Resident 42 was admitted , she discussed the Advance Directive with Resident 42's family but had not received a copy of the Advance Directive. The SSD stated Resident 42's Advance Directive was not in Resident 42's medical record. During a review of the facility's policies and Procedures (P&P), titled Advance Directives, dated February 9, 2024, the P&P indicated upon admission, the admission staff or designee will obtain a copy of a resident's advance directive. A copy of the resident's advance directive will be included in the resident's medical record.
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 four sampled residents' (Residents 39 and Resident 44...

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 four sampled residents' (Residents 39 and Resident 44) Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR) assessment screening was reassessed to determine the facility's ability to provide the special needs of the residents. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk of not receiving necessary care and services they need. a. During a review of Resident 39's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 39 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder (MDD a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), anxiety disorder (group of mental health conditions characterized by fear, nervousness, and excessive worry), and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD: mental health condition that develops after experiencing or witnessing traumatic events). During a review of Resident 39's History and Physical (H&P) dated 6/14/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 39 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 39's Minimum Data Set [MDS a resident assessment tool), dated 12/19/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 39'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 39 is dependent for chair/bed-to-chair transfer, bathing, dressing lower body (below hip), and required maximal assistance (able to provide less than half the effort) for eating and performing oral, toilet, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 39 utilized a wheelchair and walker for mobility. During a review of Resident 39's PASRR Level I screening dated 6/12/2024, the section that indicated whether an individual has a serious diagnosed mental disorder such as depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, psychosis, and or mood disturbance, the PASRR indicated Resident 39 did not have a serious mental illness. During an interview on 1/14/2025 at 2:37 p.m., with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC), the MDSC stated upon admission, the resident will come with a PASRR, and if there is a change of condition (COC), the facility will initiate a new PASRR. The MDSC stated the Director of Nursing (DON), Medical Records (MR), and the Business Office (BO) have access to the PASRR. The MDSD stated when there is a COC, the DON is responsible to initiate a new PASRR. During a concurrent interview and record review of the PASRR on 1/14/2025 at 2:41 p.m., with MDSC, the MDSC stated Resident 39 has a diagnosis (dx) of depression, anxiety, and PTSD. The MDSC stated on the PASRR Level I screening document in section III Serious Mental Illness-Definition: Does the Individual have a serious diagnosed mental disorder such as Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder ., it is documented as Resident 39 does not have a serious mental illness, but it is not correct as per dx, Resident 39 has a diagnosis of depressive disorder. The MDSC stated the PASRR is important to identify whether a resident may require a follow up as it may affect the way they provide care for the resident. b. During a review of Resident 44's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression to elevated periods of emotional highs) with current episode manic without psychotic features, alcohol abuse (drinking alcohol in a harmful way or when dependent on alcohol), and adult failure to thrive (decline in health and ability for older individuals). During a review of Resident 44's History and Physical (H&P) dated 11/10/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 44 has the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 44's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 44's cognitive skills were mildly impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 44 is dependent for shower transfers, required moderate assistance (assists with less than half the effort) for bathing, chair/bed-to-chair transfer, lower body dressing, and required supervision for personal, toileting, and oral hygiene, dressing the upper body (above waist), and required set up for eating. The MDS indicated Resident 44 utilized a walker for mobility and does not have any impairments on both the upper (shoulders/arms) and lower extremities (hip, legs). The MDS indicated Resident 44 had little interest or pleasure in doing things and feeling down, depressed, or hopeless for several days (two to six days). During a review of Resident 44's PASRR Level I screening dated 11/8/2024, in the section to indicate an individual has a serious diagnosed mental disorder such as depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, psychosis, and or mood disturbance, the PASRR indicated Resident 44 did not have a serious mental illness. During a concurrent interview and record review of the PASRR on 1/14/2025 at 2:54p.m. with the MDSC, the MDSC stated Resident 44 has a dx of failure to thrive, bipolar, and alcohol abuse. The MDSD stated in section III Serious Mental Illness-Definition: Does the Individual have a serious diagnosed mental disorder such as Depressive Disorder, Anxiety Disorder, Panic Disorder .or symptoms of psychosis, delusions, and/or mood disturbance, it does not indicate bipolar. The MDSD stated Resident 44 was receiving Lithium Carbonate (treat manic-depressive disorder (bipolar disorder) oral capsule 300miligram (mg: a unit of mass) by mouth two times a day related to bipolar disorder, current episode manic without psychotic features unspecified (manifested by (m/b) recurrent behavior fluctuations from depressed behaviors to manic behavior and vice versa every shift) and indicated the PASRR Level I screening is not filled out properly and may indicate the residents are not getting the care they need. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Pre-admission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), dated February 9,2024, the P&P indicated the purpose is to ensure that all Facility applicants are screened for mental illness and/or intellectual disability.
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, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure one of three residents' (Resident 7) Restoril (...

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 residents' (Resident 7) Restoril (medication for insomnia - trouble falling or staying asleep) was available. This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 7's lack of sleep which can result in negative health outcomes. Findings During a review of Resident 7's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including insomnia. During a review of Resident 7's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a resident assessment tool, dated 11/14/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 7's cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 7 needed set up assistance when eating, performing oral hygiene, and supervision with upper dressing, toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, and showering. During a review of Resident 7's Order Listing Report for Temazepam (Restoril), from 12/1/2024 to 1/31/2025, the summary indicated on 1/11/2025, Restoril 30 milligrams (mg - unit of measure) was discontinued and the dose was decreased to 15 mg once a day at bedtime. During the resident council meeting (gathering of residents and their representatives to discuss concerns, share information, and make decisions), on 1/14/2025 at 2:11p.m., Resident 7 stated she's (Resident 7) been waiting for her medication- Restoril, for a couple of days. During an observation, interview and record review on 1/14/2025 at 2:40 p.m. with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN)1, RN 1 checked the medication cart and confirmed Resident 7 did not have Restoril 15 milligrams available. RN 1 checked Resident 7's orders on the computer and noted a new order for Restoril 15 milligrams. RN 1 stated, on 1/11/2025, Restoril 15 milligrams should have been available for Resident 7 to help the resident sleep. During an interview on 1/17/2025 at 6:10 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated ordered medication should be available for the residents. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Provider Pharmacy Requirements, effective 4/2008, the P&P indicated regular and reliable pharmaceutical service is available, seven days a week 24 hours per day, to provide residents with prescription medications. Medication orders should be available the same date the medication is ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0773 (Tag F0773)

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 inform the physician about an abnormal laboratory (bodily specimen ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to inform the physician about an abnormal laboratory (bodily specimen test process and resulting) result in a timely manner for one of one sampled resident (Resident 44). This deficient practice placed Resident 44 at risk for delayed treatment of abnormal laboratory results. During a review of Resident 44's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression to elevated periods of emotional highs) with current episode manic without psychotic features, alcohol abuse (drinking alcohol in a harmful way or when dependent on alcohol), and adult failure to thrive (decline in health and ability for older individuals). During a review of Resident 44's History and Physical (H&P) dated 11/10/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 44 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 44's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 11/12/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 44's cognitive (ability to make decisions of daily living) skills were mildly impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 44 is dependent for shower transfers, required moderate assistance (assists with less than half the effort) for bathing, chair/bed-to-chair transfer, lower body dressing, and required supervision for personal, toileting, and oral hygiene, dressing the upper body (above waist), and required set up for eating. The MDS indicated Resident 44 utilized a walker for mobility and does not have any impairments on both the upper (shoulders/arms) and lower extremities (hip, legs). The MDS indicated Resident 44 had little interest or pleasure in doing things and was feeling down, depressed, or hopeless for several days (two to six days). During a review of Resident 44's Order summary report as of 1/15/2025, the order summary report indicated an active order of Lithium Carbonate (treat manic-depressive disorder (bipolar disorder) oral capsule 300miligram (mg: a unit of mass) by mouth two times a day related to bipolar disorder, current episode manic without psychotic features unspecified (manifested by (m/b) recurrent behavior fluctuations from depressed behaviors to manic behavior and vice versa every shift) on 11/21/2024. During a review of the order listing report dated 11/15/2024 to 1/31/2025, the order listing report indicated lithium level laboratory (lab) blood test one time only for one day ordered and completed on 12/17/2024. During a review of the lab results report dated 12/18/2024, the lab result indicated the lithium was collected on 12/18/2024 at 5:52 a.m., and was received on 12/18/2024 at 11:01 a.m. The lithium result indicated it was high at 1.10 millimoles per liter (mmol/L: unit of measurement used in some medical tests) (reference range of (0.50 - 1.00) . During a review of the progress note dated 12/23/2024 at 11:08 a.m., the progress note indicated lab results were relayed to the doctor by phone. During an interview on 1/15/2025 at 3:14 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated if lab results are received, the doctor should be notified right away especially since lithium can cause lithium toxicity and can be detrimental to the residents health. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/17/2025 at 12:39p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 4), Resident 44's lab report dated 12/18/2024 were reviewed. LVN 4 stated if there is an abnormal lab result, you inform the doctor right away. LVN 4 stated based on the lab report dated 12/18/2024 and the progress note dated 12/23/2024 notifying the doctor is not acceptable as Resident 44's physician was notified five days later and may result in a delay in care. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Job Title: Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN), undated, the P&P indicated reporting/triaging abnormal test results reports all abnormal test results to physician in a timely manner; triages activities based on borderline and/or abnormal and/or unusual findings. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Laboratory, Diagnostic and Radiology Services, dated February 9, 2024, the P&P indicated the ordering practitioner will be notified of results that fall outside of clinical reference or expected normal ranges per the ordering practitioner's order.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0800 (Tag F0800)

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 34 had a peanut butter sandwich that ...

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 34 had a peanut butter sandwich that was requested for a snack. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the resident's rights , wellbeing and can lead to insufficient food intake. Findings: During a review of Resident 34's admission Record (AR), the AR indicated Resident 34 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including malignant neoplasm of unspecified part of unspecified bronchus ( cancer of the large airway that leads from the windpipe to the lungs ), Anemia ( lack of blood) and acute on chronic systolic congestive heart failure ( a weekend heart condition that causes fluid buildup in the feet , arms, lungs and other organs). During a review of Resident 34's History and Physical (H&P) dated 10/3/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 34 has fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 34's Minimum Data Set [(MDS), resident assessment], Resident 34 is dependent ( resident does none of the effort to complete the activity or the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) with toileting hygiene, upper and lower body dressing and sit to lying and chair/bed to chair transfer and partial/moderate assistance ( helper lifts, holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort with eating. During a record review of Resident 34's Order Summary Report (OSR) dated 11/27/2024, the OSR indicated may have peanut butter/ jelly sandwich (no crust), bananas, and saltine/graham crackers during 2 p.m. snack time. During a review of Resident 34's care plan initial date 10/4/2024 indicated Resident 34 is at risk for aspiration and weight loss resident requested peanut butter and jelly sandwiches ( no crust) Bananas and saltine / graham crackers during 2 p.m. snack time. The interventions were speech therapist evaluation as needed weekly weights and diet as ordered. During a record review of Resident 34's Speech Therapy Treatment Encounter Note ([NAME]), the [NAME] indicated patient utilized techniques with moderate verbal instructions on seven out of 10 attempts. Order written for patient to receive peanut butter and jelly sandwich ( no crust ), banana, and crackers during 2 p.m. snack pass each day. During an initial interview on 1/13/2024 at 11:15 a.m. with Resident 34, Resident 34 stated every time we have snack time I request for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich I also ask for soda crackers or ritz crackers they do not give them to me. During an observation and interview on 1/14/2025 at 2:30 p.m. observed Resident 34 in wheelchair with bedside table in front and resident eating vanilla pudding Resident stated he did not get a peanut butter and jelly sandwich and the facility gave me yogurt. During an interview on 1/16/2025 with Resident 34's roommate, Resident 97 stated I heard Resident 34 request for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, and I am not going to lie they gave him a yogurt cup. During an interview on 1/16/2024 at 2:45 p.m. with Certified Nurse Assistant 7 (CNA7), CNA 7 stated snacks are out at 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. CNA 7 stated she gave resident 34 a yogurt cup for 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. CNA 7 stated the kitchen put snack cart out at the nurse's station for each resident the charge nurse or the dietary aide let me know what snack is for the resident. During an interview on 1/16/2024 at 2:55 p.m. with the Dietary Aide 2 (DA 2 ) , DA 2 stated she prepare snacks according to the nourishment list . DA 2 stated I always give resident 34 yogurt at 10:00 a.m., 2:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. because it is on his list of nourishment. DA 2 stated resident did not get a peanut butter and jelly sandwich it is not on his nourishment. DA 2 stated it is important to give Resident 34 peanut butter and jelly sandwich that was ordered by the doctor ordered he asks for because it is part of his diet, and we want to make sure Resident 34 is full and satisfied. During an interview on 1/16/2024 at 3:04 p.m. with Dietary Supervisor (DS), DS stated my job is to make recommendations pertaining to a resident's diet he stated I make rounds to the resident's room to find out their food preference. DS looked at the doctor's order for a peanut butter and jelly sandwich at 2 p.m. and stated It is my fault I missed this order. DS stated we need to adhere residents request and diet recommendations as the doctors ordered. During an interview on 1/16/2024 at3:15 p.m. with the Licensed Vocational Nurse 4 (LVN 4), LVN 4 stated her job is to check the nourishment to make sure they are getting the right snack. LVN 4 stated she check the diet against the Medical Records and missed that order for peanut butter and jelly sandwich for 2:00 p.m. The LVN 4 stated the importance of adhering to the doctor's order and the residents request is so the residents can be happy , to make them comfortable and to make sure they are eating. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) , the DON stated the Speech Therapist ( a health professional who helps people improve their swallowing skills) give the diet orders to dietary and dietary prepares and put the sacks out for the CNAs to give to the residents. DON stated there was a break in communication Resident 34's diet was missed, and this can make the resident dissatisfied of the situation. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Preference, dated 2023 the P&P indicated, Residents food preferences will be adhered to within reason. Food preference shall be obtained as soon as possible through the initial resident screen. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Nourishment Policy, dated 2023 the (P&P) indicated, nourishments or in between snacks shall be provided when required by the diet prescription. The food and nutrition services Department will prepare the nourishments / snacks and deliver them to the nursing stations at the specified times. Note that suitable, nourishing alternative meals and snacks must be provided to residents who want to eat at non- traditional times or outside of scheduled meals service times, consistent with the resident's plan of care and diet orders. It is the Nursing department's responsibility to see that each resident received the nourishments as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure: 1.One resident (Resident 2) who was on mechanical soft texture diet (soft food) received quesadilla (a Mexican dish c...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure: 1.One resident (Resident 2) who was on mechanical soft texture diet (soft food) received quesadilla (a Mexican dish consisting of a tortilla that is filled with cheese and then cooked on a griddle or stove) texture in form that meet their needs when the quesadilla was dry with hard and golden brown crispy edges, was not chopped and resident was not able to eat and stated it was overcooked. This deficient practice had the potential to result in decrease intake related to inconsistent texture, meal dissatisfaction, and increase choking and aspiration risk. Findings: During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, the admission record indicated the facility initially admitted Resident 2 on 5/2/2024 with diagnosis including, but not limited to chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, a common lung disease causing restricted airflow and breathing problems), Dysphagia, Oropharyngeal phase (swallowing problems occurring in the mouth and/or the throat.) During a review of Resident 2's physician diet order, dated 5/2/2024, Resident 2's physician diet order indicated Resident 2 diet was Mechanical soft Fortified diet (a diet with foods that were modified in texture to soft, chopped or ground consistency.) give soup for Lunch and Dinner per resident request. During an observation of meal preparation in the kitchen on 1/13/2025 at 12:09PM Resident 2 who was on mechanical soft diet texture (diet for resident who experience chewing or swallowing limitation. Diet is modified to a soft, chopped or ground consistency.) received quesadilla with tortilla that was dry with golden-brown crispy edges. The quesadilla consisted of two large tortillas (round flat bread) and melted cheese in between. Cheese was mainly in the middle of the tortillas leaving the edges dry. The quesadilla then was cut into quarters and served. During an interview with cook2 on 1/13/2025 at 12:15PM Cook2 stated cook2 prepared the quesadilla using 2 large flour tortillas and shredded cheese in the middle and then grilled the tortillas on pan with melted margarine. Cook2 did not use a recipe for the quesadilla. During a meal observation on 1/13/2025 at 1:00PM in Resident 2's room, the lunch tray with quesadilla was sitting on Resident 2 bed side table. The cheese quesadilla was cut into 4 quarters, only the soft middle part was eaten, one bite was taken from each of the quarters. the rest of the quesadilla with the dry and brown edges of the tortilla was left on the plate. During the same meal observation and interview with Resident 2 on 1/13/2025 at 1:00PM, Resident 2 had missing teeth. Resident 2 stated, she received quesadilla today for lunch, but she could not eat the quesadilla because it was overcooked and well done. Resident 2 stated the quesadilla was dry and I don't like it. Resident 2 started getting upset and requested not to get quesadilla anymore. Resident 2 stated she dislikes pork and meat, but she didn't say bring me quesadilla. During the same observation and interview with Dietary Supervisor (DS) on 1/13/2025 at 1:00PM, DS stated the quesadillas should be softer, the resident is on mechanical soft diet. DS stated if the quesadillas were cooked differently, and softer Resident 2 would not have any problems. During a concurrent observation and interview with CNA 5 and CNA 6 on 1/13/2025 at 1:10PM, CNA 5 stated resident receives the menu every day and some days will request an alternative to the lunch menu and usually it is the quesadilla. CNA 5 stated Resident 2 requested quesadilla today, but she didn't eat it because it was dry. During an interview with Registered Dietitian (RD) on 1/14/2025 at 10:00AM RD stated Resident 2 orders quesadilla very often. RD stated resident 2 also prefers creamy soup with lunch and dinner, RD stated Resident 2 is on mechanical soft and fortified diet and is aware that Resident 2 has missing teeth. RD stated mechanical soft diet means the quesadilla should be made soft with no hard or dry edges. The quesadilla should be either chopped (cut into small pieces or ground if indicated) RD stated Resident 2 tolerates chopped diet so the quesadilla needs to be cut into further strips for easy consumption., RD also stated Resident 2 is on fortified diet which means resident meals are added with extra melted margarine or cheese to enhance the caloric content of food. RD stated quesadilla was not made fortified because it is in an alternative to the lunch and alternatives are not fortified. A review of Resident 2 diet order listed on the facility order listing report dated 1/13/2025 indicated Mechanical soft Fortified diet. Give soup for Lunch and dinner per resident's request. A review of facility policy and procedure for the Regular mechanical soft diet (dated 2023) indicated Foods to avoid are breads with hard crusts, foods allowed are soft breads and soft tortillas. A review of facility policy and procedures titled Menu Planning (dated 2023) indicated, Standardized recipes adjusted to appropriate yield shall be maintained and used in the food preparation. A review of facility policy and procedures titled Fortification of Food (dated 2023) indicated, The goal is to increase the calorie and or protein density of the foods commonly consumed by the resident to promote improvement in their nutrition status .1/2 oz melted margarine may be added to food item . Adds 100 calories per ½ oz.
CONCERN (E)

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 ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 4), who ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 4), who was assessed at a moderate risk for developing a skin injury and had intact skin, did not develop the following: a. Stage II (Partial-thickness loss of skin, presenting as a shallow open sore or wound) pressure injury (localized, pressure-related damage to the skin and/or underlying tissue usually over a bony prominence) on the sacrum area (tailbone) measuring 0.5 centimeters [(cm) unit of measurement] in length, 0.5 cm in width and 0 cm in depth on 1/5/2025. b. An open area 0.5 cm round superficial red open area on the right buttocks area on 5/25/2024, resolved (healed) on 6/7/2024. c. Stage II pressure injury on coccyx (tailbone area) measured 1.5 cm length by 1.3 cm in width, and 0.2 cm in depth on 6/21/2024, resolved on 7/16/2024. The facility failed to: 1. Implement Resident 4's (untitled) care plan intervention to turn and reposition the resident as needed when in bed or the wheelchair, to prevent the resident from developing a pressure injury by relieving the pressure from the sacrum area. 2. Implement the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Wound Management revised 2/9/2024, that indicated to prevent the development of skin breakdown/pressure injuries to: a) minimize pressure on the wound, b) notify the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) to discuss and recommend new interventions for pressure ulcers that reoccur and about pressure ulcers that do not respond to treatment or worsen. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 4 developing a facility-acquired, preventable, Stage II pressure injury on the sacrum area measuring 0.5 cm in length and 0.5 cm in width on 1/5/2024, an open area on the buttocks area measuring 0.5 cm round in the buttocks area on 5/25/2024, and a Stage II pressure injury on the coccyx on 6/21/2024 measuring 1.5 cm long by 1.3 cm wide by 0.2 cm depth. Findings: During a review of Resident 4's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), age related osteoporosis (a disease that causes bones to become weak and more likely to break) without current pathological fracture (broken bones), type 2 diabetes mellitus ([DM]-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), and mild protein calorie malnutrition (condition where body does not get enough protein and energy). During a review of Resident 4's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a resident assessment tool), dated 12/4/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 4's cognitive skills (ability to think and reason) for daily decision-making were severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 4 required partial assistance (helper does less than half the effort helper lifts support or holds trunk or limbs but provides less than half the effort) with personal hygiene, substantial assistance (helper does more than half the effort, helper lifts or hold trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) with eating, dressing, and Resident 4 was dependent (helper does all the effort. Resident does none of the effort to complete activity. Or the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) with toileting hygiene and rolling left and right (ability to roll from lying on back to left and right side and return to lying on back on the bed). The MDS indicated Resident 4was at risk for developing pressure injuries. The MDS indicated Resident 4 did not have pressure ulcers or any unhealed pressure injuries. The MDS indicated Resident 40's skin was intact and did not have any ulcers, wounds, and skin problems. The MDS indicated Resident 4 was NOT on a turning and repositioning program. During a review of Resident 4's Braden Scale (a scoring tool used to predict residents' risk of developing a pressure injury, total scores range from 6 - 23. A lower score indicating a higher risk of developing a pressure injury) assessment, dated 3/6/2024, the Braden Scale assessment indicated Resident 4's score was 13 indicating Resident 4 was at moderate risk for developing a pressure injury. The Braden Scale indicated Resident 4's skin was very moist, the resident was chairfast (capable of maintaining a sitting position but lacking the capacity of bearing own weight), had very limited mobility, was unable to make frequent or significant positional changes independently and required moderate to maximum assistance when moving. During an interview and record review on 1/15/2025 at 10:31 a.m. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 4 Resident 4's CNA flowsheet for January 2025 there was no documented evidence of Resident 4 being turned and repositioned. CNA 4 stated there was no documentation Resident 4 was turned and repositioned. During an interview and record review on 1/15/2025 at 11:28 a.m., with Treatment Nurse 1 (TX 1) Resident 4's Braden Scale for Predicting Pressure Score Risk, dated 3/6/2024, was reviewed and TX 1 confirmed and stated Resident 4's score was 13 indicating Resident 4 was at moderate risk for developing a pressure injury. The Braden Scale indicated Resident 4's skin was very moist, the resident was chairfast, had very limited mobility, was unable to make frequent or significant positional changes independently and required moderate to maximum assistance when moving. During an interview and record review on 1/15/2025 at 11:30 a.m., with TX 1, Resident 4's Skin Weekly Assessment, dated 3/7/2024, was reviewed and TX 1 confirmed and stated Resident 4' did not have a pressure injury in the buttocks or sacrum and coccyx area. During an interview and record review on 1/15/2025 at 11:31 a.m., with TX 1, Resident 4's SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, request) Form and progress note, dated 5/25/2024, was reviewed and TX 1 confirmed and stated Resident 4 developed a 0.5 cm superficial red open area on the right buttocks area. During an interview and record review on 1/15/2025 at 11:33 a.m., with TX 1, Resident 4's Skin Weekly Assessment, dated 6/7/2024, was reviewed and TX 1 confirmed and stated Resident 4 developed a facility acquired 0.5 cm superficial red open area on the right buttocks area on 5/25/2024 and it was resolved on 6/7/2024. TX 1 stated the wound was cleansed daily with normal saline (saltwater solution used to clean wounds) and zinc oxide ointment (medicated cream to treat skin irritations) was applied and covered with a dry dressing (gauze dressing that protects wound and helps it heal. During an interview and record review on 1/15/2025 at 11:36 a.m., with TX 1, Resident 4's SBAR Form and progress note, dated 6/21/2024, was reviewed and TX 1 confirmed and stated Resident 4 developed a Stage II pressure injury in the coccyx area measuring 1.5 cm in length by 1.3 cm in width and 0.2 cm in depth and the physician ordered the wound to be cleansed with normal saline, apply zinc oxide, and cover with dressing daily. TX 1 stated this pressure injury was healed on 7/16/2024. During an interview and record review on 1/15/2025 at 11:40 a.m., with TX 1, Resident 4's SBAR Form and progress note, dated 1/5/2025, was reviewed and TX 1 confirmed and stated Resident 4 developed a Stage II pressure injury in the sacrum area measuring 0.5 cm in length by 0.5 cm in width and 0 cm in depth and the physician ordered the wound to be cleansed with normal saline, apply zinc oxide, and cover with dressing daily. TX 1 stated the IDT should meet to discuss new interventions because this was a pressure ulcer that reoccurred. TX 1 stated there was no documented evidence that Resident 4 was repositioned and turned at least every 2 hours and there should be because if it was not documented it was not done. During an interview and record review on 1/15/2025 at 11:42 a.m., with TX 1, Resident 40's Order Summary report as of 1/15/2025, was reviewed and the summary report indicated the following: a. A physician's order dated 10/16/2021, seat cushion while in wheelchair. b. A physician's order dated 3/8/2024, for Multivitamin and minerals (supplement) tablet daily. c. A physician's order dated 3/15/2024, Pro-Stat Oral liquid (supplement liquid protein for wound healing) sugar free, give 30 milliliters one time a day. d. A physicians order dated 6/28/2024 for Ascorbic acid (Vitamin C supplement) 500 milligrams by mouth two times a day e. A physician's order dated 1/6/2025, for Sacrum pressure injury cleanse with normal saline, pat dry, apply zinc oxide and cover with dry dressing daily x 30 days. f. A physician's order dated 1/7/2025, for a low air loss mattress (mattress designed to prevent and treat pressure wounds). g. A physician's order dated 1/19/2025, for Boost (Nutrition powder to promote wound healing) one can two times a day for dietary supplement. TX 1 stated the orders indicated were interventions initiated because of Resident 4's recurring pressure ulcer. During an observation and interview on 1/16/2025 at 9:35 a.m. with the Treatment Nurse 1 (TX 1) at Resident 4's room, Resident 4 was noted to have a Stage II pressure injury on the coccyx area that had no drainage and was 100% epithelial tissue (light pink tissue) and it measured 1 cm in length and 1.2 cm in width. During a record review of Resident 4's untitled care plan initiated on 1/5/2025, The care plan indicated Resident 4 was at risk for developing pressure injuries related to reduced mobility, impaired cognition, variable oral intake, diabetes, malnutrition, osteoporosis, dementia, and history of pressure injuries. The care plan goal indicated Resident 4's risk for skin breakdown will be minimized through review on 3/4/2025.The care plan interventions included Resident 4 would turn and repositioned as necessary, use turn, or lift sheets with position changes, and encourage resident to turn and reposition changes. During an interview on 1/17/2025 at 6:10 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the facility goal was to prevent pressure ulcer development so, the IDT needs to discuss new interventions if not working. The DON also stated the facility need to turn resident at least every 2 hours to prevent pressure ulcers from developing. The DON stated if it was not documented it was not done. During a review of Pressure Injury Prevention Points Portable Document Format (PDF) published by the National Pressure Injury Prevention Advisory Panel, copyright 2020, the PDF indicated the following pressure injury prevention points: 1. Consider bedfast and chairfast individuals to be at risk for development of pressure injury. 2. Develop a plan of care based on the areas of risk, rather than on the total risk assessment score. For example, if the risk stems from immobility, address turning, repositioning, and the support surface. 3. Turn and reposition all individuals at risk for pressure injury, unless contraindicated due to medical condition or medical treatments. 4. Continue to reposition an individual when placed on any support surface. 5. Reposition weak or immobile individuals in chairs hourly (www.npiap.com) During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Wound Management revised 2/9/2024, the P&P indicated to prevent the development of skin breakdown/pressure injuries to: a) minimize pressure on the wound, b) notify the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) and physician to discuss and recommend new interventions for pressure ulcers that reoccur and about pressure ulcers that do not respond to treatment or worsen. Rehabilitation Services will be notified for appropriate devices and pressure redistributing devices. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Pressure Ulcer Prevention, implemented 2/9/2024, the P&P indicated the purpose of the policy was to implement measures to prevent and or manage pressure ulcers and minimize complications. The P&P indicated care, and services will be provided to promote and prevent pressure ulcer development. The P&P indicated the nurse will consult with the IDT - Skin Committee.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

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 one of one hemodialysis ([HD]a treatment to cleanse the bloo...

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 one hemodialysis ([HD]a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney(s) have failed) resident (Resident 22) received dialysis care and services based on professional standards. The facility failed to: a. Notify the physician, assess Resident 22, educate Resident 22 regarding and risk for missing HD, and monitor Resident 22 for complications after Resident 22 missed HD on 1/2/2025 and 1/3/2025. b. Assess Resident 22 and complete Resident 22's Dialysis Transfer Information (form used by facility and dialysis center to communicate regarding resident status) prior to sending Resident 22 to dialysis on 12/14/2024. These deficient practices had the potential to result in complications from dialysis. Findings: During a review of Resident 22's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 6 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease (ESRD -irreversible kidney failure) and dependence on renal dialysis. During a review of Resident 22's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 11/22/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 22's cognition (ability to think) was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 22 needed set up assistance when eating and partial assistance (helper does less than half the effort) with oral, personal, and toileting hygiene. During a review of Resident 22's Physician Order Report: active orders as of 1/15/2025, the report indicated, starting 11/1/2024, hemodialysis procedure to an outpatient dialysis center Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. During an interview and record review on 1/15/2025 at 2:39 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, Resident 22's Dialysis Transfer Information, dated 12/14/2024, and LVN 2 stated the pre assessment section to be completed by the facility was blank indicating it was not completed. LVN 2 stated it should have been filled out for continuity of care. During an interview and record review on 1/15/2025 at 2:39 p.m. with LVN 2, Resident 22's nurse progress notes dated 1/2/2025, LVN 2 stated on 1/2/2025 Resident 22's dialysis was rescheduled by the dialysis center to 1/3/2025 at 1:30 p.m. because the elevators in the dialysis center was not working. Resident 22's nurse progress notes indicated on 1/3/2025 at 3:16 p.m. Resident 22 refused to go to the makeup dialysis session. LVN 2 stated the following were not completed: a. The physician was not notified of Resident 22's refusal and missed HD on 1/2/2025 and 1/3/2025. b. Resident 22 was not assessed for missing 2 days of dialysis. c. Resident 22 was not monitored for complications like shortness of breath or respiratory distress for refusing dialysis. d. Resident 22 was not educated on risk of refusing dialysis. During an interview on 1/17/2025 at 6:10 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated if a dialysis resident refused dialysis the staff need to monitor the resident for complications, assess the resident, and notify the physician of the refusal. The DON stated the facility needs to educate the resident of risk of refusal of hemodialysis. The DON stated staff need to assess the resident before sending resident to dialysis and the staff need to fill up the form to send to the dialysis center for report, so the dialysis center knows what's going on with the resident. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Dialysis Care revised 7/19/2024, the P&P indicated Residents with ESRD will be cared for. The P&P indicated staff will monitor the resident prior to dialysis treatment and address communications between the dialysis provider and the facility. The P&P indicated the nephrologist and dialysis provider and the residents attending practitioner must be notified of a canceled or postponed dialysis treatment and responses to the change in treatment must be documented in the resident's medical record. If the dialysis is cancelled or postponed the nursing staff dialysis provider should provide or obtain ongoing monitoring and medical management for changes such as fluid gain, respiratory issues, review of relevant lab results, and any other complications that occur until dialysis can be rescheduled based on resident assessment stability and need. If the resident. Does not comply with his care plan. The facility will document this noncompliance with following care plan and make the necessary adjustments, including providing additional education to the resident. If the resident continues to be non-compliant, the Interdisciplinary team (IDT) will meet with the resident and his family to discuss risks and benefits.
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure: a) One of three sampled resident's (Resident 22) informed co...

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) One of three sampled resident's (Resident 22) informed consent (voluntary agreement to accept treatment and/or procedures after receiving education regarding the risks, benefits, and alternatives offered) for psychotropics (drug or other substance that affects how the brain works and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behavior) was obtained. b) Three of six sampled resident's (Resident 22, 41, and 18) were evaluated for a gradual dose reduction (involves the stepwise tapering of a dose to determine if symptoms, conditions, or risks can be managed by a lower dose or if the medication) of psychotropic medications. c) One of one sampled resident's (Resident 44) was appropriately being monitored for the signs and symptoms of lithium toxicity (occurs when you have too much of the prescription medication lithium in your body). d) One of one sample resident's (Resident 42) had one of his benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH: non-cancerous enlargement of the prostate gland (small gland located in male reproductive system) medication was discontinued per pharmacy recommendation. These deficient practices had the potential to result in residents' unnecessary consumption of medications and cause untoward adverse reactions for taking psychotropic medications. Findings: a) During a review of Resident 22's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 6 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression to elevated periods of emotional highs) and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). During a review of Resident 22's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 22's cognition was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 22 needed set up assistance when eating and partial assistance (helper does less than half the effort) with oral, personal, and toileting hygiene. During a review of Resident 22's History and Physical (H&P), dated [DATE], the H&P indicated Resident 22 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 22's Physician Order Report: active orders as of [DATE], the report indicated the following: 1) Ordered [DATE], Ativan (medication to treat anxiety - emotion that can feel like dread or fear, and it can be a normal reaction to stress) 1 mg orally one time a day every Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday prior to leaving the facility for dialysis (a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney[s] have failed). 2) Ordered [DATE], Mirtazapine (medication to treat depression), 15 mg orally at bedtime manifested by poor oral intake. 3) Ordered [DATE], Seroquel (medication for bipolar disorder) 25 mg tablet give half a tablet orally two times a day manifested by sudden mood change. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:30 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, and record review Resident 22's medical records. Resident 22 did not have consent for Ativan. Resident 22 had a consent for Seroquel and mirtazapine signed by a family member and not by Resident 22. LVN 2 stated the Resident 22 had capacity and should have signed the consents for the medications. b) During a review of Resident 41's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 41 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest) and Post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD - a disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event). During a review of Resident 41's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 41's cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 41 needed set up assistance with all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs- activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily). During a review of Resident 41's Order summary report as of [DATE], the report indicated, on [DATE], Sertraline (medication to treat depression) oral tablet, 100 milligrams (mg - unit of measure), give one tablet once a day, manifested by fatigue and loss of energy and trazadone (medication to treat depression) 50 mg orally at bedtime manifested by inability to sleep. During an interview on [DATE] at 3:02 p.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN) 1, and record review Resident 41's medical records, it indicated Resident 41 has not had a GDR and was overdue. RN 1 confirmed and stated Resident 41 was taking Sertraline and trazadone and should have been attempted to see if the medications Resident 41 was taking was effective. During a review of Resident 18's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 18 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia (a type of schizophrenia (a serious mental health condition that affects how people think and behave) accompanied by obsessive anxiety), major depressive disorder, and Alzheimer's disease (a disease characterized by a progressive decline in mental abilities). During a review of Resident 18's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 18's cognition was mildly impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 18 required moderate assistance (provide less than half the effort) for chair-bed-to-chair transfer, personally and toileting hygiene, bathing, and lower body dressing (below waist), and required supervision for oral hygiene, eating, and dressing upper body (above waist). The MDS indicated Resident 18 had an impairment one side of the upper extremity (arms/shoulders) and utilized a walker and wheelchair. The MDS indicated Resident 18 had potential indicators of psychosis (condition characterized by a loss of contact with reality) of hallucinations (false perceptions) and delusions (unable to tell from what is real from what is imagined). During a review of Resident 18's H&P dated [DATE], the H&P indicated Resident 18 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 18's Physician Order Report: active orders as of [DATE], the report indicated the following: 1) Ordered [DATE] Abilify oral tablet 2 mg (Aripiprazole: antipsychotic medicine used to treat schizophrenia) 2 mg by mouth two times a day for delusional thoughts manifested by (m/b) calling out to deceased spouse related to paranoid schizophrenia. 2) Ordered [DATE] Remeron oral tablet 15mg (Mirtazapine: medication to treat depression) 15mg by mouth at bedtime for poor oral intake, less than 50% of each meal, related to major depressive disorder, recurrent. During a review of the psychotropic and sedative (promoting calm or inducing sleep)/hypnotic utilization by resident dated [DATE] and [DATE], the utilization report indicated Resident 18 had an order for Aripiprazole 2mg twice a day on [DATE] with the last GDR dated [DATE]. Resident 18 had an order for Remeron (Mirtazapine tab 15mg) once a day ordered on [DATE] with last GDR date [DATE] with a next evaluation date of [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 6:10 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was important to attempt a GDR monthly to make sure medications were appropriate and effective. The DON stated all psychotropics need to be administered only after informed consent was obtained because it was the residents' rights. c) During a review of Resident 44's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 44 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression to elevated periods of emotional highs) with current episode manic without psychotic features, alcohol abuse (drinking alcohol in a harmful way or when dependent on alcohol), and adult failure to thrive (decline in health and ability for older individuals). During a review of Resident 44's H&P dated [DATE], the H&P indicated Resident 44 has the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 44's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 44's cognitive skills were mildly impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 44 is dependent for shower transfers, required moderate assistance for bathing, chair/bed-to-chair transfer, lower body dressing, and required supervision for personal, toileting, and oral hygiene, dressing the upper body, and required set up for eating. The MDS indicated Resident 44 utilized a walker for mobility and does not have any impairments on both the upper and lower extremities .The MDS indicated Resident 44 had little interest or pleasure in doing things and feeling down, depressed, or hopeless for several days (two to six days). During a review of Resident 44's Order summary report as of [DATE], the report indicated, on [DATE], monitor for side effects of Lithium (used to treat mania part of bipolar disorder (manic-depressive illness); signs and symptoms of lithium toxicity severe nausea and vomiting, severe hand tremors, vision changes, unsteadiness when standing, loss of appetites, excessive thirstiness, need to urinate frequently, uncontrollable bowel movements, confusion, and blackouts every shift for lithium side effect monitoring. During a review of Resident 44's Medication Administration Record (MAR: document to keep track of medications given to residents) dated [DATE] to [DATE], the MAR indicated in the section for monitor for side effects of lithium, on [DATE] and [DATE] from 7:00a.m to 3:00p.m. and 3:00p.m. to 11:00p.m. shift indicated Resident 44 had signs and symptoms of lithium toxicity. Additionally, on [DATE] and [DATE] from 7:00a.m. to 3:00p.m. shift, the MAR was documented as X with a note indicating Resident 44 was sleeping. The options whether Resident 44 had any signs and symptoms were a Yes/No (Y/N). During a concurrent interview and record review of the MAR dated [DATE] to [DATE] on [DATE] at 6:12p.m. with DON, the DON stated if the resident has any signs and symptoms, it will indicate yes. The DON stated Resident 44 did have side effects on [DATE] and [DATE], but the signs and symptoms are not specific as to what type of symptoms Resident 44 had. The DON stated if side effects were observed, it would have been clarified with the doctor. d) During a review of Resident 42's admission record, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and with diagnoses including benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH: non-cancerous enlargement of the prostate gland (small gland located in male reproductive system) with lower urinary tract symptoms (frequent urination, urgency, incontinence (loss of bladder control), overactive bladder , and malignant neoplasm of prostate (type of cancer that originates in the prostate gland). During a review of Resident 42's H&P dated [DATE], the H&P indicated Resident 42 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 42's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 42's cognitive skills were intact. The MDS indicated Resident 42 required supervision for toile transfer and bathing, required set up for toilet hygiene, chair/bed to chair transfer, dressing the lower body, and was independent on all other aspects of activities of daily living . The MDS indicated Resident 42 utilized a wheelchair and a walker and did not have any impairments on both the upper and lower extremities. During a review of the MAR dated [DATE] to [DATE], the MAR indicated Flomax oral capsule 0.4 mg (Tamsulosin Hydrochloride (HCL: treat symptoms of an enlarged prostate) one capsule by mouth one time a day for BPH was ordered on [DATE], discontinued on [DATE], and restarted on [DATE]. Terazosin HCL (treat symptoms of an enlarged prostate) oral capsule 5 mg one capsule by mouth at bedtime related to benign prostatic hyperplasia with lower urinary tract symptom ordered [DATE] was discontinued on [DATE]. During a review of the consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review (MRR: evaluation of resident's medications to identify potential problems and prevent adverse reactions) dated [DATE] and [DATE], the MRR indicated second (2nd) request/please follow up if medical doctor (MD) has responded to this: Resident 42 has therapeutic duplication - Terazosin 5 mg once a day and Tamsulosin 0.4 mg once a day for BPH. Informed charge nurse (CN) on [DATE] to contact MD to discontinue (d/c) one order. During a concurrent interview and record review of the MRR on [DATE] at 3:37p.m. with RN 1, the RN 1 stated she was the one that had discontinued Terazosin in November. The RN 1 stated one of the medications for BPH should have been discontinued back in October and the nurse should have contacted the doctor, but it was not done. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Psychotherapeutic Drug management, revised [DATE], the P&P indicated it was the policy of this facility to ensure that residents who have not used psychotropic drugs are given to help promote or maintain the resident's highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being, promote resident safety and security, and to enhance the resident's ability to interact positively with his/her environment. The facility will ensure clinically significant adverse consequences are minimized. The facility will continuously manage efforts to reduce dosage or discontinue psychotropics as appropriate and as indicated by regulations. The physician will review drug regimen monthly determine if resident need to remain on the same dose or if adjustment should be made. The P&P indicated if the desired therapeutic effect is not achieved on the medication ordered, the Attending Physician may request a psychiatrist and/or psychologist consultation. Unless clinically contraindicated, the Attending Physician will attempt a Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR). Dose reductions should occur in modest increments over adequate periods of time to minimize withdrawal symptoms and to monitor symptom recurrence. If a dose reduction was not successful, a note will be written on the physician progress notes justifying continued use of the medication. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Resident's rights, undated, the P&P indicated the residents have the right to choose a treatment and participate in decision making and care planning. The P&P indicated residents have the right to be fully informed and participate in their treatment.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to administer medications appropriately for one (Resident...

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 administer medications appropriately for one (Residents 39) of three residents observed during the medication pass. During medication pass, there were two medication errors out of twenty-six opportunities. These medication administration errors resulted to a medication error rate of 7.69 percent. Findings: During a review of Resident 39's admission Record, the record indicated Resident 39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis including malignant neoplasm (cancer - abnormal mass of cells that grows uncontrollably and can spread to other parts of the body) of breasts. During a review of Resident 39's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a resident assessment tool, dated 12/29/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 39's cognition (ability to think) was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 39 needed substantial assistance (helper does more than half the effort) when eating, performing oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, and dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff for showering assistance. During a review of Resident 39's Order Listing Report, 6/1/2024 to 7/31/2024, the summary indicated, Revised 1/3/2025, Anastrozole (medication for malignant neoplasm) one milligram (mg - unit of measure) give one tablet by mouth one time a day use gloves to handle. During a review of Resident 39's Order Listing Report, 6/1/2024 to 10/31/2024, the summary indicated, Revised 1/2/2025, Lidocaine external patch 5 percent (medication used to relieve pain), apply to left upper chest one time a day for pain management, On at 9:00 a.m. and OFF at 9:00 p.m. and remove per schedule. During an observation and interview on 1/14/2025 at 9:01 a.m. at Resident 39's bedside, with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, Resident 39's Anastrozole medication label was reviewed, and the label indicated use gloves to handle. LVN 3 was observed putting Resident 39's Anastrozole in a medication cup with without using gloves. LVN 3 administered Resident 39's medication without gloves. During a continued observation and interview on 1/14/2025 at 9:04 a.m. at Resident 39's bedside, with Resident 39, Resident 39 was noted to have a lidocaine patch still on the left chest and Resident 39 stated that the nurses did not take out the lidocaine patch last night. During a follow up interview on 1/14/2025 at 9:08 a.m. with LVN 3, LVN 3 stated the lidocaine patch should have been removed last night and she should follow directions when administering medications. During an interview on 1/17/2025 at 6:01 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON) the DON stated medications should be administered as ordered. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Medication Administration - General Guidelines, effective 10/2017, the P&P indicated, medications are administered as prescribed in accordance with good nursing principles and practices.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

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: a. Failed to ensure medications for one of three residents (Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility: a. Failed to ensure medications for one of three residents (Resident 41) were stored in a secure location. b. Failed to ensure the medication refrigerator temperature was within normal range (30 to 4g degrees Fahrenheit). These deficient practices had the potential to result in unauthorized use of medications and the loss of viability (ability to work) of medication for improper storage temperature. Findings: During a review of Resident 41's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 41 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including allergic rhinitis (inflammation [redness and swelling] of the inside of the nose) and asthma (a chronic lung disease caused by inflammation and muscle tightening around the airways which makes it harder to breathe). During a review of Resident 41's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 8/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 41's cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 41 needed set up assistance with all Activities of Daily Living (ADLs- activities such as bathing, dressing and toileting a person performs daily). During a review of Resident 41's Physician Order Report: active orders as of 1/15/2025, the report indicated the following: 1) Ordered 8/21/2024, Artificial Tears ophthalmic solution (eye drops to treat dry eyes) instill one drop in both eyes four times a day. 2) Ordered 8/21/2024, Fluticasone Salmeterol Inhalation aerosol powder breath activated (medication to treat asthma) 250-50 micrograms/ actuation (unit of measure) 3) Ordered 8/21/2024, Ipratropium Bromide Nasal Solution 0.03 percent (medication to treat allergic rhinitis), 2 spray each nostril three times a day. 4) Sodium chloride nasal solution 0.65% (salt mixed with water used to rinse sinuses) 1 spray both nostrils two times a day. During an observation and interview on 1/13/2025 with the Director of Saff development (DSD), the medication refrigerator was noted to have a temperature reading of 48 degrees Fahrenheit. The DSD read the temperature log and stated the refrigerator temperature should be 30 degrees to 46 degrees. During an interview with the administrator (ADM) on 1/14/2025 at 8 a.m., the Administrator said the medication refrigerator need to be within range, so the refrigerator was replaced immediately. During an observation and interview on 1/14/2025 at 8:12 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, Resident 41 was observed self-administering artificial tears, Fluticasone Salmeterol Inhalation aerosol powder, Ipratropium Bromide Nasal Solution, Sodium chloride nasal solution 0.65% in front of LVN 2 and storing medication at his bedside. LVN 2 confirmed and stated Resident 41's medications he self-administered were in his safekeeping, in his luggage. During an interview on 1/15/2025 at 1:19 p.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN) 1, RN 1 stated Resident 41's nasal sprays, eye drop, and inhaler medication should be stored in the medication cart for safekeeping.
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 staff followed food production recipes and fortified diet (diet to increase caloric intake) guidelines during lunch pre...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staff followed food production recipes and fortified diet (diet to increase caloric intake) guidelines during lunch preparation and tray line observation on 1/13/2025 when: 1.cook used small scoop size to serve pureed fish for residents on pureed diet. 10 residents on pureed diet received 3/8 cup (3 ounces (oz.)) of pureed fish instead of ½ cup (4ounces (oz).) per menu. Three residents on the renal diet (a diet aimed at keeping levels of fluids, electrolytes, and minerals balanced in the body in individuals with kidney disease or who are on dialysis) received peas for lunch instead of green beans per menu. 2.Fortified diets (diet enhanced to increase caloric content) were not prepared and were not served to residents who were on fortified diet. These deficient practices had the potential to result in meal dissatisfaction, decreased caloric intake and weight loss for 10 residents on pureed diet who received less protein and seven residents who required a fortified diet. Findings: According to the facility lunch menu for pureed diet and renal diet on 1/3/2025, the following items will be served. Pureed diet: Fish fillet with tarragon sauce pureed #8 scoop yielding ½ cup; Cajun country rice pureed, creamed spinach pureed, sweet corn salad pureed, fruit Bavarian cream and milk. Renal Diet: Fish fillet with tarragon sauce, Cajun country rice with no ham #12 scoop yielding 1/3 cup, green beans with margarin ½ cup, sweet corn salad 1/2, canned peaches, and beverage. During an observation of the tray line service for lunch (a system of food preparation, in which trays move along an assembly line) on 1/13/2025, at 12:09 PM, residents who were on pureed diet the cook served pureed fish fillet using the #10 scoop yielding 3 oz or 3/8 cup instead of #8 scoop or ½ cup per menu. During the same observation for lunch on 1/13/2025, at 12:09PM residents who were on renal diet received peas ½ cup instead of the green beans per the menu. During an interview with cook (Cook1) and Dietary Supervisor on 1/13/2025 at 12:35PM Cook1 reviewed the daily spreadsheet (portion and serving guide) and stated she made a mistake on the scoop size and served pureed fish using a smaller scoop. Cook1 stated the spreadsheet and portion guide indicated serve pureed fish using #8 scoop (1/2 cup) Cook1 stated residents on pureed diet received less protein than residents on regular diet. Cook1 stated receiving less food can result in unwanted weight loss. During the same interview with cook (Cook1) and Dietary Supervisor (DS) on 1/13/2025 at 12:35PM, cook1 stated she did not look at the menu for the renal diet. Cook1 stated she served peas instead of green beans for residents on the renal diet. Cook1 stated green beans was on the menu and it was not changed, Cook1 made a mistake and forgot to look at the menu. Cook1 stated when residents receive the wrong menu they can get upset and not eat the food. DS stated, cooks should always follow the menu for the portion size and the right food to serve. During a review of facility policy titled Menu Planning Policy #3.1 (dated 2023) indicated, all daily menu changes, with the reason for the change are to be noted on the back of the kitchen spreadsheet, only facility RD and DS can make these changed. The menus are planned to meet nutritional needs of residents in accordance with established national guidelines, physician's orders and .recommended dietary allowances. 2.During the tray line observation on 1/13/2025 at 12:09 PM, residents who were on fortified diet, Dietary Aide (DA1) did not communicate the fortified diet orders written on the meal tickets during tray line for lunch service. A review of resident's tray or meal tickets on the cart indicated the orders for fortified diets. However, DA1 did not read out loud the fortified diet and Cook1 who was serving the food did not add any additional food items per fortified menu. During a concurrent observation and interview with Cook1 on 1/13/2025 at 12:30PM, Cook1 stated when there is a fortified diet, melted margarine is added to the vegetables or starch during lunch. Cook1 stated during lunch service DA1 will read out the fortified diet that are written on the meal tickets and cook1 will add melted margarine to the meal. Cook1 stated DA1 did not announce or read out the fortified diets during the lunch service and cook1 did not add any margarine to food. Cook1 stated fortified diets are for residents who have weight loss and fortify diet adds more calories. Cook1 stated fortified diets are important to prevent weight loss. During a concurrent observation and interview with DA1 and infection prevention nurse (IPN) on 1/13/2025 at 12:45PM, regarding diet fortification process, IPN was checking lunch tray for accuracy of the diet and meals served. IPN stated she does not know how the kitchen fortified the food for lunch and IPN can't tell by looking at the food. IPN spoke with DA1 who was next to the meal carts and began translating for DA1. DA1 stated fortified diets are for residents who need more calories because they are losing weight. DA1 stated some residents get fortified milk, which is nonfat powder milk added to regular milk. DA1 reviewed one of the meal tickets and stated fortified diet is also written on the meal tickets. DA1 stated she should read out the diet orders to the cook during lunch service. DA1 stated she did not read out the fortified diet orders as written on the meal ticket. DA1 stated residents did not receive fortified food she stated if residents don't receive fortified food they will lose weight. During an interview with Registered Dietitian (RD) on 1/14/2025 at 10:00AM, RD stated Fortified diets add extra calories and protein to food. Fortified is for residents who are experiencing weight loss and additional calories can help. RD stated some residents get fortified milk with lunch and melted margarine is added to the vegetables or starch. RD stated when residents don't get the fortified diets they can lose weight. During a review of facility policy titled Fortification of Food Policy # 4.19 (dated 2023) indicated, The goal to increase the calorie and or protein density of the foods commonly consumed by the resident to promote improvement in their nutrition status . Calories and protein will be added to selected food .Food and Nutrition services staff will be familiar with the fortification process for each item chosen to be used at the facility .1/2 oz. melted margarine is added to 1 food item for breakfast, 2 items at lunch and 1 at dinner . adds 100 calorie per ½ oz.
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 and preparation practices in the kitchen when: 1.One open bag of frozen pepperoni with an...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food storage and preparation practices in the kitchen when: 1.One open bag of frozen pepperoni with and one large plastic bag of diced chicken were stored in the freezer with no open date or label. One bag of frozen chicken thighs stored uncovered in the reach in freezer. 2.One Dietary Aide (DA1) working in the dish machine area did not wash hands and change gloves when removing the clean and sanitized dishes from the dish machine. 3.Dishware were not sanitized with adequate amount of sanitizer per manufactures guidelines. Sanitizers and disinfectants are used on food contact surfaces to prevent food borne illness. These deficiencies had the potential to result in harmful bacteria growth and cross contamination (transfer of harmful bacteria from one place to another) that could lead to foodborne illness in 45 out of 48 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings: 1.During an observation in the kitchen on 1/13/2025 at 9:12AM there was one open bag of pepperoni with no open date stored in the reach in freezer, there was one large blue plastic bag with food item stored in the same reach in freezer with no label or date. The contents of the blue bag could not be seen. During the same observation and interview, DS stated pepperoni was opened and used and there should be an open date on it to discard per storage guidelines. DS stated the blue plastic bag contains diced chicken and it should be labeled once it is out of the original container. DS stated labeling bags is important for proper identification of the food. During a concurrent observation in the reach in freezer and interview with DS on 1/13/2025 at 9:15AM, there was one bag of frozen chicken thighs stored in the reach in freezer. The bag was open, and the frozen chicken was exposed to the freezer environment. The frozen chicken thighs had ice and frost bite on the surface, it looked dry and discolored. DS stated the bag should be covered to prevent cross contamination. DS discarded the frozen chicken. A review of facility policy titled Procedure for Freezer Storage (dated 2023) indicated, All frozen food should be labeled and dated. A review of facility policy titled Procedure for Refrigerated Storage (dated 2023) indicated, Individual packages of refrigerated or frozen food taken from the original packing box need to be labeled and dated. Freezer burn may occur before that and reduce the maximum shelf life. Food that has been freezer burned must be discarded. A review of the 2022 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code titled Ready to Eat, Time/Temperature control for safety food, Date Marking Code#3-501.17, indicated, Ready to eat, time temperature control for safety food prepared and packaged by food processing plant shall be clearly marked, at the time the original container is opened in a food establishment and if the food is held for more than 24 hours, to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed, sold, or discarded. 2.During an observation in the dishwashing area on 1/13/2025 at 9:20AM, Dietary Aide (DA1) was rinsing soiled dishes and loading the dirty dishes in the dish machine. DA1 had gloves on her hands and proceeded to remove the clean and sanitized dishes form the dish machine without washing hands and replacing gloves. During a concurrent interview DA1 stated she forgot to remove gloves and wash hands before touching the clean dishes. DA1 stated she usually will go to the sink and wash hands and replace gloves. DA1 stated not changing gloves and washing hands can contaminate clean dishes and can make residents sick. During an interview with Dietary Supervisor (DS) on 1/13/2025 at 9:20AM, DS stated DA1 contaminated the clean dishes when touching with the same dirty gloves. DS stated staff should wash hands and replace gloves when moving from a task that contaminated hands to a clean task. Dirty dishes can cause food borne illness in residents. A review of facility policy titled, handwashing Procedure. (dated 2023) indicated when hands need to be washed: After handling soiled dishes and utensils. A review of facility policy titled, Glove use Policy (dated 2023) indicated, When gloves need to be changed . before beginning a different task. A review of the 2022 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code, Code 2-301.14 When to Wash. Indicated, FOOD EMPLOYEES shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms as specified under § 2-301.12 immediately E) After handling soiled EQUIPMENT or UTENSILS. 3.During an observation of the dish machine area on 1/13/2025, at 9:48AM, DA1 was loading dishes in the dishwashing machine. DA1 stated the dishwashing machine uses chlorine sanitizer to sanitize the dishes. DA1 was asked to demonstrate dish machine operation and sanitizer effectiveness. DA1 immersed the test strip in the rinse water and compared to color chart that showed sanitizer was not in range. The recommended concentration level for chlorine sanitizer is between 50-100 parts per million (PPM). The test strip compared to color chart indicated less than 50PPM. During the same observation and interview DS stated the machine was working this morning and the sanitizer test was effective. A concurrent review of the dishwashing sanitizer log record dated 1/13/2025, indicated the sanitizer was at 50 PPM effective for breakfast shift. During a concurrent observation and interview with DS on 1/13/2025, at 10:00AM DS stated the chlorine sanitizer is running low and changed the sanitizer bucket that was attached to the dishwashing machine. DS started the dishwasher over again and retested the sanitizer solution five times. During an observation of the dishwashing machine on 1/13/2025, at 10:20AM the sanitizer test strip indicated 50PPM and sanitizer was effective. During an interview with DS on 1/13/2025, at 10:30AM, DS stated the dishes were not sanitized and will be rewashed and sanitized effectively. DS stated there has not been any issues with the machine prior to today and the dishwasher technician will come in to make sure dishwasher is working properly. A review of facility policy titled Dishwashing (dated 2023) indicated, All dishes will be properly sanitized thought the dishwasher .The dish machine is to be serviced on a regular basis by a technician to ensure accurate measurements of sanitizing agents .the chlorine should read 50-100PPM on dish surface in final rinse the proper chlorine level is crucial in sanitizing the dishes.
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 F0836 (Tag F0836)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documented evidence of 10 hours of continued education in the field of Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) for the one of one fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documented evidence of 10 hours of continued education in the field of Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) for the one of one facility staff (Infection Prevention Nurse -IPN). This failure had the potential to result in negative health outcomes for the staff and residents of the facility. Findings: During an interview on 1/16/2025 at 9:07 a.m., with the IPN, the IPN stated she did not have annual 10 hours of continuing education in the field of Infection Prevention and Control after the initial IP training was completed in 2023. During a record review of the California Department of Public Health All Facilities Letter (AFL) 20-84, titled, Infection Prevention Recommendations and Incorporation into the Quality and Accountability Supplemental Payment (QASP) Program, 11/4/2020, the AFL indicated it was important that each facilities Infection Preventionist have training in fundamental Infection Prevention and Control principles to effectively perform the IP duties. Ongoing education was necessary to remain aware of new information, trends, best practices, and to refresh existing knowledge. The AFL indicated The IP should complete 10 hours of continuing education in the field of IPC on an annual basis. Facilities should provide encouragement and support for IP staff to stay abreast of current news and training sources through a nationally recognized infection prevention and control association.
CONCERN (E)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement its protocol for antibiotic stewardship program (coordinated program that promotes the appropriate use of antibiotics by clinicians) by not monitoring the side effects and addressing antibiotic (a substance used to kill bacteria and to treat infection) use for one of two sampled residents (Resident 16). This failure had the potential for the Resident 16 to receive inappropriate antibiotics and develop adverse reactions for long term antibiotic use. Findings: During a review of Resident 16's admission record, the admission record indicated Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including hepatic encephalopathy (a brain disorder that occurs when the liver fails and toxins build up in the blood). During a review of Resident 16's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 12/11/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 16's cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 16 needed supervision (helper provides verbal cues) when eating, performing oral hygiene, and moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) with showering, personal hygiene, and toileting hygiene. During a review of Resident 16's Physician Order, the order indicated 11/12/2024, Neomycin Sulfate Oral Tablet (antibiotic) 500 milligrams (mg - unit of measure), one tablet by mouth two times a day for hepatic encephalopathy. During an interview and record review on 1/16/2025 at 12:07 p.m., with the IPN, Resident 16's medical records and the IPN antibiotic stewardship binder was reviewed. Resident 16's order, 11/12/2024, indicated Neomycin Sulfate Oral Tablet 500 mg, one tablet by mouth two times a day for hepatic encephalopathy. The facility's antibiotic stewardship binder for November 2024 to January 2025 did not have Resident 16's neomycin. The IPN stated she did not review Resident 16's Neomycin use because she did it when originally readmitted on [DATE]. The IPN stated there was no documented evidence of the clinical indication for long term use of Neomycin. The IPN stated there was no documented evidence of monitoring of adverse reactions for Resident 16's long term use of Neomycin. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Antibiotic Stewardship Program, 2/9/2024, the P&P indicated the Antibiotic Stewardship Program is designed to promote appropriate use of antibiotics while optimizing the treatment of infections, and simultaneously reducing the possible adverse events associated with antibiotic use.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0911 (Tag F0911)

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 19 residents' bedroom , rooms( 2 and 19...

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 19 residents' bedroom , rooms( 2 and 19) accommodate no more than 4 residents in each room. This deficient practice had the potential to result in inadequate space to provide nursing care. Findings: During an observation on 1/14/2025 at 3:14 p.m., observed room two occupied with six residents and room three was occupied with six residents . The residents were able to move in and out of their rooms and there was space for wheelchairs, beds, and bedside tables. During a record review of the waiver signed by the administrator dated submitted by the administrator indicated resident 2 and 3 did not meet the four resident per room requirement by federal regulation . The letter indicated room [ROOM NUMBER] and 3 had enough space to provide each resident care without affecting their health and safety or impending any of the residents in the room to attain his or her wellbeing.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the facility's Water Management Plan (plan that identifies hazardous conditions and steps to take to minimize the growth and spread o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the facility's Water Management Plan (plan that identifies hazardous conditions and steps to take to minimize the growth and spread of bacteria[germs]) was implemented when the water management assessment was not completed. This deficient practice had the potential to expose residents and staff to Legionella (bacteria that can cause serious lung infections) and waterborne infections. Findings: During an interview and record review on 1/16/2025 at 9:19 a.m., there was no documented facility water management plan, and the Infection Prevention Nurse (IPN) confirmed the water management assessment was not completed. The IPN stated we need to complete the assessment to ensure microbial growth (germs) was not spreading. During an interview with the Administrator on 1/16/2025 at 1:00 p.m. the administrator stated the facility will complete the water management assessment because it was required. During a review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Legionella, implemented 2/9/2024, the P&P indicated the facility will follow guidance issued by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and complete the risk assessment in developing a water management plan to reduce Legionella. As indicated the facility will contract with experts to assist in the development of the water management plan. The facility will consider internal and external factors that may contribute to legionella growth.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documented evidence of all employees screening, education, offering, and current Corona virus disease, COVID-19 (contagious infecti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide documented evidence of all employees screening, education, offering, and current Corona virus disease, COVID-19 (contagious infectious disease), vaccination (medications used to prevent diseases usually given by injection or by mouth) status. This failure had the potential to place staff and residents at risk for serious outcomes such as being hospitalized due to COVID-19. Findings: During an interview and record review on 1/16/2025 at 12:07 p.m., with the Infection Prevention Nurse (IPN), the facility's employee records of COVID-19 status 2024 to 2025 was reviewed, and the physicians and consultants COVID-19 immunization status were unknown. The IPN stated she did not know she had to get the physicians and consultants Covid-19 immunization status. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Covid-Vaccination, implemented 2/9/2024, the P&P indicated the policy was to prevent and minimize transmission of Covid-19. The P&P indicated the facility will educate and offer Covid-19 vaccinations to facility staff and consultants. The P&P indicated facility staff include all paid and unpaid individuals who work in indoor settings where care is provided to residents or have resident access for any purpose.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, intervention, and record review the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft. ) for resident per resident in multiple rooms resident bedrooms ( 2, 3, 4, 5, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, intervention, and record review the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft. ) for resident per resident in multiple rooms resident bedrooms ( 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11,12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 for (17 of 19 residents room). This deficient practice had the potential to impact the ability to provide nursing care to the residents. Findings : During and observation on 1/14/2025 at 00:00 a.m., with the Maintenance (MN), observed multiple resident's rooms with two, three and six beds in a room. Observed residents go in and out of beds with adequate spacing, side tables, chairs, wheelchairs readily available without impending any movement. During an interview on 1/14/2025 at 00:00 a.m., with the MN , the MN stated we have a room waiver now and will apply for one in 2025. During a review of the room size waiver dated 1/2024 submitted by the Administrator (ADM), for 17 residents' room was reviewed, the letter indicated there was ample room to accommodate residents and enough space for residents care and health and safety of the residents occupying these rooms. The letter indicated the following : Room Number Beds Per Room Square Footage Total 2 6 470 sq. ft. 3 6 426 sq. ft. 4 2 153 sq. ft. 5 2 155 sq. ft. 6 2 146 sq. ft. 7 2 145 sq. ft. 8 2 144 sq. ft. 9 2 144 sq. ft. 11 2 146 sq. ft. 12 3 213 sq. ft. 13 3 187 sq. ft. 14 2 129 sq. ft. 15 2 133 sq. ft. 16 3 210 sq. ft. 17 3 214 sq. ft. 18 3 216 sq. ft. 19 3 217 sq. ft. The minimum sq. ft. for a two bedroom is 160 sq. ft. The minimum sq. ft for a three bedroom is 240 sq. ft. The minimum sq. ft. for a six bedroom, is 480 sq. ft. During the survey from 1/13/2025 to 1/18/2025, there were no observed adverse effects as to the adequacy of space nursing care comfort and privacy to the residents. There was ample space to accommodate wheelchairs, beds and other medical equipment including space for mobility and locomotion of residents.
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 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 ensure one of three sampled resident's (Resident 2) care plan was r...

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 resident's (Resident 2) care plan was revised to include interventions to reduce Resident 2's fall risk, such as staff to always provide direct line of sight (unobstructive view) supervision while Resident 2 was awake. The facility also failed to include Resident 2's Responsible Party (RP) in the care planning process during the interdisciplinary Team (IDT-team of healthcare professionals and the resident and/or Resident's RP working together to meet resident's goals) meeting held after Resident 2's sustained fall on 5/15/2024. These deficient practices had the potential to result in future falls for Resident 2 resulting in injury and it violated Resident 2's and Resident 2 RP's rights to be involved in the care planning process. Findings: During a review of Resident 2's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including overactive bladder (sudden urge to urinate that is hard to control) and major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness which can affect daily activities) with severe psychotic (seeing or hearing things that are not there) symptoms. During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 4/3/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 2's cognitive skills for daily decision-making were severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required supervision (helper does less than half the effort.) for chair to bed transfer (ability to transfer to and from bed to chair), toilet transfer, tub/ shower transfer (ability to get on and off the toilet). The MDS indicated Resident 2 required supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues, and or touching/steadying or contact guard assistant as resident completes activity) to walk 10 feet to 50 feet. During a review of Resident 2's SBAR communication form note, dated 5/14/2024, the note indicated an unidentified resident called for help stating Resident 2 was on the floor and Resident 2 was found on the floor in a sitting position, leaning towards left side near Resident 2's wheelchair. The note indicated Resident 2 sustained an unwitnessed fall on 5/14/2024. During a review of Resident 2's IDT meeting note, dated 5/15/2024, the IDT note indicated Resident 2 had poor safety awareness and was cognitively impaired. The IDT note indicated on 5/14/2023 during the 3pm-11pm shift, while staff was at the station, a resident (unidentified) called for help stating Resident 2 had fallen to the floor in the dining room. The IDT note indicated Resident 2 was left unattended in the dining room by staff. The IDT note indicated the following fall interventions, starting 5/15/2024, fall precautions using the 4 P's (potty, pain, placement, position), neurological checks (checks to see brain function) for 72 hours, post fall rehabilitation screen (evaluation to be completed by a specialist who helps residents become more independent), monitor for pain and medicate as needed, monitor for redness, swelling, immobility, elevate temperature, pain and report to medical doctor, place resident in well trafficked area for supervision, do not leave resident without supervision, keep resident clean and dry, keep resident busy by giving activities of choice applicable to her mention, in serviced staff regarding supervision and fall management for the resident, will continue to monitor and add interventions as needed. The IDT note did not indicate Resident 2's RP was present during the meeting. During a review of Resident 2's untitled Care Plan initiated 6/30/2023, the Care Plan indicated Resident 2 had an actual fall prior to admission, actual fall on 7/21/2023, actual fall on 9/5/2023, assisted fall on 5/4/2024, and unwitnessed fall on 5/14/2024. The care plan goals indicated to reduce the risk of falls and or injury through appropriate interventions daily thru next review on 8/14/2024, resident will continue with normal activities through next review date on 8/31/2024. The care plan revision for intervention did not indicate all the interventions discussed in the IDT meeting. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 2:46 p.m., the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN) stated she reviewed Resident 2's care plan dated through 5/30/2024 and confirmed Resident 2's care plans were not revised to reflect specific interventions such as Resident 2 always requiring direct line of sight, as discussed in the IDT meeting. The IPN stated the IDT should have revised Resident 2's care plans during each fall incident to include specific interventions in Resident 2's care plans to prevent further falls that could lead to injury and death. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 3 p.m., Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) stated she Resident 2 was known for frequently attempting to get out of bed or out of her wheelchair without assistance and must always be within direct supervision of staff. The DOR stated Resident 2's required need for supervision was discussed in daily staff huddles and during her post fall IDT meeting on 5/15/2024 but resident 2's care plan was not revised. The DOR stated failure for the IDT team to revise Resident 2's care plan to include direct supervision can lead to Resident 2 sustaining future falls which would lead to decreased mobility and injury. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 1:30 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated she reviewed Resident 2's care plans, IDT notes and SBAR /Change of condition (COC)documents from 7/2/2023 through 5/30/2024. The DON stated the documents indicate Resident 2's care plans were not revised to reflect specific interventions discussed in the IDT meeting such as Resident 2 always requiring direct line of sight. The DON stated, the failure to revise Resident 2's care plan led to Resident 2's unwitnessed fall on 5/14/2024 and could lead to further falls, injury and death. The DON stated, the facility staff conducted a post fall IDT on 5/15/2024 but family was not invited. The DON stated the facility should have notified Resident 2's RP of the IDT meeting and provided them the opportunity to attend. The DON stated failing to allow Resident 2's RP to participate in the plan of care is a violation of residents' rights. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) titled, Fall Risk Assessment dated 2/9/2024, the P/P indicated the facility assesses all the residents upon admission and periodically for their risk of falling and uses this information to develop both individualized plans of care. During a review of the facility's P/P titled, Response to Falls dated 2/9/2024, the P/P indicated the IDT team will review fall prevention interventions and modify the plan of care as indicated. During a review of the facility's P/P titled, Care Plan dated 2/9/2024, the P/P indicated the purpose of the policy is to ensure that a comprehensive person-centered care plan was developed for each resident based on their individual assessed needs. The P/P indicated each resident's comprehensive centered care plan will describe the following: services that are to be furnished to attain the resident's highest practicable, physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The comprehensive care plan must be prepared by the IDT. The IDT includes the resident and or her family or legal representative. The P/P indicated the resident has right to be informed of changes in the care plan, resident has the right to see the care plan including the right to sign after significant changes are made to the plan of care. The P/P indicated, the facility will invite the resident, if capable and their family to care plan meetings and use its best efforts to schedule care plan meetings at times convenient for the resident and family.
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 2) who had a histor...

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 2) who had a history of multiple falls, was supervised, and monitored while sitting in her wheelchair in the dining room. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 2 sustaining an unwitnessed fall on 5/14/2024 when Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 left Resident 2 unsupervised in the dining room. Findings: During a review of Resident 2's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including overactive bladder (sudden urge to urinate that is hard to control) and major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness which can affect daily activities) with severe psychotic (seeing or hearing things that are not there) symptoms. During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 4/3/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 2's cognitive skills for daily decision-making were severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 2 required supervision (helper does less than half the effort. Helper lifts, holds, supports trunk or limbs but provides less than half the effort) for chair to bed transfer (ability to transfer to and from bed to chair), toilet transfer, tub/ shower transfer (ability to get on and off the toilet). The MDS indicated Resident 2 required supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues, and or touching/steadying or contact guard assistant as resident completes activity) to walk 10 feet to 50 feet. During a review of Resident 2's Morse Fall Scale Reports (a method for determining a resident's likelihood of falling which are completed during a resident's admission, quarterly and after each sustained fall), the reports for 6/30/2023 through 5/30/2024, the reports indicated Resident 2 had falls on 7/21/2023, 9/2023, 5/4/2023 and 5/14/2023. During a review of Resident 2's SBAR communication form note, dated 5/14/2024, the note indicated an unidentified resident called for help stating Resident 2 was on the floor and Resident 2 was found on the floor in a sitting position, leaning towards left side near Resident 2's wheelchair. Resident 2 was unable to obtain information as to why Resident 2 got up from wheelchair without assistance. The note indicated Resident 2 sustained an unwitnessed fall on 5/14/2024. During a review of Resident 2's IDT meeting note, dated 5/15/2024, the IDT note indicated Resident 2 had poor safety awareness and was cognitively impaired. The IDT note indicated on 5/14/2023 during the 3pm-11pm shift, while staff was at the station, a resident (unidentified) called for help stating Resident 2 had fallen to the floor in the dining room. The IDT note indicated Resident 2 was left unattended in the dining room by staff. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 2:46 p.m., the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN) stated Resident 2 has history of falls. The IPN stated Resident 2 has poor safety awareness and requires assistance when transferring and ambulating. The IPN stated Resident 2 must be directly always supervised by staff, meaning staff must always have an unobstructive view of Resident 2. The IPN stated Resident 2 cannot be left in a room unattended while awake due to her high risk and history of falling. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 3 p.m., the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) stated Resident 2 was known for frequently attempting to get out of bed or out of her wheelchair without assistance and must always be within direct supervision of staff. The DOR stated Resident 2's required need for supervision was discussed in daily staff huddles. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 3:50 p.m., Registered Nurse (RN) 1 stated on 5/14/2023 at approximately 6:30 p.m., she was notified by CNA 1 that Resident 2 had an unwitnessed fall in the dining room. RN 1 stated Resident 2 was forgetful and needed constant supervision by staff. RN 1 stated Resident 2 frequently attempts to stand up unattended and must be in staff's constant line of sight as she gets ups quickly. RN 1 stated the facility does not have a system in place indicating which staff was assigned to supervise Resident 2 to ensure direct supervision while Resident 2 was awake. RN 1 stated failure to have a system in place resulted in staff leaving Resident 2 unattended leading to Resident 2's unwitnessed fall. During an interview on 5/31/2024 at 11:45 a.m., CNA 1 on 5/14/2023 at approximately 6 p.m., she accompanied Resident 2 in the dining room. CNA 1 stated she was called to a huddle at the nurses' station and was later alerted by an identified resident that Resident 2 had fallen to the floor. CNA 1 stated she did not notify other staff that Resident 2 was in the dining room, nor did she endorse Resident 2's care to anyone before leaving her alone in the dining room. CNA 1 stated Resident 2 propels herself in a wheelchair independently and often tries to get out of the wheelchair unassisted. CNA 1 stated Resident 2 needs constant supervision and direct line of sight. CNA 1 stated she should not have left Resident 2 alone in the dining room as she has poor safety awareness and was forgetful. During an interview on 5/30/2024 at 1:30 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility did not a have system in place designating which staff member would be assigned to provide supervision to Resident 2, so the resident was unsupervised. The DON stated Resident 2 must be always supervised by staff while Resident 2 was awake due to Resident 2 poor safety awareness, forgetfulness, and unsteadiness when ambulating. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) titled, Fall Risk Assessment dated 2/9/2024, the P/P indicated the facility will ensure that the resident's environment remains as free of accident hazards as is possible and that each resident receives adequate supervision and assistant to prevent accidents.
May 2024 1 deficiency
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure there were enough bath and shower towels for 50 out of 50 sampled residents . This deficient practice places the resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure there were enough bath and shower towels for 50 out of 50 sampled residents . This deficient practice places the residents at risk for infection, decrease in hygiene and comfort. Findings: During an interview on 5/6/2024 at 09:23 a.m., Resident 2 stated the facility run out of things like towels, Resident 2 stated she has to wait until the next day before we get towels to bathe. Resident 2 stated there is a towel shortage. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/6/2024 at 10:30 a.m., with Central Supply (CS), CS stated that there were no towels and stated sometimes it takes more than one day before there are towels available to the facility. During a concurrent observation at the linen room and interview on 5/6/2024 at 10:34 a.m., with laundry assistant ( LA), LA stated clean towels are delivered by a company called Medical every Tuesday and Friday , she stated the last delivery was on 5/3/2024 and the next one will be delivered on 5/7/2024 LA walked to cart 1, cart 2, Cart 3, cart 4 also the linen room and stated there were no towels in the facility for the residents. LA stated that is not good because the Residents cannot be cleaned up properly. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/6/2024 at 10:52 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1), CNA 1 was observed with linen cart 1, cart 2, cart 3 and cart 4 with no wash towels or bath towels on any of the carts. CNA1 stated there are some instances where she had to use Fit Rite Aloe (personal cleansing wipes) due to no wash towels or bath towels available for cleaning Residents for as long as two days when she has worked. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/6/2024 at 11:00 a.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated she has four Residents who need personal hygiene multiple times a day and stated it makes the job more difficult when there are no towels available. CNA 2 stated sometimes she use residents' gown or sheets to wipe a resident when giving a shower. During an observation and interview on 5/6/2024 at 11:48 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON) , the DON verified there were no face or wash towels on the four linen carts and in the linen room . The DON stated not having hand towels and bath towels the nurses are not able to care for the residents and this is an infection issue providing hygiene prevents infection. During an interview on 5/6/2024 at 12:05 p.m., with the Administrator (ADM) the ADM stated the company named, Medical delivers the towels every Tuesday and Friday . The ADM stated she looked around the facility and there were no towels available. ADM stated it is her responsibility to make sure there are enough towels for the facility and moving forward she will order more. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program ,dated February 9,2024, the P&P indicated the facility's infection control; policies and procedures are intended to facilitate maintaining a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and manage transmission of diseases and infections. 1. Establish guidelines for the availability and accessibility of supplies and equipment necessary for standard precautions. During a review of the facilities P&P titled Laundry Services, dated February 9, 2024 , the P&P indicated the facility works to maintain its own or contract laundry service for residents. To do so, the facility adheres to the following: 1. The facility employs adequate staff to ensure the linen is kept clean, in good repair, and in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of our patients. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure there were enough bath and shower towels for 50 out of 50 sampled residents . This deficient practice places the residents at risk for infection, decrease in hygiene and comfort. Findings: During an interview on 5/6/2024 at 09:23 a.m., Resident 2 stated the facility run out of things like towels, Resident 2 stated she has to wait until the next day before we get towels to bathe. Resident 2 stated there is a towel shortage. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/6/2024 at 10:30 a.m., with Central Supply (CS), CS stated that there were no towels and stated sometimes it takes more than one day before there are towels available to the facility. During a concurrent observation at the linen room and interview on 5/6/2024 at 10:34 a.m., with laundry assistant ( LA), LA stated clean towels are delivered by a company called Medical every Tuesday and Friday , she stated the last delivery was on 5/3/2024 and the next one will be delivered on 5/7/2024 LA walked to cart 1, cart 2, Cart 3, cart 4 also the linen room and stated there were no towels in the facility for the residents. LA stated that is not good because the Residents cannot be cleaned up properly. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/6/2024 at 10:52 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1), CNA 1 was observed with linen cart 1, cart 2, cart 3 and cart 4 with no wash towels or bath towels on any of the carts. CNA1 stated there are some instances where she had to use Fit Rite Aloe (personal cleansing wipes) due to no wash towels or bath towels available for cleaning Residents for as long as two days when she has worked. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/6/2024 at 11:00 a.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated she has four Residents who need personal hygiene multiple times a day and stated it makes the job more difficult when there are no towels available. CNA 2 stated sometimes she use residents' gown or sheets to wipe a resident when giving a shower. During an observation and interview on 5/6/2024 at 11:48 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON) , the DON verified there were no face or wash towels on the four linen carts and in the linen room . The DON stated not having hand towels and bath towels the nurses are not able to care for the residents and this is an infection issue providing hygiene prevents infection. During an interview on 5/6/2024 at 12:05 p.m., with the Administrator (ADM) the ADM stated the company named, Medical delivers the towels every Tuesday and Friday . The ADM stated she looked around the facility and there were no towels available. ADM stated it is her responsibility to make sure there are enough towels for the facility and moving forward she will order more. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program , dated February 9,2024, the P&P indicated the facility's infection control; policies and procedures are intended to facilitate maintaining a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and manage transmission of diseases and infections. 1. Establish guidelines for the availability and accessibility of supplies and equipment necessary for standard precautions. During a review of the facilities P&P titled Laundry Services, dated February 9, 2024 , the P&P indicated the facility works to maintain its own or contract laundry service for residents. To do so, the facility adheres to the following: 1. The facility employs adequate staff to ensure the linen is kept clean, in good repair, and in sufficient quantities to meet the needs of our patients.
Jan 2024 10 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 nursing staff member failed to ensure call light was within reach and in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the nursing staff member failed to ensure call light was within reach and in working condition for one of three sampled Residents (Resident 43). This deficient practice had the potential to result in Residents 43 not being unable to call facility staff for help when needed and delay in necessary care and services. Findings: During a review of Resident 43's admission Record (Face Sheet) the Face Sheet indicated Resident 43 was admitted on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus with other specified complications ( a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar, mixed hyperlipidemia ( an inherited condition in which levels of certain fats in the blood are higher than they should be ), schizophrenia ( a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel and behave clearly). During a review of Resident 43's History and Physical (H&P) dated 6/20/23, the H&P indicated Resident 43 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 43's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive assessment and care screening tool) dated 11/8/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 43 required supervision/touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues and/ or touching/steadying and or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity, with eating, upper and lower body dressing, and chair bed to chair transfer). During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/17/2024 at 6:21 p.m., observed Resident 43 lying in bed watching television. Resident 43 stated that his bed control had not been working for a week and he does not know where his call light button was. Resident 43 stated he just yell if he need assistance which was not right. During an interview on 1/17/2024 at 7:54 p.m., with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 4, CNA 4 stated she was not aware Resident 43's call light was not working, or his call bell was missing. CNA 4 stated whenever Resident 43 needs something he yells for it. CNA 4 stated if a call light was not working, she needs to notify the charge nurse. CNA 4 stated the charge nurse will notify the maintenance staff to fix the call light. CNA 4 stated it was her responsibility to make sure Resident 43's call light was working and within reach. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/17/2024 at 8:12 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 2, RN 2 stated Resident 43's call light was not working and there was no call button with-in reach of Resident 43. RN 2 stated when she made rounds, she did not check to see if Resident 43 had a call light. RN 2 stated when call lights are not working, we get the resident a call bell, notify maintenance staff and document in the maintenance logbook. RN 2 stated if Resident 43 does not have a working call light or call bell in reach, we cannot address his needs. During an interview on 1/17/2024 at 8:40 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was the licensed nurse's responsibility to make rounds every two hours to make sure call lights are working and within resident's reach. During an interview on 1/18/2024 at 11:25 a.m. with DON, the DON stated the licensed nurses and CNA should do rounding on their residents every two hours. DON stated while rounding call lights [NAME] be assessed to make sure they were working and within resident reach. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Call light Outage Plan dated July 2/22, indicated It is the policy of the facility to ensure that there is a call light outage plan when facility's call light system is down. In case a call light outage: If a Resident call light system is down, initiate frequent checks until temporary devices are in place such as bells. .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

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 13 sampled residents (Resident 48) had a Preadmission...

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 13 sampled residents (Resident 48) had a Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR-a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) assessment done when diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia (a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels and behaves), bipolar disorder (a mental illness that causes unusual shifts in a person's mood, energy, activity levels, and concentration) prior to admission. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 48 not receiving the necessary services and appropriate psychiatric level of treatment and evaluation in the facility. Findings: During a review of Resident 48's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 48 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia, bipolar, anxiety, and insomnia (difficulty falling asleep). During a review of Resident 48's History and Physical (H&P) dated 1/18/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 48 had fluctuating (changing frequently and uncertainty) capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 48's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 11/13/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 48 required set up or clean up assistance for eating, oral hygiene, personal hygiene and required supervision from staff with toileting, showering, upper and lower body dressing, putting on and taking off footwear, positioning from left to right, sitting to lying, sitting to standing, walking and transferring to the shower and toilet. During a review of Resident 48's PASARR, dated 5/24/2023, the PASARR indicated, Resident 48 had a positive Level I Screening (a preliminary assessment to determine whether an individual might have serious mental illness or intellectual disabilities) and the Level II (individuals who test positive at Level I are then evaluated in depth for determination of need, appropriate setting, a set of recommendations for services for the individual's plan of care) Mental Health Evaluation was not scheduled due to Resident 48 was isolated for health or safety precautions. The PASARR indicated the case was now closed and to reopen the case the facility needed to submit a new Level I Screening. During an interview on 1/21/2024 at 11:14 am with the Social Service Director (SSD) the SSD stated she was responsible for making sure the PASARR was completed. The SSD stated Resident 48 did not have a Level II evaluation due to Coronavirus disease (COVID-19 a potentially severe respiratory illness caused by a corona virus and characterized by fever, coughing, and shortness of breath) exposure. The SSD stated a Level II screening needed to be done to evaluate Resident 48's psychosocial well-being. The SSD stated Resident 48 should have a new Level 1 PASARR screening submitted. During an interview on 1/21/2024 at 11:18 am, with the Minimum Data Set nurse, the MDS nurse stated the Level I Screening should have been resubmitted to make sure Resident 48 was reassessed again if need a Level II Mental Health Evaluation. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, PASSR, dated 12/2017, indicated, The facility also conducts Level I screen for current residents who experience a significant change in their condition based on MDS guidelines. A Level I PASRR is completed each time a resident is hospitalized and readmitted if there has been a significant change in condition. A positive Level I screen necessitates an in-depth evaluation of the individual by the state-designated authority, known as PASARR Level II, which must be conducted prior to admission to a nursing facility.
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 an observation, interview and record review the facility staff failed to ensure a resident's low air loss mattress (mattre...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based an observation, interview and record review the facility staff failed to ensure a resident's low air loss mattress (mattress designed to distribute the patient's body weight over a broad surface area and help prevent skin breakdown. was inflated for one of two sampled residents (Resident 32). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect Resident 32 physical comfort and had Resident 32 pressure ulcer (injury to skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure on the skin) to worsen. Findings: During a review of Resident 32's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including ischemic with cardiomyopathy ( heart muscle that cannot pump well because of damage from lack of blood supply to the heart), pressure ulcer of unspecified part of back unstageable ( a type of pressure ulcer that occurs due to prolong pressure on a specific area of the skin, resulting in the lack of blood flow and oxygen to the tissue) and the sacral region( a large triangular bone at the base of the spine). During a review of Resident 32's history and physical (H&P) report undated, the H&P indicated Resident 32 had the capacity to understand and make decision. During a review of Resident 32's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive assessment and care screening tool) dated 12/24/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 32 requires partial/ moderate assistance (helper lifts hold or supports trunk and or limbs but provides less than half) with chair to bed to chair transfer, lying to sitting on side of bed, and toilet transfer. During a review of Resident 32's Order Summary Report, the Order Summary Report indicated an order for low air loss mattress for wound care management was ordered 12/20/2024. During an initial facility tour observation on 1/19/2024 at 6:48: p.m., Resident 32 was in bed, observed the low air loss mattress was deflated, the light indicating the bed was functioning was off. During an interview on 1/20/24 at 7:54 p.m., with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 4, CNA 4 stated was not aware Resident 32's low air loss mattress was not working and stated if it was not working, CNA should inform the charge nurse. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/19/2024 at 8:20 p.m., with the Registered Nurse (RN) 2, RN 2 stated Resident 32 was on a low air loss mattress and used for residents who have pressure ulcers. RN 2 stated she did not notice Resident 32 low air loss mattress was not on when she made rounds. RN 2 stated it was the licensed nurse responsibility to make sure the low air loss mattress was in working condition to prevent Resident 32's pressure ulcer from getting worse. During an interview on 1/19/2024 at 8:40 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated Resident 32 's low air loss mattress should be working 24 hours a day seven days a week and it was the CNA responsibility to inform the charge nurse if a bed was not working. DON stated it was the responsibility of the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) and CNA to make rounds every two hours to make sure the bed was functioning. During an interview on 1/ 21/2024 at 4:11 p.m., LVN 2, LVN 2 stated it was the responsibility of all the licensed nurses to monitor Resident 32 air mattress for a decrease in air flow or if the bed light was off. During a record review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), dated 4/2022, titled Pressure Reducing Mattress indicated A specialty mattress will be obtained for pressure relief of the residents that have pressure injury or at risk for pressure injury. A trained adult care giver such as Certified Nursing Assistants is available to assist the patient with activities of daily living, fluid balance, dry skin care, repositioning, recognition, and management of altered mental status, dietary needs, prescribed treatments and management and support of the air fluidized bed system and its problems such as leakage.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent the resident from having an unplanned severe ...

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 prevent the resident from having an unplanned severe (severe weight loss is the weight loss greater than 5 % in one month and greater than 7.5 % in three months) weight loss of 14 pounds ([lbs.] which constituted 7.4 percent % in one month and 10.3 % in two months) for one of 18 sampled residents (Resident 40). The facility failed to: 1. Ensure the licensed nurses followed the Registered Dietician (RD) dietary recommendations of Multivitamins (a pill containing a combination of vitamins), Prostat (a ready-to-drink concentrated liquid high in protein) 30 cubic centimeter ([cc]-unit of volume) daily, and iron (a mineral that the body needs to produce red blood cells) supplements on 11/16/2023, recommendations of including a complete blood count ([CBC] a blood test that measures the number and quality of red blood cells (RBCs or erythrocytes) and white blood cells), comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP]a blood test about resident's body's fluid balance and levels of electrolytes) and a thyroid stimulating hormone ([TSH] measures the amount of thyroid stimulating hormone in your blood) test on 12/15/2023, recommendations of change order for Ensure one carton daily to two times a day, follow up with laboratory tests ordered on 12/17/2023 (not done until 1/12/24) and continue with weekly weights on 12/23/2023. 2. Ensure the facility held Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT] group of healthcare professionals working together to plan the care needed for each resident) meeting to address Resident 40's continued unplanned weight loss and make recommendations to prevent further weight loss. These failures resulted in Resident 40's weight loss of 14 lbs. (7.4 % in one month and 10.3 % in two months) from 11/11/2023 to 12/22/2023. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/19/2024 at 7:30 p.m. with Resident 40 at his bedside, Resident 40 was observed being frail (physically weak) and thin with sunken eyeball, and dry skin in appearance. Resident 40 stated he had lost weight since being in the facility because he does not always like the food he was served, and he was not offered a food alternative (different choices). Resident 40 stated he has friends who will bring him food he likes once or twice a week. During a review of Resident 40's admission Record (Face Sheet) dated 11/10/2023, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 40 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including cellulitis (a common skin infection caused by bacteria) of the left leg, hypertension (high blood pressure), and adult failure to thrive (a syndrome of weight loss, decreased appetite, and poor nutrition). During a review of Resident 40's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 11/14/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 40 was alert and oriented and able to make independent decisions about his activities of daily living. The MDS indicated Resident 40's height was 70 inches and weight of 136 lbs. During a review of Resident 40's Care Plan (CP) titled Alteration in nutritional status revised 11/15/2023, the CP indicated Resident 40 was at risk for the weight loss. The CP indicated the goal for Resident 40 was to minimize further weight loss. The CP indicated the interventions included to offer food substitutes (in addition to a meal and provides sustenance such as drinks designed to replace meals and aid in weight loss) for any meals refused, monitor weights, perform laboratory tests as ordered or indicated and report significant weight loss of five (5) pounds or more in one month to the primary physician. During a review if Resident 40's Physician's Order dated 10/19/2023, the Physician's Order indicated Heart Health Diet (cardiac diet- diet that focuses on reducing the risk for heart disease). During a review of Resident 40's Physician's Order dated 12/23/2023, the Physician's Order indicated Resident 40 had an order for Ensure (dietary supplement) one can twice a day as a dietary supplement. During a review of Resident 40's Weight and Vitals Summary report dated 11/11/2023-1/11/2024, the Weight and Vitals Summary report indicated the following resident's weight: 1. On 11/11/2023-136 pounds. 2. On 12/14/2023-126 pounds (7.4% weight loss since admission on [DATE]). 3. On 12/22/2023-123 pounds (9.6% weight loss since admission on [DATE]). 4. On 12/29/2023-123 pounds (9.6% weight loss since admission on [DATE]). 5. On 1/4/2024-126 pounds. 6. On 1/10/2024-122 pounds (10.3% weight loss since admission on [DATE]). During a review of Resident 40's Registered Dietician (RD) Initial Nutritional assessment dated [DATE], the RD' Initial Nutritional Assessment indicated Resident 40's diet was the Regular diet with no added salt (NAS). The RD' Initial Nutritional Assessment indicated Resident 40's current weight was 136 lbs., height of 70 inches with ideal body weight ([IBW]-weight for height) of 166 lbs. (plus/minus 10 percent). The RD's Initial Nutritional Assessment indicated Resident 40 was at risk for unintended weight loss, dehydration (a harmful reduction in the amount of water in the body) and malnutrition (lack of proper nutrition, caused by not having enough to eat or not eating enough). The RD's Initial Nutritional Assessment indicated recommendations including Multivitamins (a pill containing a combination of vitamins), Prostat (a ready-to-drink concentrated liquid high in protein [main nutritional food groups]) 30 cubic centimeter ([cc]-unit of volume) daily, and iron (a mineral that the body needs to produce red blood cells) supplements (which were not ordered until 1/21/2024). During a review of Resident 40's RD Medical Nutritional Therapy Assessment Recommendation dated 12/15/2023, the Medical Nutritional Assessment Recommendation indicated recommendations including weekly weights for four (4) weeks, snacks three times a day between meals, Ensure one carton at 2 p.m., and laboratory tests including a complete blood count ([CBC] a blood test that measures the number and quality of red blood cells (RBCs or erythrocytes) and white blood cells), comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP]a blood test about resident's body's fluid balance and levels of electrolytes) and a thyroid stimulating hormone ([TSH] measures the amount of thyroid stimulating hormone in your blood) test, which were not completed until 1/12/2024. During a review of Resident 40's RD's Medical Nutritional Therapy Assessment Recommendations dated 12/23/2023, indicated recommendations including change order for Ensure one carton daily to two times a day, follow up with laboratory tests ordered on 12/17/2023 (not done until 1/12/24) and continue with weekly weights as ordered. The RD's Medical Nutritional Therapy Recommendation indicated Resident 40 had a weight loss of three (3) pounds in one (1) week and 13 pounds in two months as of 12/23/2023. During a review of Resident 40's RD's Medical Nutritional Therapy Assessment Recommendations dated 1/11/2024, indicated continue with weekly weights for four weeks, to follow up with labs ordered on 12/17/2023 (not drawn) and change Ensure to Boost (high calorie nutritional supplement) one carton three times a day with medication administration. The Medical Nutritional Therapy Assessment Recommendation indicated Resident 40 had a weight loss of four (4) lbs. in one (1) week and 14 pounds in two months. During a review of Resident 40's meal percentage record dated 12/10/2023-12/30/2023, the meal percentage record indicated Resident 40's meal intake varied between 20%-100% during breakfast, lunch, and dinner. During a review of Resident 40's meal percentage record dated 1/1/2024-1/20/2024, the meal percentage record indicated Resident 40's meal intake varied between 20%-100% during breakfast, lunch, and dinner. During a review of Resident 40's Physician's Order dated 12/17/2023 indicated an order to obtain CBC, CMP and TSH test. During a review of Resident 40's laboratory report dated 1/12/2024 (ordered on 12/17/2023), the laboratory report indicated Resident 40 had a hemoglobin of 7.8 grams/deciliter ([g/dl]-unit of measurement]. The hemoglobin reference range was 13.5-16.9 g/dl. The laboratory report indicated Resident 40's albumin (protein found in the blood plasma [component of blood]) level was 3.1 g/dl. The albumin reference range is 4.2-5.5 g/dl. During an interview on 1/21/2024 at 10:28 a.m., the Director of Nurses (DON) stated a Change of Condition (COC) should have been done for Resident 40's weight loss of 10 lbs. from 11/11/2023 on 12/14/202. The DON stated there should be an IDT meeting to address Resident 40's significant weight loss but there was no IDT meeting until 1/4/2024. The DON stated Resident 40 should have had an IDT to discuss care and RD's recommendations for resident 40's severe weight loss. The DON stated it was important for the licensed nurses to follow up on the RD's recommendations for Resident 40 to prevent the delay in care. During an interview on 1/21/2024 at 1:06 p.m., the RD stated she was aware of Resident 40 weight loss. The RD stated she made recommendations on 12/15/2023 including weekly weights, snacks three times a day, Ensure one carton at 2 p.m. and CBC, and CMP for Resident 40 but were not done by the licensed nurses so new recommendations were made on 12/23/2023. The RD stated she did not see Resident 40 until 1/10/2024, 17 days later (12/23/2023-1/10/2023), and the recommendations she (RD) made on 12/23/2023 were not done by the licensed nurses for Resident 40. The RD stated she failed to check to see if the laboratory recommendations made on 12/15/2023 and ordered on 12/17/2023 were done. The RD stated it was important to check to see if the recommendations were followed through by the licensed nurses to avoid further weight loss for Resident 40. The RD stated, the laboratory values were out of range on 1/12/2024 and Resident 40 would have benefited from the previous recommendations made on 11/16/2023 for Multivitamins and Iron. The RD stated Resident 40 was not weighed between 1/10/2024 and 1/21/2024 despite the order of weekly weights. The RD stated Resident 40 did not have an IDT meeting for weight loss until 1/4/2024. The RD stated the importance of addressing Resident 40's weight loss through IDT meeting was to monitor the Resident 40's weights, ensure recommendations were followed through, evaluate appropriateness of the diet and current measures for weight loss prevention, and recommend other measures to prevent further weight loss. During an interview on 1/21/2024 at 2 p.m. a Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 4) stated Resident 40 often ask for food substitutions because he does not like the food he was served from the kitchen. CNA 4 stated Resident 40 was pretty skinny and ate about 60-70% of his meals. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/21/2024 at 2:48 p.m. the Registered Nurse (RN 1), reviewed Resident 40's medical record. RN 1 stated RD's recommendations for laboratory tests dated 12/15/2023 were ordered by physician on 12/17/2023 and were not carried out until 1/12/2024. RN 1 stated there was a delay in care and Resident 40 could experience an adverse event like dehydration. RN 1 stated it was the responsibility of the licensed nurses to ensure the laboratory tests ordered on 12/17/2023 were carried out as ordered. RN 1 stated the laboratory tests results dated 1/12/2024 indicated Resident 40 hemoglobin had out of range. RN 1 stated, Resident 40 could have benefited from the RD's recommendation given on 11/16/2023 for Iron supplements. RN 1 stated the RD's recommendations on 11/16/2023 for Iron or Multivitamins were not ordered until 1/21/2024. RN 1 stated, Resident 40 did not have a COC and IDT meeting for weight loss in November and December 2023. RN 1 stated the first wight loss IDT meeting was held on 1/4/2024. RN 1 stated if an IDT and COC was done sooner for Resident 40, it could have prevented the resident's further weight loss because all recommendations will be addressed and followed through. During an interview on 1/21/2024 at 4:03 p.m. Resident 40 stated he started to receive Boost at the beginning of January 2024. During an interview on 1/23/2024 at 2:17 p.m. the RD stated Resident 40 caloric intake should be between 1550-1860 calories based on his admission weight of 136 pounds. The RD stated Resident 40 consumed 50-100% of his meals per day. The RD stated her recommendations from 11/16/2023 were just followed up on by licensed nurses on 1/21/2024 and that should not have happened. The RD stated recommendations should be followed up within 24-48 hours after the recommendations were written. The RD stated she sent her written recommendations via electronic mail to the DON, Dietary Supervisor, and Medical Records staff. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Unplanned Weight Loss dated 4/2018, the P&P indicated the purpose was to provide appropriate intervention for any unplanned weight loss. The DON shall be responsible for implementation of the unplanned weight loss policy. It was the policy of the facility to identify conditions and potential causes of weight loss that places the residents at risk. The P&P indicated a weight loss of 5% in one month was significant and greater than 5% was severe, the weight loss of 7.5% in three months was significant and greater that 7.5% was severe, and weight loss of 10% in six months was significant and greater than 10% was severe. During a review of the facility job description (JD) titled Registered Dietician dated 5/2017, the JD indicated the RD will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of nutritional interventions. The JD indicated the RD will ensure appropriate and timely documentation of nutrition assessment tools, recommended interventions and follow up. During a review of the facility P&P titled Food Preferences, the P&P indicated the RD, dietary manager or nursing staff will visit residents periodically to determine if revisions are needed regarding food preferences. During a review of the facility P&P titled Weight Assessment and Interventions dated 11/2017, the P&P indicated it is the policy of the facility to monitor a patient's weight. The P&P indicated any weight change of 5% or more since the last weight assessment will be retaken the next day for confirmation. The P&P indicated care planning for weight loss or impaired nutrition will be a multidisciplinary effort and will include the physician, nursing staff, dietician, and the consultant pharmacist with time frames for monitoring and re
CONCERN (D)

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

Laboratory Services (Tag F0770)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain laboratory tests of complete blood count ([CBC] a blood test that measures the number and quality of red blood cells (RBCs or erythr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to obtain laboratory tests of complete blood count ([CBC] a blood test that measures the number and quality of red blood cells (RBCs or erythrocytes) and white blood cells), comprehensive metabolic panel (CMP]a blood test about resident's body's fluid balance and levels of electrolytes) and a thyroid stimulating hormone ([TSH] measures the amount of thyroid stimulating hormone in your blood) test on 12/15/2023 as ordered by the attending physician on 12/17/2023 for one of one sample resident (Resident 40). This deficient practice had the potential to delay necessary care and treatment for Resident 40. Findings: During a review of Resident 40's admission Record (Face Sheet) dated 11/10/2023, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 40 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including cellulitis (a common skin infection caused by bacteria) of the left leg, hypertension (high blood pressure), and adult failure to thrive (a syndrome of weight loss, decreased appetite, and poor nutrition). During a review of Resident 40's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] - a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 11/14/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 40 was alert and oriented and able to make independent decisions about his activities of daily living. The MDS indicated Resident 40's height was 70 inches and weight of 136 lbs. During a review of Resident 40's RD Medical Nutritional Therapy Assessment Recommendation dated 12/15/2023, the Medical Nutritional Assessment Recommendation indicated recommendations laboratory tests including CBC,CMP and TSH ordered by physician on 12/17/2023. During a review of Resident 40's Physician's Order dated 12/17/2023 indicated an order to obtain CBC, CMP and TSH test. During a review of Resident 40's laboratory report dated 1/12/2024 (ordered on 12/17/2023), the laboratory report indicated Resident 40 had a hemoglobin of 7.8 grams/deciliter ([g/dl-unit of measurement] normal range 13.5-16.9) and hematocrit of 24.4 percent (normal range 39.5-50.0). The laboratory report indicated Resident 40's albumin level (helps keep fluid from leaking out of your blood vessels into other tissues) was 3.1 g/dl (normal range 4.2-5.5). During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/21/2024 at 2:48 p.m. the Registered Nurse (RN 1), reviewed Resident 40's medical record. RN 1 stated RD's recommendations for laboratory tests dated 12/15/2023 were ordered by physician on 12/17/2023 and were not carried out until 1/12/2024. RN 1 stated there was a delay in care and Resident 40 could experience an adverse event like dehydration. RN 1 stated it was the responsibility of the licensed nurses to ensure the laboratory tests ordered on 12/17/2023 were carried out as ordered. RN 1 stated the laboratory tests results dated 1/12/2024 indicated Resident 40 hemoglobin had out of range. RN 1 stated, Resident 40 could have benefited from the RD's recommendation given on 11/16/2023 for Iron supplements. RN 1 stated the RD's recommendations on 11/16/2023 for Iron or Multivitamins were not ordered until 1/21/2024.
CONCERN (E)

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 observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure three of 13 sampled residents rights were protected...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure three of 13 sampled residents rights were protected by: 1. Resident 49 received a cold temperature shower. This failure resulted in Resident 49 unknowingly being placed in a cold shower until the water temperature in the shower warmed up. 2.Resident 19 was not provided a dignity bag (restores the dignity of [catheterized-a procedure used to drain the bladder and collect urine, through a flexible tube patient by concealing urinary drainage bags from public view) for Resident 19 indwelling catheter ([foley catheter] plastic or rubber tube that is inserted into the bladder to drain the urine) drainage bag (collects urine). This deficient practice has the potential to affect resident's sense of self-worth and self-esteem. Findings: 1.During a review of Resident 49 admission Record (Face Sheet) the Face Sheet indicated Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including congestive heart failure (a serious condition in which the heart does not pump blood as sufficiently as it should), glaucoma (a group of eye disease), difficulty walking, and dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing). During a review of Resident 49's History and Physical (H&P) dated 12/13/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 49 had fluctuating (changing frequently and uncertainty) capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 49's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 1/15/2024, the MDS indicated, Resident 49 required setup or clean up assistance with eating, oral hygiene, upper body dressing, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 49 required supervision from staff with toileting, showering, lower body dressing, putting on and taking off footwear, changing positions from left to right, sitting to lying, sitting to standing, transferring from the bed to chair, transferring to the shower and walking. During an interview with Resident 49 on 1/20/24 at 10:27 a.m., Resident 49 stated a week ago (cannot remember exact date) a male nurse placed him in a cold shower. Resident 49 stated he told the nurse the water was too cold and was made to take a cold shower until the water eventually warmed up. Resident 49 stated sometimes you think you have no choice, and you feel helpless. During an interview on 1/21/2024 at 8:26 a.m. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 5, CNA 5 stated it can take up to five to seven minutes before the water starts to warm up in the shower. During an interview on 1/21/2024 at 8:37 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was a matter of resident rights Resident 49 should not be made to take a cold shower. During an observation on 1/21/2024 at 8:38 a.m. in shower 1, CNA 5 turned on the water in shower 1 and observed going to get towels while letting the water in shower 1 run. CNA 5 stated she was preparing a resident for a shower. During an observation on 1/21/2024 at 8:45 am, observed the temperature of the water in shower 1 was cold, a resident (unknown) in shower 1 stated it takes a while for the water to heat up. The resident got in the shower and stated the water was still cold. During an interview on 1/21/2024 at 4:08 pm with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated CNA 5 should allow the shower to warm up and ask the resident to test the temperature on their wrist, then proceed with the shower when resident says it was an acceptable temperature. RN 1 stated if residents are taking cold showers the residents will be cold, or frustrated and may feel they are not being listened to by the staff. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/21/2024 at 4:38 pm with Maintenance (MN), the facility's Water Temperature Log, dated January 2024 was reviewed. The Water Temperature Log indicated, on 1/2/2024 the shower temperature was 112 degrees Fahrenheit (°F-scale of temperature), on 1/9/2024 the shower temperature was 110°F, on 1/11/2024 the shower temperature was 110 °F. MN stated the temperature in the showers was low. MN stated he found out a week ago the shower temperature was low, and a plumber was called to fix the problem with water temperature. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Dignity and Personal Privacy, dated 12/2016, the P&P indicated, Each resident has the right to be treated with dignity and respect. All activities and interactions with residents by any staff, temporary agency staff or volunteers must focus on assisting the resident in maintaining and enhancing his or her self-esteem and self-worth and incorporating the resident's, goals, preferences, and choices. When providing care and services, staff must respect each resident's individuality, as well as honor and value their input. 2. During a review of Resident 19's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted [DATE] with diagnoses including retention of urine unspecified ( difficulty urinating and completely emptying the bladder), chronic kidney disease stage 3 ( the kidney function has been by half, and patients may experience high blood pressure ), and schizophrenia ( a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel and behave clearly). During a review of Resident 19's History and Physical (H&P) report dated 1/22/2923, the H&P indicated Resident 19 has the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 19's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 19 was dependent (helper does all effort or the assistance of two or more helpers required for the resident to complete the activity) with chair/ bed to chair transfer, lying to sitting on side of bed and sit to lying. During a review of Resident 19's Order Summary Report (Order Summary Report, dated 11/20/2023 the Order Summary Report indicated an order for foley catheter. During an observation on 1/19/2024 at 6:48 p.m., Resident 19 was lying in bed in a supine position with foley catheter hanging below the bed with no dignity bag, During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/19/2024 at 6:48 p.m. with the Registered Nurse (RN) 2, RN 2 stated Resident 19 had a foley catheter with no dignity bag. RN2 stated it was important to have a dignity bag for Resident 19's privacy. During an interview on 1/20/2024 at 8:20 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON) the DON stated it was the licensed nurse responsibility to provide all residents with dignity bags for their foley catheter for infection control and residents dignity. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Residents Dignity & Personal Privacy dated 12/2026, the P&P indicated The facility provides care for residents in a manner that enhance and respects each resident's dignity, individuality, and right to personal privacy. Each resident has the right to be treated with dignity and respect. All activities and interactions with residents by any staff, temporary agency staff or volunteers must focus on assisting the resident in maintaining and enhancing his or her self-esteem and self-worth and incorporating the resident's, goals, preferences, and choices. When providing care and services, staff must respect each resident's individuality, as well as honor and value their input. Care for residents in a manner that maintains dignity and individuality: Drape and dress residents appropriately at all times to avoid exposure and embarrassment.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

During observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure food was stored under food safety requirement by: 1.Unplugging the freezer for over 30 minutes while storing resident foo...

Read full inspector narrative →
During observation, interview and record review the facility failed to ensure food was stored under food safety requirement by: 1.Unplugging the freezer for over 30 minutes while storing resident food. 2. Resident food stored in the freezer with a temperature of 15 degrees Fahrenheit (°F- scale of temperature). These deficient practices placed residents at risk for food-borne illness also called food poisoning caused by eating contaminated food or eating food not kept at appropriate temperatures) and can lead to other serious medical complications and hospitalization for 48 residents residing in the facility. Findings: During an observation 1/19/2024 at 5:38 p.m. on the initial kitchen tour in the facility kitchen, observed the freezer was unplugged since 5 p.m. on 1/19/2024. Observed ice cream was melted. During an interview on 1/19/2024 at 5:55 p.m. with the Maintenance Director (MD), the MD stated the freezer was unplugged 30 minutes ago because ice was building up on the condenser. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/19/2024 at 5:57 p.m. with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), the DS stated the temperature inside the freezer was five °F- temperature and it should be at zero °F. The DS stated the freezer was unplugged for over 30 minutes because of ice build up on the condenser (part of a refrigeration system ). During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/19/2024 at 6:10 p.m. with the DS the freezer was plugged in. The DS stated 154 cartons of ice cream was melted because the freezer was not working. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/19/2024 at 6:30 p.m. with the DS, it was observed that all the food in the freezer was thrown away in the trash and the freezer was empty. The DS stated she threw away all the food in the freezer so the residents will not get sick. During an interview on 1/20/2024 at 10:37 a.m. with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated she was aware that the freezer in the kitchen was broken and was informed on 1/19/2024 at 9 p.m. The ADM stated if the freezer was not working the food would be rotten. The ADM stated if rotten food was served to the residents, it could have bacteria and the residents could get diarrhea (loose stool) or infection. During a record review of an invoice for the repair of the facility freezer dated 1/20/2024, the invoice indicated the freezer had badly damaged doors as the door gaskets were not properly sealed and the freezer was considered Red Tag (a safety concern with the appliance or part to which it is attached) and not to be used. During a review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Monitoring Large Kitchen Appliances revised 4/2015, the P&P indicated the freezer temperature should be zero degrees or below. During a review of the facility P&P titled Food Storage Principles dated 4/2020, the P&P indicated the facility should preserve food quality before and after it is served.
CONCERN (F)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices for the preparation and distribution of food was done under sanitary conditions in t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure proper infection control practices for the preparation and distribution of food was done under sanitary conditions in the kitchen for 48 out of 48 residents by: 1.Failing to ensure the Chlorine Sanitizer Agent (recommended to sanitize food contact surfaces including utensils, equipment, and tables) for the dishwasher was between 50-100 PPM (unit used to describe very small concentrations of a substance in a larger solution) for four dishwashing cycles. 2.Failing to ensure the Dish Machine Temperatures was within proper range of 120-160 degrees (a measure of temperature) for 5 dishwashing cycles. 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, diarrhea, and fever that can lead to other serious medical complications and hospitalization. Findings: During an observation on 1/19/2024 at 5:40 p.m. during the initial kitchen tour it was observed that the dishwasher and chlorine sanitizer was not working properly and read at 0 PPM after two (2) wash cycles. Observed the dishwasher temperature for the wash cycle was at 110 degrees and the rinse temperature was at 110 degrees. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/19/2024 at 6 p.m. with the Dietary Aide (DA), the DA stated the dishwasher temperature for the wash cycle was at 110 degrees and the rinse temperature was at 110 degrees and it was correct for the low temperature dishwasher. The DA stated the chlorine sanitizer agent strip was at 5 ppm and it should be between 50-100 ppm. The DA stated the dishwasher was broken that day on 1/19/2024. The DA stated the resident's ate dinner with plates and silverware (forks, knives and spoons) washed in the dishwasher that day. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/19/2024 at 6:04 p.m. with the DA, the DA stated the second wash and rinse dishwasher cycle chlorine sanitizer ppm was at 25 ppm and it should be between 50-100 ppm. The DS stated the residents ate dinner on plates that were washed in the dishwasher on 1/19/2024. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/19/2024 at 6:06 p.m. with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), the DS stated the dishwasher is a low temperature machine. Stated the ppm checked was at 0 ppm and not effective as a sanitizer. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/20/2024 at 10:05 a.m. with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), it was observed that the chlorine sanitizer strips were expired and dated 7/1/2023. The DS stated the strips being used by the kitchen staff was expired and stated they would not be effective to use in the kitchen. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/21/2024 at 11:45 p.m. with the DS, the DS stated the dishwasher temperature load was at 102 degrees. It was observed for 3 cycles of the dishwasher and the highest temperature was at 102 degrees. The DS stated if the dishes are not cleaned at the correct temperature of at least 120 degrees, the residents could get sick because the dishes were not sanitized properly. During a review of the facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled Machine Dishwashing Racking Procedure dated 4/2020, the P&P indicated dishes that are sanitary are free from bacteria which cannot be seen by the naked eye. During a review of the facility P&P titled Testing Sanitizer and Temperature in Low Temp Dish Machines dated 4/2020, the P&P indicated to test the sanitizer with chlorine test strips obtained by the chemical vendor or food distributor. The P&P indicated a proper level is 50 ppm chlorine in the rinse water and an appropriate temperature for wash and rinse is 120°-160. The P&P indicated to inform the Dietary Manager if the minimum requirements for either sanitation solutions or temperatures are not adequate.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0911 (Tag F0911)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 19 resident bedrooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] ) accomm...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 19 resident bedrooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] ) accommodated no more than four residents in each room . This deficient practice had the potential to result in inadequate space to provide nursing care. Findings: During an observation on 1/20/23 at 1:17 p.m., observed room [ROOM NUMBER] occupied five residents and room [ROOM NUMBER] was occupied with six residents. The residents were able to move in and out of their rooms and there was space for the beds, side table and wheelchairs. During a record review of the room waver signed by the Administrator dated 1/24 , submitted by the administrator indicated Resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and 3 did not meet the four residents per room required by federal regulation . The letter indicated room [ROOM NUMBER] and 3 had enough space to provide each resident care without affecting their health and safety or impeding any of the residents in the room to attain his or her wellbeing.
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 and interview and record review the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft.) for re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview and record review the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft.) for resident per resident in multiple rooms resident bedrooms (rooms 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19) for 17 of 19 resident's room. This deficient practice had the potential to impact the ability to provide nursing care to the residents. Findings : During an observation on 1/21/2024 at 1:17 p.m., with Maintenance (MN), observed multiple resident's rooms with two, three and six beds in a room. Observed residents go in and out of beds with adequate spacing, side tables, beds, wheelchairs readily available without impending any movement. During an interview on 1/21/2024 at 1:19 p.m. with MN, the MN stated we have a room waiver and would like to apply for another one this year. During a review of the room size waiver dated 1/23 submitted by the Administrator , for 17 residents rooms was reviewed, the letter indicated there was ample room to accommodate residents and enough space for nursing care and the health and safety of the residents occupying these rooms. The letter indicated the following : Room Number Beds per Room Total Square Footage room [ROOM NUMBER] 6 470 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 6 426 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 143 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 155 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 146 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 145 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 144 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 144 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 146 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 213 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 187 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 129 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 133 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 210 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 214 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 216 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 217 sq. ft. The minimum sq. ft. for a two bedroom is 160 sq. ft. The minimum sq. ft. for a three bedroom is 240 sq. ft. The minimum sq. ft. for a six bedroom is 480 sq. ft. During the survey from, 1/19/24 to 1/21/24, there were no observed adverse effects as to the adequacy of space, nursing care comfort and privacy to the residents. There was ample space to accommodate wheelchairs, beds, and other medical equipment including space for mobility and locomotion of residents.
Nov 2021 6 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

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the assessment entries on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) (an assessment and care screening tool) related to insulin (a hormone that work...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the assessment entries on the Minimum Data Set (MDS) (an assessment and care screening tool) related to insulin (a hormone that works by lowering levels of sugar in the blood) was accurately documented for one of two residents sampled (Resident 6). The MDS indicated Resident 6 had been receiving insulin but had not ever received insulin since admission to the facility. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the provision of care and provided inaccurate information to the Federal database. Findings: During a record review of Resident 6's admission face sheet, the admission face sheet indicated Resident 6 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses of obstructive pulmonary disease (a lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), congestive heart failure (a condition in which the heart cannot pump enough blood to meet the body's needs), and morbid obesity (a serious health condition that results from an abnormally high body mass index). During a record review of Resident 6's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), an assessment and care-screening tool, dated 8/11/2021, section N0350 Insulin, indicated Resident 6 received insulin injections. During an interview on 11/15/2021 at 2:25 p.m. with Resident 6, when asked are you on insulin, Resident 6 stated, No, I am not diabetic. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) on 11/16/21 at 11:54 a.m., LVN 1 stated Resident 6 was not on insulin. During a concurrent interview and record review on 11/17/2021 at 2 p.m. with the MDS nurse after reviewing the MDS, the MDS Nurse stated he miscoded Resident 6's MDS and might have confused insulin with the tuberculin (a combination of proteins used in the diagnosis of tuberculosis) injection. The MDS Nurse stated when it was caught it was modified and sent to CMS. During a record review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Minimum Data Set Accuracy, dated 5/2016, the P/P indicated the Resident Assessment Coordinator and MDS nurse complete a validation check for information entered into the Resident Assessment Instrument ([RAI] resident assessment instrument is a standardized approach to examine nursing home quality and to improve nursing home regulation) for each resident.
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 interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement a resident's care plan for one of one sampled residents (Resident 5) with a history of falls to be monitored every two hours. T...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement a resident's care plan for one of one sampled residents (Resident 5) with a history of falls to be monitored every two hours. This deficiency practice increased Resident 5 's potential for falling and placed the resident at risk for physical harm. Findings: During a review of Resident 5's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a comprehensive assessment and care screening tool, dated 5/12/21, indicated that Resident 5 was cognitively intact (able to understand and make decisions of daily living) and required limited assistance (staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs and other non-weight bearing assistance) with activities of daily living ([ADL] self-care such as feeding, bathing, dressing, and grooming). A review of Resident 5's Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT] group of healthcare providers from different fields who work together or toward the same goal to provide the best care or outcome for the resident) conference record, titled Falls/Risks For Falls/Potential for injury, dated 4/24/20, indicated the IDT recommendations included but not limited to anticipate and assist resident on going to the bathroom at least every 2 hours. During a review of Resident 5's care plan Falls dated 8/25/20, indicated Resident 5 was at risk for falls due to unsteady gait and weakness. The care plan interventions included but was not limited to assist with all ambulation or transfers as needed, monitor resident's whereabouts/location with visual checks at least every two hours and monitor for sedation, dizziness, unsteady standing, sitting balance. A review of Resident 5's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 8/24/20, 11/23/20, 2/22/21, and 5/12/21 indicated that Resident 5 represented a high risk for fall. A review of Resident 5's Situation Background Assessment Recommendation ([SBAR]a form that helps provide essential, concise information between members of the health care team, usually during crucial situations) Communication Form dated 7/25/21, indicated that Resident 5 sustained a fall on 7/25/21. A review of Resident 5's X-rays (special pictures of the inside of one's body) of the right hand, right forearm, right wrist, left wrist, left forearm, left hand, dated 7/26/21 indicated no fractures (breaks in the bone). A review of Resident 5' Interdisciplinary Team Conference Record, Falls/Risks For Falls/Potential for injury, dated 7/26/21 indicated the IDT recommendations include but are not limited to anticipate and assist resident on going to the bathroom at least every 2 hours. During a concurrent interview and record review on 11/16/21, at 3:29 p.m., with Registered Nurse 2 (RN 2), RN 2 stated Resident 5 does not like to ask for help. Staff needed to keep an eye on him and to be ready to help him. RN 2 stated that there was no documentation in Resident 5's chart to validate the staff has conducted visual monitoring checks of Resident 5 as indicated in the care plan. RN 2 said it was important to create a tracking tool to document how often Resident 5 was checked. During an interview on 11/17/21, at 9:24 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated there was no documentation in Resident 5's chart that showed how often staff checked on Resident 5. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure Charting and Documentation, revised April 2008, indicated the following but not limited to All observations, medications administered, services performed, etc., must be documented in resident's clinical records.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the following: a. Ensure Resident 23's nasa...

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 the following: a. Ensure Resident 23's nasal cannula tubing (flexible tube that contains two open prongs intended to sit inside each nostril and attaches to oxygen source to deliver a steady stream of oxygen) was changed every Sunday as ordered by the physician. Resident 23's nasal cannula tubing was not changed for 29 days. b. Label breathing treatment tubing for Resident 27 with the date and time. These deficient practices had the potential to cause complications associated with oxygen therapy and cause potential respiratory infection. Findings: During an observation on 11/15/21 at 9:36 a.m., in Resident 23's room, Resident 23 was observed with eyes closed, laying in bed with a nasal cannula (flexible tube that contains two open prongs intended to sit inside each nostril and attaches to oxygen source to deliver a steady stream of oxygen) connected to an oxygen machine delivering 2 liters of oxygen per minute (a measurement or volume of oxygen delivered to the resident per minute). The nasal cannula tubing was observed to have a piece of tape with the date 10/17/21 written on it. During a review of Resident 23's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 23 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 23's diagnoses included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] group of diseases that cause airflow blockage and breathing-related problems), dysphagia (difficulty in swallowing), chronic systolic congestive heart failure (heart muscle doesn't pump blood as well as it should), muscle weakness, and atrial fibrillation (irregular fast heartbeats). During a review of Resident 23's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a comprehensive assessment and care screening tool, dated 7/12/2021, the MDS indicated Resident 23 required extensive assistance with activities of daily living ([ADLs] self-care such as feeding, bathing, dressing, and grooming). During an interview on 11/15/21 at 2:16 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated nasal cannula oxygen tubing was changed weekly per physician's (MD) orders. The DON stated, The MD orders typically state that oxygen tubing is to be changed every Sunday. During a review of Resident 23's Order Summary Report dated 10/26/21, the Order Summary Report indicated an active doctor's order indicating an oxygen order: Change oxygen tubing every week (Sundays) 11-7. During a review of Resident's 23 care plan titled, Respiratory Resident Care plan, dated 6/10/21, the care plan indicated to apply oxygen as needed/ordered. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Oxygen Administration: Nasal Cannula, dated August 2017, the P/P indicated oxygen is a drug and as such there must be a physician's order for its use. b. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/15/21 at 10:50 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1), Resident 27 was observed with a breathing treatment machine connected to a mask and tubing. The tubing was not labeled with a date or time. LVN 1 stated the breathing treatment equipment should be labeled with the resident name, date, and time it was initiated, so staff could know when the equipment needed to be changed. LVN 1 stated the breathing treatment equipment should be changed weekly on Sundays. LVN 1 stated failure to change the equipment as indicated may increase the risk for bacterial growth. During a review of Resident 27's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 27 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 27's diagnoses included COPD with acute exacerbation, an immunocompromised infection, and morbid obesity (excessive body weight). During a record review of Resident 27's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 27 was cognitively (thought process) intact. The MDS assessed Resident 27 as requiring limited assistance from staff for dressing, transfers, and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 27's Order Summary Report dated 11/1/2021, the Order Summary Report indicated a physician order for Arformoterol Tartrate Nebulization Solution 15 microgram ([mcg] unit of measurement) per 2 milliliter ([ml] unit of measurement) inhale orally two times a day related to COPD via inhalation mask and Budesonide Suspension 0.5 milligrams ([mg] unit of measurement) per 2 ml inhale orally two times a day related to COPD via inhalation mask. During a review of Resident 27's care plan dated 11/2/2021, the care plan indicated Resident 27 had COPD and potential for shortness of breath. The staff's interventions included to give breathing treatments as ordered by the physician, assess for shortness of breath, irregular respiration and wheezing. During a concurrent interview and record review with the DON on 11/16/21 at 10:21 a.m., the DON stated breathing treatment equipment should be changed weekly and stated we change equipment on Sundays. DON stated the breathing treatment equipment needed to have the residents name, the date and time the equipment was provided to the resident. DON stated the importance of correctly labeling the equipment was to ensure the breathing machine equipment was changed at the appropriate time to reduce bacterial growth in the breathing machine equipment. DON provided the policy, Oxygen Administration Delivery Device dated 8/2017 and indicated we follow this policy with breathing treatment equipment. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Oxygen Administration Delivery Device) dated 8/2017, the P/P indicated it is the policy of this facility to provide oxygen support when indicated via appropriate delivery device to achieve or maintain adequate oxygenation to the respiratory compromised resident. Observe the resident's tolerance and explain or adjust the equipment as necessary. The P/P indicated to post an Oxygen In Use sign on the door and explain to the resident and any other occupants of the room that oxygen rapidly accelerates combustion, and that smoking in the presence of oxygen is not allowed. Document the oxygen setup and observations made. Check the oxygen setup regularly to ensure proper functioning; that the humidifier water level is adequate; and that the resident does not have any problems with the unit. Attach a clean plastic bag to the gas source to be used to store the equipment when not in use. Plastic bags are replaced weekly and as needed. Label the delivery device tubing at the point that it attaches to the humidifier or nipple adapter with the date. Wash hands.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

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 the consultant pharmacist recommendation to give the medi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the consultant pharmacist recommendation to give the medication Nephro-Vite (a medication used to prevent vitamin deficiency due to poor diet, certain illnesses, alcoholism, or during pregnancy) daily at 5:00 PM for a resident who was receiving dialysis treatment (purification of blood as a substitute for the normal function of the kidney) for one of one sampled residents (Resident 31). This deficient practice had the potential for residents who were receiving dialysis to be at risk for vitamin insufficiency and abnormal laboratory results. Findings: During a review of Resident 31's admission face sheet, the admission face sheet indicated Resident 31 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 31's diagnoses included end stage renal disease ([ESRD] when the kidneys reach an advanced state of loss of function), dependence on renal (pertaining to the kidney) dialysis, severe protein malnutrition (severe protein deficiency in the diet) and vitamin D deficiency (levels of vitamin D in the body are low). During a review of Resident 31's Pharmacist Note dated 7/27/2021, titled Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review, the note indicated a recommendation for Nephro-Vite to be given at 5:00 PM because the medication was removed by the dialysis process. During an interview on 11/17/21 at 10:37 a.m. with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1), RN 1 stated Nephro-Vite was given at 9:00 AM and has been given at 9 AM until today. RN 1 stated Resident 31 would receive Nephro-Vite today at 5:00 PM. During an interview on 11/17/21 at 11:21 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated Resident 31's physician was notified and a reasonable time for notifying the physician should have been within 72 hours. The DON stated the outcome of not receiving medication as recommended would cause the resident to have abnormal laboratory results. During a review of Resident 31's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 7/27/21 to 11/16/21, the MAR indicated Resident 31 received Nephro-Vite at 9:00 AM daily. During a review of the facility's procedure and policy (P/P) titled, Consultant Pharmacist Report, dated 6/2021, the P/P indicated resident-specific irregularities and/or clinically significant risks resulting from or associated with medications are documented and reported to the Director of Nursing, and/or prescriber as appropriate. The P/P indicated recommendations are acted upon and documented by the facility staff and or prescriber.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0911 (Tag F0911)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 19 resident bedrooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) accommo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 19 resident bedrooms (rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]) accommodated no more than four residents in each room. This deficient practice had the potential to result in inadequate space to provide nursing care. Findings: During a facility tour on 11/16/21 at 8:41 a.m., observed room [ROOM NUMBER] occupied with five residents and room [ROOM NUMBER] was occupied with six residents. The residents were able to move in and out of their room and there was space for the beds, side tables, and resident care equipment. The room size waiver letter dated 11/15/21, submitted by the administrator for resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and 3 was reviewed. The room waiver letter indicated resident room [ROOM NUMBER] and 3 did not met the four resident per room required by federal regulation. The letter indicated room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER] had enough space to provide for each resident's care without affecting their health and safety or impeding any of the residents in the room to attain his or her well-being.
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 provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft.) per res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft.) per resident in multiple resident bedrooms (Rooms 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 and 19) for 17 of 19 resident rooms. This deficient practice had the potential to impact the ability to provide nursing care to the residents. Findings: On 11/16/21 at 8:41 a.m., during a tour of the facility, observed multiple resident bedrooms with two, three, and six beds in a room. Observed residents move in and out of bed with adequate spacing, side tables, beds and resident care equipment was readily available without impeding any movement. On 11/16/21 at 8:50 a.m., during an interview, the Administrator (ADM) stated the facility had room waivers and would like to apply for another one this year. A review of the room size waiver letter dated 11/15/2021, submitted by the ADM, for 17 resident rooms was reviewed. The letter indicated there was ample room to accommodate residents and enough space for nursing care and the health and safety of the residents occupying these rooms. The letter indicated the following: Room Number Beds per Room Total Square Footage room [ROOM NUMBER] 6 470 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 6 426 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 143 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 155 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 146 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 145 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 144 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 144 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 146 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 213 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 187 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 129 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 133 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 210 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 214 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 216 sq. ft. room [ROOM NUMBER] 3 217 sq. ft. The minimum sq. ft. for a two bed room is 160 sq. ft. The minimum sq. ft. for a three bed room is 240 sq. ft. The minimum sq. ft. for a six bed room is 480 sq. ft. During the survey, from 11/15/21 to 11/17/21, there were no observed adverse effects as to the adequacy of space, nursing care, comfort, and privacy to the residents. There was ample space to accommodate wheelchairs and other medical equipment including space for mobility and locomotion of residents.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 41% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), $53,370 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 42 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $53,370 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in California. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (36/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 36/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Villa Serena Healthcare Center's CMS Rating?

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

How is Villa Serena Healthcare Center Staffed?

CMS rates VILLA SERENA HEALTHCARE CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 41%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 83%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Villa Serena Healthcare Center?

State health inspectors documented 42 deficiencies at VILLA SERENA HEALTHCARE CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 36 with potential for harm, and 4 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 Villa Serena Healthcare Center?

VILLA SERENA HEALTHCARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 52 certified beds and approximately 47 residents (about 90% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LONG BEACH, California.

How Does Villa Serena Healthcare Center Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, VILLA SERENA HEALTHCARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (41%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Villa Serena Healthcare 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 Villa Serena Healthcare Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, VILLA SERENA HEALTHCARE CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 4-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in California. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Villa Serena Healthcare Center Stick Around?

VILLA SERENA HEALTHCARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 41%, which is about average for California nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Villa Serena Healthcare Center Ever Fined?

VILLA SERENA HEALTHCARE CENTER has been fined $53,370 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the California average of $33,613. 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 Villa Serena Healthcare Center on Any Federal Watch List?

VILLA SERENA HEALTHCARE 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.