HIGHLAND PARK SKILLED NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER

5125 MONTE VISTA ST., LOS ANGELES, CA 90042 (323) 254-6125
For profit - Limited Liability company 59 Beds PACIFIC HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
53/100
#597 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Highland Park Skilled Nursing and Wellness Center has a Trust Grade of C, which means it is average and sits in the middle of the pack among nursing homes. It ranks #597 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing it in the bottom half, and #109 out of 369 in Los Angeles County, indicating that there are better local options available. The facility's trend is stable, with 16 issues reported in both 2024 and 2025, suggesting no significant improvement or decline. Staffing is a relative strength, with a turnover rate of 22%, which is well below the California average of 38%, indicating that staff tend to stay longer and know the residents well. On the downside, the facility has experienced a critical incident involving medication management, where controlled substances were not properly accounted for, raising concerns about safety and compliance. Additionally, there were deficiencies in accurately assessing residents’ mental health needs, which could affect care planning and overall well-being.

Trust Score
C
53/100
In California
#597/1155
Bottom 49%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Holding Steady
16 → 16 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
22% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 26 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 23 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
49 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 16 issues
2025: 16 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (22%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (22%)

    26 points below California average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, staff retention, fire safety.

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near California average (3.1)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Chain: PACIFIC HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 49 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Feb 2025 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 Resident (Resident 1) received treatment and care in accordance with facility's policies and procedures by failing to: 1. Call alternate transportation to ensure Resident 1 receive hemodialysis (HD-a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney(s) have failed) treatment as ordered and as scheduled on 2/12/2025. 2. Transcribe the order for Resident 1 to be monitored for fluid overload (too much fluid in the body which can raise the blood pressure [BP-the pressure of blood on the walls of the arteries as the heart pumps blood around the body] and force the heart to work harder and can also make it hard to breathe) after missing the HD treatment on 2/12/2025. 3. Administer BP medications on 2/12/2025 as ordered by the physician. These failures resulted in Resident 1 missing scheduled HD treatment and transfer to General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) on 2/12/2025 due to shortness of breath, chest pain, and elevated BP, which could potentially lead to prolonged hospitalization, harm, and/or death. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility initially admitted the resident on 6/30/2021 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to end stage renal disease (ESRD-irreversible kidney failure), dependence on HD, hypertension (HTN-high blood pressure), atrial fibrillation (Afib-a condition where the upper chambers of the heart [atria] beat irregularly and rapidly), and 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 12/27/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had intact cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS also indicated Resident 1 was independent (Resident completes the activity by themselves with no assistance from a helper) with eating, required set up or clean up assistance (Helper sets up or cleans up, Resident completes activity. Helper assists only prior to or following the activity) with oral and toileting hygiene, upper body dressing and putting on/taking off footwear. The MDS further indicated Resident 1 required supervision or touching assistance (Helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity) with shower/bathing self, lower body dressing, and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary, dated 2/3/2025, the Order Summary indicated the following: Dialysis at Dialysis Center 1 every Monday-Wednesday-Fridays; with order date of 1/15/2025. Transportation arrangement for wheelchair van, 7 AM pick up and chair time of 8:30 AM; with order date of 1/15/2025. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary, dated 2/3/2025, the Order Summary indicated: Amlodipine Besylate oral tablet 10 milligram (mg-a unit or mass or weight in the metric system equivalent to a thousandth of a gram), give one tablet by mouth one time a day for HTN. Hold for systolic BP below 110 millimeters of mercury (mmHg- a unit of pressure measurement, most used to measure BP) or heart rate below 60 beats per min (bpm-number of times the heart beats in a one-minute period); with order date of 1/29/2025. Losartan potassium oral tablet 25 mg, give one tablet by mouth in the morning for HTN. Hold if systolic BP is below 110 mmhg or heart rate below 60 bpm; with order date of 1/29/2025. During a concurrent interview and review on 2/25/2025 at 1:53 PM with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN1), the Progress Notes for Resident 1, dated 2/12/2025, was reviewed. The Progress Notes indicated at 9:04 AM, a Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation (SBAR-a structured communication framework used in healthcare to facilitate clear and concise communication between healthcare professionals) was documented by LVN 1. The SBAR indicated LVN 1 notified the Physician (also known as MD-Doctor of Medicine) that Resident 1 missed HD treatment due to transportation issues and HD treatment was rescheduled for the next day. The SBAR indicated the MD ordered to monitor Resident 1 for any signs and symptoms (s/s, observable and measurable manifestations of a disease or condition that can be detected by a health professional) of fluid overload. LVN 1 stated the MD order to monitor the resident for s/s of fluid overload was not and should have been transcribed in the Order Summary (a concise overview of a patient's medical orders, treatments, and procedures, often presented in a chronological manner to facilitate quick understanding and efficient care). Per LVN 1, she informed LVN 4, who was passing medications on 2/12/2025 during the 7 AM to 3 PM shift that Resident 1's HD was rescheduled for next day. LVN 1 also stated unable to provide documented evidence that Resident 1 was monitored for s/s of fluid overload. LVN 1 stated it was important to document findings, so the rest of the Healthcare team were aware of what was being monitored. During a concurrent interview and review of Resident 1's Change of Condition (COC) notes on 2/25/2025 at 2 PM with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated as written on the COC notes, she called the transportation company (TC) three times. LVN 1 stated she called TC before 7:30 AM on 2/12/2025 to confirm pick up for Resident 1. LVN 1 stated according to TC, they could not find a driver. LVN 1 called the TC again at 8 AM and at 8:30 AM but was made aware that the TC company still did not have a driver. LVN 1 stated she had notified the HD Center of the transportation delay for Resident 1. LVN 1 stated the HD Center rescheduled Resident 1's HD (after the 8:30 AM call) for the next day as they were already full on 2/12/2025. LVN 1 then notified the MD and LVN 4 who was passing medications that Resident 1 would not be going for her HD treatment. LVN 1 stated she did not call alternate transportation as this TC company was the assigned TC by Resident 1's health insurance. LVN 1 stated that MD was notified and gave orders to monitor for fluid overload. LVN 1 stated MD was made aware that HD had been rescheduled for the next day. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/25/2025 at 2:47 PM with LVN 2, the SBAR documented by LVN 2 on 2/12/2025 at 7:45 PM was reviewed. The SBAR indicated BP of 224/123 taken at 7:30 PM, Respiratory rate (RR-number of breaths taken per minute) of 21 taken at 7:49 PM, Pulse oximetry (non-invasive method of measuring the saturation of oxygen (O2-a colorless, odorless gas that is essential for life) in a person's blood) of 96% taken at 6:19 AM at room air. LVN 2 stated he next saw Resident 1 around 4 PM to 5 PM on 2/12/2025 during medication pass. LVN 2 observed Resident 1 as being off and quiet, which was unusual of Resident 1. LVN 2 stated he made rounds around 7 PM and Resident 1 complained of SOB and chest pain. LVN 2 stated Resident 1 was short of breath, in tripod position (a posture where a person leans forward while supporting their upper body with their hands or forearms on a surface such as a table, bed, or their knees which can help with breathing by optimizing the use of the neck and upper chest muscles to get more air into the lungs). LVN 2 stated after checking Resident 1's vital signs (measurements of the body's most basic functions, such as breathing, heart rate, BP, and temperature), he placed Resident 1 on O2 at 2 liters per minute (LPM-flow rate of O2 delivered to a patient by cannula or mask per minute) by O2 mask (medical device that delivers oxygen covering the nose and mouth) using an oxygen concentrator (a medical device that increases the amount of O2 in the air you breathe) for comfort. LVN 2 stated he was not sure what the flow rate of O2 should be when using an O2 mask. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/25/2025 at 3:05 PM with LVN 1, the Medication Administration Record (MAR-a report detailing the drugs administered to a patient by a healthcare professional) was reviewed. The MAR indicated amlodipine (a medication used to treat HTN and chest pain) and losartan (medication used to treat HTN and heart failure) were initialed by LVN 4 with chart code 9 (9=Other/see progress notes). LVN 1 stated the code 9 means medications were not given and see progress notes for the reason. LVN 1 stated she informed LVN 4 that Resident 1 would not be going to her HD treatment as scheduled, so Resident 1's BP medications should have been given and not held. LVN 1 stated there was no progress notes that indicated the reason for not giving the medications. LVN 1 stated that if the BP meds were given as ordered, this could have prevented Resident's 1's BP to be at 224/123 at 7:30 PM. During an interview on 2/25/2025 at 3:25 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated Resident 1 missed the HD treatment and had subsequent change in condition later in the day, on 2/12/2025. The DON stated, MD was made aware that Resident 1 missed the scheduled HD treatment on 2/12/205 and was rescheduled the next day. The DON stated MD ordered to monitor resident for s/s of fluid overload. The DON stated it was important for residents on HD to make it to their scheduled HD treatments as it could cause fluid overload and other conditions that could result in transfer to acute hospital. During an interview on 2/26/2025 at 1:45 PM with the Admissions Coordinator (AC), AC stated he was in charge of setting up transportation for residents requiring dialysis. AC stated he arranged Resident 1's wheelchair accessible van transportation to HD with the TC that was contracted with Resident 1's insurance. AC stated there was a list of alternate or back up transportation in the appointment book at the Nurses' Station. AC stated licensed staff should have called for an alternate transportation to ensure Resident 1 did not miss HD treatments and avoid negative impact on the resident's health and wellbeing During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/26/2025 at 3:05 PM with LVN 1, the Progress Notes documented by LVN 2 dated 2/12/2025 at 11:04 PM (late entry) was reviewed. LVN 1 stated that Resident 1 had SOB and chest pain, paramedics were called and arrived at 7:21 PM and subsequently transferred to GACH. During an interview on 2/26/2025 at 5:10 PM with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1), RN 1 stated that BP medications should have been given on 2/12/2025 by LVN 4 as Resident 1 missed her HD appointment due to no transportation. RN 1 also stated that BP medications were held on HD days to prevent a low BP during HD. RN 1 stated Resident 1 should have received BP medications as ordered after HD was cancelled on 2/12/2025. During a review of Resident 1's GACH emergency room records dated 2/12/2025 at 9:07 PM, the GACH records indicated Resident 1's chief complaints were SOB and chest pain, was quite hypertensive in the field and was given Nitroglycerin (used to treat episodes of chest pain caused by coronary artery disease [narrowing of blood vessels that supply blood to the heart]) x 3 doses. GACH records also indicated Resident 1 presented with chest pain and SOB consistent with fluid overload from missed HD, was extremely hypertensive initially, and was given intravenous (refers to a way of giving a drug or other substance through a needle or tube inserted into a vein) Lasix (medication used to treat excessive fluid accumulation caused by congestive heart failure and renal failure) for bilateral pleural effusions consistent with fluid overload. GACH records further indicated diagnoses made in the emergency room on 2/12/2025 at 9:17 PM was acute hypoxic respiratory failure requiring bilevel positive airway pressure (BIPAP-a noninvasive ventilator that helps you breathe), acute renal failure (sudden loss of the ability of the kidneys to excrete wastes, concentrate urine, conserve electrolytes, and maintain fluid balance) and hypertensive urgency (a situation where BP is very high [180/110 mmHg or higher] requiring prompt medical attention). During a review of GACH Nephrology (concerns the diagnosis and treatment of kidney diseases) Consult Notes, dated 2/12/2025, Resident 1's acute medical issues were: 1. Acute fluid overload 2. Bilateral pleural effusions (having an abnormal buildup of fluid in the space surrounding both lungs [the pleural space]) and pulmonary edema (a condition where too much fluid builds up in the lungs, making it difficult to breathe). 3. Marked dyspnea (noticeably or severely difficult or labored breathing) due to fluid overload Nephrologist ordered a stat (from the Latin word statim, meaning immediately) HD to prevent Resident 1 from requiring intubation (a medical procedure where a tube in inserted through the mouth or nose into the trachea [windpipe] to help a person breathe when they cannot do so on their own) and mechanical ventilation (a medical procedure where a machine, called a ventilator, helps a person breathe by moving air into and out of their lungs when they are unable to do so on their own). During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedures (P&P), titled, Referrals to outside Services, revised 1/22/2025, the P&P indicated its purpose was to provide residents with outside services as required by physician orders or the care plan. The P&P also indicated that as necessary, the Social Services Department can coordinate transportation to outside services for residents. During a review of the facility's P&P, titled Dialysis Care, revised 10/1/2018, the P&P indicated: 1. The facility will arrange for dialysis care as ordered by the attending physician. 2. The facility will arrange for dialysis care for such residents on a weekly basis. 3. The facility will arrange transportation to and from the dialysis provider, as well as for meals (if necessary), medication administration, and a method of communication between the dialysis provider and the facility. During a review of the facility's P&P titled Medication - Administration, revised 1/22/2025, the P&P indicated its purpose was to ensure the accurate administration of medications for residents in the facility. The P&P also indicated in its procedure that medications and treatments will be administered as prescribed to ensure compliance with dose guidelines. The P&P further indicated that whenever a medication is held for any reason, the hour it was held must be initialed and circled in the MAR by the responsible Licensed Nurse and the Licensed Nurse will document in the back of the MAR, noting the time and reason the medication was held.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide an environment free of accident hazards for on...

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 an environment free of accident hazards for one of one sampled resident (Resident 1) by failing to ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 did not leave medications at the bedside table. This deficient practice had the potential to result in accidental ingestion of the medications by other residents and cause complications from taking medications not prescribed for the residents. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated that the facility initially admitted the resident on 6/30/2021 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to end stage renal disease (ESRD-irreversible kidney failure), dependence on hemodialysis (HD-a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney(s) have failed), hypertension (HTN-high blood pressure), atrial fibrillation (Afib-a condition where the upper chambers of the heart [atria] beat irregularly and rapidly), and 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 12/27/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had intact cognition (the mental process of thinking, understanding and making decisions). The MDS also indicated that Resident 1 was independent (Resident completes the activity by themselves with no assistance from a helper) with eating, required set up or clean up assistance (Helper sets up or cleans up; resident completes activity. Helper assists only prior to or following the activity) with oral and toileting hygiene, upper body dressing and putting on/taking off footwear. The MDS further indicated that Resident 1 required supervision or touching assistance (Helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity) with shower/bathing self, lower body dressing, and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's Progress Notes, effective date of 2/15/2025 8:00 AM, a late entry indicated the resident cannot accurately tell time to know when medications need to be taken. The notes also indicated Resident 1 does not understand that skipping/choosing not to take a medication dose was a refusal of medication and she must notify staff. The Progress Notes indicated the resident was not capable of administering oral medications. The Progress Notes also indicated the resident was not approved for self-administration of medications. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/26/2025 at 4:50 PM inside Resident 1's room, Resident 1 was observed lying in bed resting and observed one capsule, one white tablet and one yellow tablet, unlabeled and in one medication cup left uncovered and left on top of Resident 1's bedside table. Resident 1 stated she did not take the medications yet as she was waiting for her food. Certified Nurse Aide (CNA) 1, who was also present in the room, stated Resident 1 likes to take her medications with food. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/26/2025 at 5 PM with LVN 1 inside Resident 1's room, LVN 1 verified one capsule, one white tablet and one yellow tablet were left at the bedside table of Resident 1, unlabeled and uncovered. LVN 1 stated, licensed staff should not leave medications on the bedside table of residents even if the resident asked the licensed staff to leave the medications with the resident. LVN 1 stated leaving medications at the bedside was against the facility's policy and taught in nursing school. LVN 1 stated that if residents refused to take the medications during medication pass, medications should be kept in the medication cart, labeled with resident's name and the time and should not be left at the resident's bedside table. LVN 1 stated that this was dangerous as it posed a risk for accidental ingestion of these medications by Resident 1's roommates and other confused residents that may wander (to go about place to place usually without purpose) into Resident 1's room. During an interview on 2/26/2025 at 5:10 PM with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN 1), RN 1 stated medications should not be left at the bedside for residents to take at a later time. RN 1 stated medications should be kept in the medication cart, labeled with resident's name, date and time. RN 1 stated leaving medications at the bedside is not according to our policy and has been taught in nursing schools. RN 1 also stated Resident 1 had roommates that could potentially take the medications accidentally and other confused residents could come in Resident 1's room and take the medications which can lead to injuries or illness. During a review of the facility's P&P titled Resident Safety, 4/15/2021, the P&P indicated the purpose as to provide a safe and hazard free environment. The P&P further indicated any facility staff member who identifies an unsafe situation, practice or environmental risk factors should immediately notify their supervisor or charge nurse. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Medication - Administration MAR-a report detailing the drugs administered to a patient by a healthcare professional, revised 1/22/2025, the P&P indicated if a resident was refusing to take medications, the Licensed Nurse will attempt to give the medications several times but if resident continues to refuse after one hour, the refused medications will be destroyed. Licensed Nurse should notify the physician and document in the medical record.
MINOR (B) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Daily Posted Nurse Staffing (Nurse Staffing Information- refers to the actual hours of work performed per patient d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Daily Posted Nurse Staffing (Nurse Staffing Information- refers to the actual hours of work performed per patient day by a direct caregiver) for 2/14/2025 to 2/25/2025 were posted in accordance with the facility's policy titled Nursing Department - Staffing, Scheduling & Postings. This deficient practice had the potential for residents and visitors not to be accurately informed of the census and staffing for the facility. Findings: During an observation on 2/25/2025 at 1:24 PM by the bulletin board outside the Director of Nursing's (DON) office, the Census and Direct Care Service Hours Per Patient Day (DHPPD or Nurse Staffing Information) form that was posted was dated 2/12/2025 (8 days ago). No other DHPPD forms were observed posted on the bulletin board. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/26/2025 at 4:30 PM with RN 1 (who was covering for the DON in her absence), the photo documentation of DHPPD dated 2/12/2025 that was posted on 2/25/2025 was reviewed. RN 1 confirmed that the photo taken on 2/25/2025 of the posted DHPPD form was dated 2/12/2025. RN 1 stated, DHPPD should be updated and posted daily at the beginning of each shift, and the DHPPD posting today should have been one that was dated 2/25/2025 with staffing information for that day and not 2/12/2025. RN 1 stated she did not know why the DHPPD form was not posted for each day since 2/12/2025. RN 1 stated it was important to calculate the projected and actual number of hours to know if there was enough staffing for the day so that we can look for staff to cover if we were short staffed and to make sure there was enough staff to take care of all the residents for that day. During a review of the Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Nursing Department - Staffing, Scheduling & Postings, revised 1/22/2025, the P&P indicated its purpose as to ensure that adequate number of nursing personnel are available to meet resident needs. The P&P further indicated the facility will post the following information on a daily basis: 1. Facility name 2. The current date 3. The total number and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift: a. Registered Nurses b. Licensed Vocational Nurses c. Certified Nurse Aides d. Resident Census The P&P also indicated the facility will post the nurse staffing date specified above, on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift.
Feb 2025 13 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to update and revise the care plan for two (2) of 21 sam...

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 update and revise the care plan for two (2) of 21 sampled residents (Resident 42 and Resident 33) as indicated on the facility policy when: 1. Resident 42's fall care plan was not updated and revised after Resident 42 had a fall with injury on 1/3/2025. 2. Resident 33's care plan was not revised to reflect the updated fluid restriction in accordance with the physician's order on 1/15/2025. This failure had the potential to negatively affect the provisions of care and services for Residents 33 and 42 and had the potential to place Resident 42 at risk for further falls. Findings: 1. During a review Resident 42's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of dementia (progressive brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills) with psychotic (mental health disorder which a person loses touch with reality) disturbance, lack of coordination, generalized muscle weakness, reduced mobility, and difficulty in walking. During a review of Resident 42's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment and tool), dated 11/19/2024, the MDS indicated the resident's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decision making was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 42 was dependent (helper does all of the effort, resident does none of the effort to complete the activity) for walking ten feet. The MDS indicated Resident 42 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) for toileting hygiene, shower/bathing self, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to standing, and toilet transferring. The MDS also indicated Resident 42 had a fall with an injury since admission to the facility on [DATE]. During a review of Resident 42's Change of Condition/Situation, Background, Assessment, Request/Recommendation (COC/SBAR, tool used by health care professionals when communicating about critical changes in a resident's status) Evaluation, dated 1/3/2025, the COC indicated Resident 42 had a fall on 1/3/2025 at night. During a review of Resident 42's Fall Risk Evaluation, dated 11/15/2024, the record indicated Resident 42 was at a high risk for falls. During a review of Resident 42's care plan, not dated, indicated Resident 42 was at risk for falls related to confusion, gait (a manner of walking or moving on foot)/balance problems, poor communication/ comprehension, psychoactive (affecting the mind) drug use, seizure disorder (burst of uncontrolled electrical activity between brain cells that can cause the body to shake uncontrollably) of fall, and non-complaint in calling for assistance in going to bathroom. The care plan interventions for staff were to anticipate and meet the resident's needs, ensure that the resident was wearing appropriate footwear when ambulating or mobilizing in wheelchair, and physical therapy evaluation and treatment as ordered or as needed. During a concurrent interview and review on 2/12/2025 at 2:47 PM of Resident 42's COC and fall care plan with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated Resident 42's fall care plan was initially created on 11/13/2024. The ADON stated Resident 42 had a second fall at the facility on 1/3/2025 which resulted with a left upper eyebrow laceration (a cut or break in the skin surface). The ADON stated the fall care plan was not and should have been revised after Resident 42's second fall to reflect the interventions appropriate to address the underlying cause of Resident 42's fall. The ADON stated the care plan needed to be updated and new interventions should have been added since the initial fall interventions being used were not working for Resident 42. During a concurrent interview and review on 2/12/2025 at 3:44 PM with the MDS Nurse (MDSN), MDSN stated Resident 42's care plan needed to be revised after Resident 42's second fall. MDSN stated the care plan interventions needed to be changed according to the resident needs. MDSN stated the care plan was not and should have been revised after Resident 42 fell for the second time. 2. During a review of Resident 33's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease (a permanent condition that occurs when the kidneys are no longer able to function and require dialysis or a kidney transplant to survive), type 2 diabetes mellitus with diabetic chronic kidney disease (a chronic condition that happens when you have persistently high blood sugar levels. Insulin resistance is the main cause, and it resulted in a condition where the kidneys are damaged and can't filter blood properly), and dependence on renal dialysis (a state of requiring dialysis, [a type of treatment that helps your body remove extra fluid and waste products from your blood when the kidneys are not able to function) to maintain life]. During a review of the MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 33 had modified independence (some difficulty in new situations) for cognitive skills (the mental processes that allow people to think, learn, and solve problems) for daily decision making. Resident 33 needed moderate assistance, (helper does less than half the effort) with the eating, oral, toilet, personal hygiene, change of position, and transfer. During a review of Resident 33's Physician Orders, dated 1/15/2025, the Physician Orders indicated Resident 33's fluid restriction to 1000 milliliter (ml, a unit of measurement for volume in the metric system) per day as follows: - Dietary 360 ml (for meals): 120 ml fluid intake for each meal - Nursing 640 ml: 240 ml for 7AM -3PM (AM shift), 240 ml for 3PM to 11 PM (PM shift), and 160 ml for 11PM to 7AM. (NOC shift) During a review of Resident 33's undated care plan, the care plan indicated Fluid restriction 1000 ml per day as follows: - Dietary 360 cubic centimeters (a unit of measurement for volume in the metric system) (CC) - Nursing: AM shift 240 CC, PM shift 200 CC, and NOC shift: 100 CC. During an interview on 2/12/2024 at 3:26 PM with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN1), LVN1 confirmed that there was no updated care plan for the 1/15/2025 fluid restriction order for Resident 33. LVN 1 stated nurses should have updated the plan of care every time there is a new physician order or change of condition. LVN 1 added the nursing interventions should be updated so staff can provide better care and to ensure the appropriate monitoring of Resident 33's fluid restriction status to prevent fluid overload (a condition where the body has too much fluid) and hospitalization. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/12/2025 at 3:44 PM, with the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON), ADON stated Resident 33's nursing care plan was not updated. ADON stated it was important to reflect Resident 33's updated fluid restriction in accordance with the physician's order in the resident's care plan interventions to monitor fluid restriction and prevent the resident from getting fluid overloaded, edema (the accumulation of excess fluid in the body's tissues, leading to swelling) , dehydration (occurs when the body loses more fluids than it takes in, resulting in a lack of water in the body) or maybe chest pain, which could harm Resident 33's health. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, reviewed 1/2025, the P&P indicated additional changes or updates to the resident's comprehensive care plan will be made based on the assessed needs of the resident. In addition, the comprehensive care plan will also be reviewed and revised following an onset of new problems, change in condition, and other times as appropriate or necessary. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Fluid Restriction, revised on 4/21/2022 and reviewed in January 2025, the P&P indicated, for each resident on fluid restriction, initiate strict intake measurement per the Attending Physician order and update the resident's Care Plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality in accordance with the facil...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality in accordance with the facility's policy for one of 21 sampled residents (Resident 42) by: a. Failing to ensure an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT, group of healthcare professionals from diverse fields who work in a coordinated manner toward a common goal for the resident) meeting was conducted after Resident 42 had a fall with an injury. b. Failing to ensure a Post Fall Evaluation was done after Resident 42 had a fall with an injury. c. Failing to ensure neurological exam (neuro check, an assessment of the brain, spine or nerves done to evaluate the nervous system function for potential brain injury) was done after Resident 42 had a fall with an injury to the eyebrow. These deficient practices had the potential to result in further falls for Resident 42. Findings: During a review Resident 42's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of dementia (progressive brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills) with psychotic (mental health disorder which a person loses touch with reality) disturbance, lack of coordination, generalized muscle weakness, reduced mobility, and difficulty in walking. During a review of Resident 42's Minimum Data Set (MDS, resident assessment and tool), dated 11/19/2024, the MDS indicated the resident's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decision making was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 42 was dependent (helper does all of the effort, resident does none of the effort to complete the activity) for walking ten feet. The MDS indicated Resident 42 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) for toileting hygiene, shower/bathing self, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to standing, and toilet transferring. The MDS also indicated Resident 42 had a fall with an injury since admission to the facility on [DATE]. During a review of Resident 42's Change of Condition/Situation, Background, Assessment, Request/Recommendation (COC/SBAR, tool used by health care professionals when communicating about critical changes in a resident's status) Evaluation, dated 1/3/2025, the COC indicated Resident 42 had a fall, altered mental status and behavioral symptoms on 1/3/2025 at night and the physician was notified at 12:20 AM. During a review of Resident 42's medical record, there was no Interdisciplinary Team conducted after Resident 42's fall on 1/3/2025. A Post Fall Evaluation and Neuro check were also not completed after Resident 42's fall on 1/3/2025. During an interview on 2/12/2025 at 2:21 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated after a resident fall the nurse in charge needed to complete a body assessment, interview the resident, and notify the physician. The ADON stated if the fall was unwitnessed or a hit on the head occurred then the licensed nurse needed to perform a neuro check. The ADON stated neuro checks were done to monitor any altered mental status which could have resulted from the fall. The ADON stated an IDT meeting would be conducted within 24 hours after the fall to get input from the team, investigate, and receive input for the interventions for the resident's plan of care. The ADON also stated the fall care plan should be revised, and a post fall assessment done after every single fall. During a concurrent interview and review on 2/12/2025 at 2:41 PM of Resident 42's COC/SBAR, IDT, neuro check, and care plan were reviewed with the ADON. The ADON stated the SBAR indicated on 1/3/2025 Resident 42 had an altered mental status, behavioral symptoms, and a fall with a laceration to the left upper eyebrow. The ADON stated a post fall evaluation and neuro check was not and should have been done after Resident 42 fell on 1/3/2025, since the resident had an injury to his head. The ADON also stated an IDT meeting was not and should have been conducted after Resident 42's fall. The DON stated there should have been an IDT meeting done and the care plan should have been revised after Resident 42's fall. During a concurrent interview and review on 2/12/2025 at 3:10 PM of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) with the ADON, the ADON stated based on the P&P the licensed nurses were supposed to but did not do the following: document a detailed description of the fall, do a neurocheck, conduct an IDT meeting, do a post fall evaluation, and revise the fall care plan. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Fall Management Program, reviewed 1/2025, the policy indicated the Post-Fall Response, Fall Investigation Reporting and Documentation were done as follows: A. Following every resident fall, the licensed nurse will perform a post-fall evaluation and update, initiate or revise the Resident's care plan as necessary B. For an unwitnessed fall or a witnessed fall with suspected or known head injury, the license nurse will complete neurological checks for 72 hours following the fall incident C. The licensed nurse will notify the Director of Nursing (DON) and/or the Administrator regarding the fall incident as soon as possible. D. The IDT will review the circumstances surrounding the fall then summarize their conclusions on an IDT note. In an effort to prevent more falls, the IDT will review and revise the care plan as necessary.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 43) 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 one sampled resident (Resident 43) who had an indwelling urinary catheter (Foley Catheter, tube inserted into the bladder to drain urine into a drainage bag) received appropriate care and services as indicated in the physician's orders, by failing to appropriately assess and document signs and symptoms of urinary tract infection (UTI, an infection in any part of the urinary system, the kidneys, bladder [organ that stores urine] or urethra [the tube through which urine leave the body]). This deficient practice resulted in delayed UTI identification and had the potential to lead to worsening infection and delayed treatment. Findings: During a review Resident 43's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 43 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of malignant neoplasm (cancer growth of cells) of prostate (small gland below the bladder), benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH, non-cancerous prostate gland enlargement that can cause urination difficulty) with lower urinary tract symptoms (frequent urination, pain while urinating, persistent urge to urinate, low-grade fever, blood in the urine, and pain in the side or back), obstructive uropathy (a disorder of the urinary tract that occurs due to obstructed urinary flow caused by structural or functional hinderance) and reflux uropathy (urine flows backward from the bladder into the kidneys). During a review of Resident 43's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated resident assessment and tool), dated 12/12/2024, the MDS indicated the resident's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 43 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) for toileting hygiene, and showering/bathing, sitting to standing, chair/bed-to-chair transfer, and toilet transfers. The MDS also indicated Resident 43 had an indwelling catheter. During a review of Resident 43's Physician Order Summary Report, dated 11/21/2024, the order indicated assess urinary drainage for signs and symptoms of infection, noting cloudiness, color, sediment sediments (microscopic gritty particles or mucus in the urine), blood, odor and amount of urine output every shift. During a review of Resident 43's care plan, dated 7/19/2024, the care plan indicated Resident 43 had an indwelling catheter for obstructive uropathy and was at risk for UTI. The staff interventions were to monitor/record/report to the physician for s/sx of UTI: pain, blood-tinged urine, cloudiness, no output, deepening of urine color, increased pulse, increased temperature, urinary frequency, foul smelling urine, fever, chills, altered mental status, change in behavior, and change in eating patterns. During an observation on 2/10/2025 at 8:59 AM in Resident 43's room, Resident 43's foley catheter tubing was noted with small amount of white sediment and concentrated yellow urine. During an observation on 2/10/2025 at 4:18 PM in Resident 43's room, Resident 43's foley catheter tubing was noted with a moderate amount of white sediment. During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 9:19 AM with Treatment Nurse 1 (TX 1), TX 1 stated Resident 43's diagnosis of malignant neoplasm of the prostate, benign prostatic hyperplasia, and obstructive and reflux uropathy diagnoses placed Resident 43 at risk for UTIs. TX 1 stated licensed nurses needed to create a progress note and contact the physician when sediment or cloudiness was found in the urine. TX 1 stated documentation showing presence of cloudiness, sediment, hematuria (blood in the urine) would also be documented on the Treatment Administration Record (TAR, a medical record used by healthcare providers to document the administration of a medication or treatment). During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/13/2025 at 9:25 AM of Resident 43's TAR, Progress Notes, and COC/SBAR - Change of Condition/Situation, Background, Assessment, Request/Recommendation (COC/SBAR, tool used by health care professionals when communicating about critical changes in a resident's status) with TX 1, TX 1 stated there was no documentation for any signs or symptoms of infection for Resident 43's indwelling catheter. During a concurrent interview and observation on 2/13/2025 at 9:34 AM in Resident 43's room with TX 1, TX 1 stated Resident 43's indwelling catheter bag observed with minimal thick white cloudiness. TX 1 stated when signs and symptoms were present the physician needed to be notified to prevent UTIs and receive laboratory orders to confirm an infection. During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 1:56 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated staff need to monitor color, sediments, and any signs and symptoms of infection when residents had an indwelling catheter. The DON stated if minimal sediment/cloudiness was noted the licensed nurses needed to monitor the urine for eight hours and if there were still sediments/cloudiness, then the licensed nurses needed to contact the physician and do a COC. The DON stated for moderate to severe sediment/cloudiness the licensed nurses would need to contact the physician right away. The DON stated the physician needed to be made aware of the noted signs and symptoms to see what the physician wants to do. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Catheter Care, revised 6/2021, the policy indicated nursing staff will assess urinary drainage for signs and symptoms of infection, noting cloudiness, color, sediment, blood, odor, and amount of urine. The Licensed Nurse will notify the Attending Physician of any signs and symptoms of infection for clinical interventions.
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately monitor the fluid intake for one of one sa...

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 accurately monitor the fluid intake for one of one sampled resident (Resident 33) with fluid restrictions and on dialysis (a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney(s) have failed) treatment in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure. This deficient practice had the potential to cause fluid overload (too much fluid in the body) or increase risk for dehydration (harmful reduction in the amount of water in the body). Findings: During a review of Resident 33's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease (a permanent condition that occurs when the kidneys are no longer able to function and require dialysis or a kidney transplant to survive), type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM, persistently high levels of sugar in the blood) with diabetic chronic kidney disease (kidneys become damaged over time), and dependence on renal dialysis. During a review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool) dated 10/7/2024, indicated Resident 33 had modified independence (some difficulty in new situations) for cognitive skills (the mental processes that allow people to think, learn, and solve problems) for daily decision making. Resident 33 needed moderate assistance, (helper does less than half the effort) with the eating, oral, toilet, personal hygiene, change of position, and transfer. During a review of Resident 33's Physician Orders, dated 1/15/2025, the Physician's order indicated Resident 33's fluid restriction of 1000 milliliter (1000 ml) per day following: - Dietary 360 ml (for meals): 120 ml fluid intake for each meal - Nursing 640 ml: 240 ml for 7AM -3PM (AM shift), 240 ml for 3PM to 11 PM (PM shift), and 160 ml for 11PM to 7AM. (NOC shift) During a concurrent interview and review on 2/13/2024 at 9:00 AM with Certified Nurse Assistant 4 (CNA 4), CNA4 confirmed Resident 33's morning breakfast fluid intake for 2/12/25 was 400 ml and 2/12/25 lunch fluid intake was 400 ml. CNA4 stated she was aware that Resident 33 was on dialysis but was not aware that resident was on fluid restriction. CNA 4 stated, The resident (Resident 33) has her own water bottle. She always asks for water besides the fluid from her meal trays. During an interview on 2/12/2024 at 3:16 PM with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN1), LVN1 stated Resident 33 received water with her medications for fluid restriction of 640 ml per day per doctor's order, but stated there was no record of how much water Resident 33 was taking for her medications. LVN 1 stated not monitoring the fluid intake and ensuring fluid restriction can cause fluid overload, edema, dehydration or maybe chest pain to Resident 33. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/12/2025 at 3:24 PM with the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON), ADON stated CNAs were not supposed to give Resident 33 any extra fluids since the resident was on fluid restriction. ADON stated the CNAs were supposed to record the fluid intake from the resident's meals. ADON also stated LVNs and Registered Nurses (RNs) were supposed to record the fluid intake from taking medications and recorded into the Medication Administration Record (MAR). ADON stated there was no record of fluid intake with medication administration for Resident 33. ADON stated not monitoring the fluid intake and ensuring fluid restriction can cause fluid overloaded, edema, dehydration, chest pain, or other harm to Resident 33. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Dialysis Care , revised on 10/1/2018 and reviewed in January 2025, the P&P indicated, a. Dialysis residents are given fluid based on the fluid restriction as ordered by the physician. b. The Nursing and Dietary Staff will carefully organize the division and distribution of fluid. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Fluid Restriction, revised on 4/21/2022 and reviewed in January 2025, the P&P indicated, a. For each resident on fluid restriction, complete the Fluid Restriction Guidelines and keep in the resident's medical record. b. The Licensed Nurse will: Educate the resident and/or responsible party regarding the fluid restriction. Initiate strict intake measurement per the Attending Physician order. Remove the water pitcher and notify care givers of the fluid restriction. Update the resident's Care Plan. Monitor for compliance with the fluid restriction and explain risks especially if resident is non-complaint. Record any fluids given on the Intake and Output record. Total the amount of fluid each 24 hours and compare it against the Fluid Restriction Guidelines. Notify the Attending Physician and resident and/or responsible party regarding any changes in the resident's condition. Review Intake and Output summary weekly and address the adequacy of fluids and accuracy of documentation. Document fluid restriction outcomes, Intake and Output, and compliance, in the resident's medical record. c. Documentation concerning fluid restriction will be maintained in the resident's medical record.
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 provide pharmaceutical services by not supervising me...

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 pharmaceutical services by not supervising medication administration when eight (8) medications were given and left on the nightstand for one (1) of 21 sampled residents (Resident 39). This deficient practice had the potential to result in medication errors and had the potential to harm Resident 39. This also had the potential for other residents to access the medications and in the event that the medications were ingested, could cause harm to the other residents. Findings: During a record review Resident 39's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 39 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of atherosclerosis (plaque buildup in the arteries) of the aorta (main artery in the body), chronic pulmonary edema (an abnormal accumulation of fluid in the lungs, making it hard to breathe), and psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality), and dementia (progressive brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills). During a record review of Resident 39's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment and tool), dated 11/19/2024, the MDS indicated the resident's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 39 required setup or clean-up assistance (helper sets up or cleans up; resident completes activity) for oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathing self, upper and lower body dress, and sit to lying. The MDS also indicated Resident 39 had additional active diagnoses such as schizophrenia (a chronic and severe mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves) and depression (severe feelings on sadness and hopelessness). During a record review of Resident 39's Self-Administration of Medication, dated 11/19/2024, the record indicated Resident 39 was not approved for self-administration of medications. The record also indicated Resident 39 was not allowed to keep medications at bedside. During a record review of Resident 39's Medication Administration Record (MAR, a medical record used by healthcare providers to document the administration of a medication or treatment), dated 2/10/2025, the MAR indicated Resident 39 was administered the following medications at 9 AM: - Fish Oil (drug used to lower fat levels in the blood) oral capsule 1000 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement): Give one (1) capsule by mouth one time a day for supplement. - Folic Acid (drug used for red blood cell formation and healthy cell growth and function) oral tablet 1 mg: Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for supplement. - Lexapro (drug used to treat depression and anxiety [a feeling of nervousness, panic, and fear]) oral tablet 5 mg: Give 2.5 mg by mouth one time a day for depression manifested by self-isolation staying in the room. - Olanzapine (an antipsychotic [drugs that work by altering brain chemistry to help reduce psychotic symptoms like hallucinations, delusions, and disordered thinking] drug used to treat several mental health conditions) oral tablet 2.5 mg: Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Schizophrenia agitation manifested by verbally abusive. - Oxybutynin Chloride ER tablet Extended Release 24 Hour (drug used to relax the bladder muscles) 5 mg: Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for overactive bladder. - Senna (drug used to treat constipation) oral tablet 8.6 mg: Give 2 tablets by mouth one time a day for constipation hold for loose stool. - Tums oral tablet chewable (Calcium Carbonate [antacid] drug used to relieve heartburn and indigestion): Give 500 mg by mouth one time a day for acid reflux. - Vitamin B-1 oral tablet (Thiamine Mononitrate, drug used to treat or prevent vitamin B1 deficiency): Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for supplement. During a record review of Resident 39's care plan, undated, the care plan indicated Resident 39 was at risk for self-care performance deficit related to mood disorder and episodes of forgetfulness. The care plan interventions for staff were to provide assistance with activities of daily living care as needed, break tasks into manageable segment, and maintain a safe and hazard free environment. During a concurrent interview and observation on 2/10/2025 at 9:43 AM in Resident 39's room with Resident 39, there was a medication cup filled with 9 medications on top of Resident 39's nightstand. Resident 39 stated the nurse left the medication on the nightstand. Resident 39 stated he had to take his time to swallow the medications since some pills were too big. During an interview on 2/10/2025 at 9:45 AM with Infection Prevention Nurse (IPN), IPN stated IPN was not supposed to and had left Resident 39's medications in the medication cup on the nightstand. IPN stated he did not and should have watched Resident 39 take all the medications. IPN stated after he prepared all of Resident 39's medications he got disrupted and left the medications at Resident 39's bedside. IPN stated medications were not supposed to be left at the resident's bedside since there was a possibility another resident might come and take the medications. IPN also stated there was a possibility someone may discard the medication and Resident 39 would not have received the medication as the physician ordered. During a record review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication - Administration, reviewed 1/2025, the policy indicated medications must be given to the resident by the Licensed Nurse preparing the medication. The Licensed Nurse will chart the drug, time administered and initial his/her name with each medication administration on the Medication Administration Record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon the facility's Pharmacy Consultant's recommendations durin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to act upon the facility's Pharmacy Consultant's recommendations during the Medication Regimen Review (MRR, a monthly thorough evaluation by the consulting pharmacist of a resident's medication regimen, with the goal of promoting positive outcomes and minimizing adverse consequences and potential risks associated with medication) to address the recommendation/ irregularities for the month of December 2024's MRR for one of five sampled residents (Resident 41) as indicated on the facility's MRR policy. This deficient practice had the potential to result in adverse medication outcome for potential unnecessary medications to Resident 41. Findings: During a review of Resident 41's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 41 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), depression (a low mood or loss of pleasure or interest in activities for long periods of time), and unspecified dementia (a general term for dementia that doesn't have a specific diagnosis). During a review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS- resident assessment tool) dated 9/5/2024, indicated Resident 41 had moderate impaired (decisions poor; cues/supervision required) cognitive skills (the mental processes that allow people to think, learn, and solve problems) for daily decision making. Resident 41 required substantial and maximum assistance, (helper does more than half the effort) with the toilet, personal hygiene, change of position, and transfer. During a review of Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review (MRR), dated 12/17/2024, the MRR indicated to: a. Evaluate and check use of Saxagliptin (to treat high blood sugar levels in patients with type 2 diabetes) 2.5 milligrams (mg, unit of mass or weight) by mouth at bedtime, and Sitagliptin (medication to lower blood sugar levels in adults with type 2 diabetes) 25 mg by mouth one time a day. b. Include Do not crush as part of the order for the Ferrous Sulfate ( a medicine to treat and prevent iron deficiency anemia) order c. Give Repaglinide (Prandin, antihyperglycemic class of drugs used in the management and treatment of diabetes mellitus Type 2) 15-30 minutes before meals. During a review of Resident 41's December 2024's Medication Administration Record (MAR), indicated: a. Saxagliptin 2.5 mg was given from 12/12/2024 to 12/31/2024; and Sitagliptin 25mg was given from 12/13/2024 to 12/31/2024. b. Ferrous Sulfate was given started from 12/13/2024 to 12/31/2024 without indication of Do not crush. c. Repaglinide was given from 12/12/2024 to 12/31/2024 without indication of the medication to be given 15-30 minutes before meals. During an interview on 2/11/2025 at 1:27 PM, with the Director of Nurses (DON), the DON stated the monthly MRR report from the pharmacist, was given to the licensed nurses to work on. The DON stated there was no designee responsible for the review and follow up the monthly MRR. The DON stated all licensed nurses were responsible for the review and follow up of the monthly MRR. During a concurrent interview and review on 2/12/2025 at 4:24 PM, with the licensed vocational nurse 1 (LVN 1), LVN 1 stated the Director of Nurses (DON) give assignments to all the licensed staff to review the monthly MRR. LVN 1 stated all licensed staff were supposed to check the monthly MRR and call the doctors for the irregularities and/ or recommendations by the pharmacist. LVN 1 stated Resident 41's December 2024 MRR was not reviewed and followed up. LVN 1 stated not notifying the physician to follow up on the pharmacist recommendation can cause medication overdose or medication misuse which can lead to resident harm, serious illness, and/ or worsening of condition. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/13/2025 at 3:34 PM, with the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON), ADON confirmed that there was no review of December 2024 MRR for Resident 41. The ADON stated since the MRR report was not reviewed, the irregularities or recommendation in the MRR were not relayed to the doctor and no action has been taken by the facility. ADON stated this can cause medication overdose, medication misuse or medications will not reach their full treatment effect which can lead to resident harm, serious illness, and/ or worsening of condition. ADON stated they should have a designee to take charge and keep up the progress of monthly MRR review. ADON also stated the facility should have kept the original copy of the monthly MRR to the MRR binder for review. During a review of the facility Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Regimen Review, revised December 2016, reviewed January 2025, the P&P indicated the: 1. Facility must ensure that the attending physician documents in the resident's medical record that the identified irregularity has been reviewed and what, if any, action has been taken to address it. If there is to be no change in the medication, the attending physician should document his or her rationale in the resident's medical record. 2. acility must develop and maintain policies and procedures for the monthly drug regimen review that include, but are not limited to, time frames for the different steps in the process and steps the pharmacist must take when he or she identifies an irregularity that requires urgent action to protect the resident. 4. uring their monthly drug regimen review, pharmacist will report any irregularities to the attending physician and the facility's medical director and director of nursing, and these reports will be acted upon by the facility. Irregularities include, but are not limited to, any drug that meets the criteria set forth below for an unnecessary drug. 5. Unecessary drugs-General. Each resident's drug regimen must be free from unnecessary drugs. 6. Any irregularities noted by the pharmacist during this review will be documented on a separate, written report that is sent to the attending physician, the facility's medical director and director of nursing or his/her designee in the absence of DON and lists, at a minimum, the resident's name, the relevant drug, and the irregularity the pharmacist identified. 7. The attending physician will document in the resident's medical record that the identified irregularity has been reviewed and what, if any, action has been taken to address it. If there is to be no change in the medication, the attending physician will document his or her rationale in the resident's medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0813 (Tag F0813)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the temperatures of the facility's one of one Activity Room Refrigerator, which contained resident food brought by fam...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the temperatures of the facility's one of one Activity Room Refrigerator, which contained resident food brought by family/visitor, was checked daily per facility policy. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 40 to experience food borne illness (any sickness that is caused by the consumption of foods or beverages that are contaminated with certain infectious or noninfectious agents). Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/10/2025 at 8:40 AM with the Dietary Services Supervisor, in the facility activity room, the resident refrigerator was observed. The refrigerator contained a plastic bag with a food container, labeled with Resident 40's room number and bed. DSS stated this food was brought in by Resident 40's family. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/10/2025 at 8:45 AM with DSS, the facility's Policy & Procedure (P&P) titled, Refrigerator/Freezer Temperature Log- Refrigerator in Activity Room, revised 11/2014, which was also the log, was reviewed. The P&P indicated refrigerated and frozen storage areas are to be checked routinely throughout the day and refrigerator temperatures should be at 41 degrees or below. The log failed to indicate documented temperatures for 2/3/2025 to 2/9/2025 in the AM and PM. DSS stated per policy, staff should have checked and documented the refrigerator temperatures on the log.
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** 2. During a review Resident 43's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 43 was initially admitted to the faci...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review Resident 43's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 43 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of malignant neoplasm (cancer growth of cells) of prostate (small gland below the bladder), benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH, non-cancerous prostate gland enlargement that can cause urination difficulty) with lower urinary tract symptoms (frequent urination, pain while urinating, persistent urge to urinate, low-grade fever, blood in the urine, and pain in the side or back), obstructive (a disorder of the urinary tract that occurs due to obstructed urinary flow caused by structural or functional hinderance) and reflux uropathy (urine flows backward from the bladder into the kidneys). During a review of Resident 43's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated the resident's cognitive skills for daily decision making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 43 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) for toileting hygiene, and showering/bathing, sitting to standing, chair/bed-to-chair transfer, and toilet transfers. The MDS also indicated Resident 43 had an indwelling catheter (tube that drains urine from the bladder into a drainage bag). During a review of Resident 43's Physician Order Summary Report, dated 11/21/2024, the order indicated indwelling catheter size French unit (measurement system for the size of catheters) #16 with balloon via gravity drainage for obstructive uropathy. During an observation on 2/10/2025 at 8:50 AM in Resident 43's room, Resident 43 was observed sitting up in bed with the indwelling catheter bag uncovered. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/10/2025 at 9:14 AM with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated Resident 43 did not have a dignity bag. CNA 1 stated Resident 43 was supposed to have a dignity bag cover the indwelling catheter bag to for Resident 43's privacy. During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 1:56 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated residents were supposed to have their catheter bags covered with a dignity bag. The DON stated dignity bags provided residents with dignity and respect. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Rights - Quality of Life, revised 3/2017, the policy indicated facility staff promote dignity and assist residents as needed by helping the resident to keep urinary catheter bags covered. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to treat two of two sampled residents (Resident 35 and 43) with respect and dignity in accordance with the facility policy by failing to ensure: 1. Certified Nursing Assistant 2 (CNA 2) sat and be at eye level while assisting Resident 35 during feeding. 2. Resident 43's urinary collection bag was covered with a privacy bag (specially designed fabric pouch that conceals and protects urinary drainage bags). This failure had the potential to negatively affect Resident 35 and 43's self-esteem which could result in problems with emotional, psychosocial, and mental well-being. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 35's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 35 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease (decreased mental function and loss of ability to do daily tasks including the inability to voice needs), adult failure to thrive (FTT- a decline caused by chronic diseases and functional impairments which can cause weight loss, decreased appetite, poor nutrition, and inactivity) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). During a review of Resident 35's Minimum Data Set (MDS - resident assessment tool), dated 1/1/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 35 had severely impaired cognitive skills (ability to understand and make decisions). The MDS also indicated Resident 35 needed supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues, touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance during activity) with eating and dependent (helper does all effort needed to complete activity) with toileting, bathing and lower body dressing. During an observation on 2/10/2025 at 10:11 AM with CNA 2 at Resident 35's bedside, Resident 35 was observed sitting in bed while CNA 2 was observed feeding Resident 35 a banana while standing next the bed. CNA 2 was not at eye level while feeding Resident 35. During an interview on 2/10/2025 at 10:35 AM with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated Resident 35 requires feeding assistance with meals. CNA 2 stated he was standing while feeding Resident 35 a banana but should have been sitting. CNA 2 stated per facility policy, staff are to sit in a chair and be eye level with the residents during feedings to avoid intimidating the residents. During an interview on 2/12/25 at 3:30 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated the facility's protocol is for staff to sit while feeding the residents during full meals and/or snacks to ensure the dignity of the residents is maintained. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Restorative Dining Program, revised 1/1/12, the P&P indicated the purpose of the P&P included improvement in appropriate mealtime behavior, self-image and socialization skills for residents [who are unable to feed themselves] and staff members should sit while assisting or feeding residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

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 an accurate assessment of the Minimum Data Set (MDS -residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an accurate assessment of the Minimum Data Set (MDS -resident assessment tool) for two (2) of two sampled residents (Residents 42 and 49) by failing to reflect the following on the MDS: 1. Resident 42's diagnosis of anxiety (mental disorder that involves persistent and excessive worry that can interfere with daily activities). 2. Resident 49's diagnoses of anxiety and depression (mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest in life). This deficient practice had the potential for the facility to not develop and implement an individualized care plan (a document that outlines the facility's plan to provide personalized care to a resident that includes measurable objectives, interventions and timeframes to meet a resident's medical, nursing, and mental and psychosocial needs), which could negatively affect Residents 42 and 49's overall well-being. Findings: 1. During a review Resident 42's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 42 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of dementia (progressive brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills) with agitation, dementia with mood disturbance, dementia with psychotic (mental health disorder which a person loses touch with reality) disturbance, and anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities). During a review of Resident 42's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated the resident's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decision making was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 42 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) for toileting hygiene, shower/bathing self, personal hygiene, sit to lying, sit to standing, and toilet transferring. The MDS indicated Resident 42 was taking an antianxiety medication. The MDS did not indicate Resident 42 had an anxiety disorder as a diagnosis. The MDS indicated Resident 42 did not have any behavior symptoms but had mood symptoms. During a review of Resident 42's Physician Order Summary Report, dated 11/18/2024, the physician order indicated Buspirone HCl (anti-anxiety medication, used for the short-term relief of excessive anxiety) oral tablet five (5) milligrams (mg, unit of measurement) - Give one (1) tablet by mouth 2 times a day for anxiety disorder manifested by restlessness evidenced by repetitive physical movements. During a review of Resident 42's Medication Administration Record (MAR, a medical record used by healthcare providers to document the administration of a medication or treatment), dated 11/18/2024, indicated as follows: - Buspirone HCl oral tablet 5 mg - Give 1 tablet by mouth 2 times a day for anxiety disorder manifested by restlessness evidenced by repetitive physical movements. - Monitor target behaviors of anxiety manifested by restlessness evidenced by repetitive physical movement for use of Buspirone due to anxiety. During an interview on 2/12/2025 at 12:27 PM with Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1), CNA 1 stated Resident 42 had anxiety. CNA 1 stated Resident 42 would scream and could not stay still and would be constantly removing and putting on his clothes. During an interview on 2/12/2025 at 3:25 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated Resident 42 received Buspirone twice a day for his anxiety disorder. The ADON stated Resident 42 was anxious. The ADON stated Resident 42 would scream, try to stand up to get out of bed, and do repetitive movements. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/12/2025 at 3:33 PM of Resident 42's physician's orders with MDS Nurse (MDSN), MDSN stated Resident 42 should have a diagnosis for anxiety disorder since Resident 42 was taking Buspirone for his anxiety disorder. During a concurrent review of Resident 42's MDS, the MDSN stated the MDS should have and did not reflected Resident 42's anxiety disorder and did not reflect Resident 42 had an anxiety disorder. MDSN stated the MDS should indicate Resident 42's anxiety disorder so the nurses could know the classification, what the medication was being used for, and for monitoring for the behavior. 2. During a review of Resident 49's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 49 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD- a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), anxiety, and depression. During a review of Resident 49's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 49 had moderately impaired cognitive skills. The MDS indicated Resident 49 needed partial/moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort needed to complete the activity) with bathing, dressing, oral and toileting hygiene and setup or clean-up assistance (helper helps only prior to or following the activity completion) with eating. The MDS indicated Resident 49 did not have any behavioral or mood symptoms. The MDS also indicated Resident 49 was taking antianxiety (treat anxiety symptoms) and antidepressant (used to treat depression) medications. During a review of Resident 49's Verification of Informed Consent, dated 8/14/2024 and 10/17/2024, the Verification of Informed Consents indicated the following medical provider's orders: a. Buspirone 10mg twice (BID) a day for anxiety disorder b. Sertraline (a medication used to treat depression) 100 mg daily for depression manifested by (m/b) verbalization of hopelessness c. Trazadone (a medication used to treat depression) 100mg q HS for depression m/b poor sleep During a review of Review of Resident 49's Psychological Evaluation and Consultation, dated 9/25/2024, the evaluation indicated Resident 49 with moderately severe depressive symptoms and severe anxiety symptoms and was prescribed psychotropic medications (used to treat mental health disorders) buspirone for anxiety, sertraline, and trazadone for depression. During a record review of Resident 49's MARs, dated 8/1/2024 through 10/2024, the MARs indicated: a. Buspirone HCl oral tablet 10 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth 2 times a day for anxiety disorder m/b panic attack. b. Monitor target behaviors of panic attack for use of buspirone due to anxiety disorder. c. Sertraline HCl oral tablet 100 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth in the morning for antidepressant m/b verbalization of hopelessness. d. Monitor depression m/b verbalization of hopelessness for use of Sertraline due to major depressive disorder. e. Trazadone HCl oral tablet 100 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth in the evening for antidepressant m/b difficulty sleeping at night. f. Monitor hours of sleep during PM and night shift every evening and night shift for depression m/b poor sleep. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/13/2025 at 12:49 PM with the MDSN, Resident 49's MDS assessments dated 8/15/2024, 9/9/2024, and 10/24/2024 were reviewed. The MDS assessments did not indicate the active diagnoses of anxiety and/or depression. MDSN stated Resident 49's diagnoses of depression and anxiety were not and should have been included on the MDS assessments. MDSN stated the MDS is done to gather data of the residents and submit data to Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS- is a federal agency that manages Medicare, Medicaid, and other health care programs), and should be accurate because it is part of the medical records. MDSN stated it was important for Resident 49's anxiety and depression diagnoses to be coded on the MDS so that the CMS, knows the facility is providing care to Resident 49 for those specific diagnoses. During a record review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Process, revised 10/4/2016, the policy indicated the facility will utilize the RAI process as the basis for the accurate assessment of each resident's functional capacity and health status.
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. During a review of Resident 54's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 54 was admitted to the facility on...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. During a review of Resident 54's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [a long-term lung condition that causes breathing difficulties due to damage to the airways, resulting in restricted airflow and symptoms like coughing, wheezing ( a high-pitched, whistling sound that occurs when air flows through narrowed or obstructed airways in the lungs), and shortness of breath], acute and chronic respiratory failure (a serious condition that occurs when a patient with chronic respiratory disease experiences a sudden decline in lung function), and asthma (a condition in which your airways narrow and swell and may produce extra mucus. This can make breathing difficult and trigger coughing). During a review of Resident 54's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 54 was moderately impaired with cognitive skills for daily decision making. Resident 54 required supervision and cues for decisions. Resident 54 required partial, moderate assistance, helper does less than half the effort with the toilet, personal hygiene, change of position, and transfer. During a review of Physician's Order, dated 1/27/2025, the physician's order indicated oxygen at 2 to 3 LPM via nasal cannula to keep oxygen saturation at or above 92 % due to diagnosis of COPD /respiratory failure every shift. During an observation on 2/10/2025 at 10:52 AM, in Resident 54's room, Resident 54 was observed being administered with five (5) L to six (6) LPM of oxygen via a nasal cannula attached to an oxygen concentrator machine next to his bed. There was no humidifier(a device that adds moisture to the air to help with breathing and other conditions) attached to the machine. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/12/2025 at 2:45 PM with licensed vocational nurse 2 (LVN 2), in Resident 54's room, LVN 2 checked the resident's oxygen concentrator and LVN 2 stated Resident 54 was getting 5 LPM of oxygen. LVN 2 stated he need to check physician's order. During a concurrent record review of Resident 54's medication order and interview on 2/12/2025 at 2:58 PM with LVN 2, LVN 2 confirmed that Resident 54's physician's order indicated to administer oxygen at 2 to 3 LPM to keep oxygen saturation above 92 %. LVN 2 stated Resident 54's oxygen concentrator should have been set at 2 to 3 LPM, and not at 5 LPM oxygen. LVN 2 stated he should have administered oxygen to Resident 54 per physician's order. LVN 2 stated giving too much oxygen can cause harm to Resident 54 especially if resident has a diagnosis of COPD. During an interview on 2/12/2025 at 3:30 PM with Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON), ADON confirmed that Resident 54's oxygen concentrator was supposed to be set at 2 to 3 LPM as indicated in the physician's order. ADON stated if oxygen was not administered according to the physician's order, it had the potential to cause complications associated with oxygen therapy to Resident 54. ADON stated this can lead to a buildup of carbon dioxide (indicate how much of waste product is present in the blood stream) in the blood, it may lead to respiratory acidosis and even death. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Oxygen Therapy, revised November 2017 and reviewed in January 2025, the P&P indicated: Oxygen is administered under safe and sanitary conditions to meet resident needs. Licensed Nursing staff will administer oxygen as prescribed. A. Administer oxygen per physician orders. B. Obtain 02 saturation levels as ordered by the physician. If oxygen saturation falls below the level identified by the physician, the physician will be notified immediately. C. Oxygen titration orders will have parameters specified by the physician. (Example: 0xygen 2- 4L/min to maintain 02 saturation at or above 92%) D. Staff will be provided in service on appropriate administration and safe handling of oxygen equipment and supplies on hire and annually Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory services for three (3) of 3 sampled residents (Residents 49 and 54) as indicated on the facility policy by failing to: 1.Administer two (2) liters (metric unit of capacity) per minute (LPM) of continuous (without interruption) oxygen therapy (administration of oxygen at concentrations greater than that in ambient air with the intent of treating or preventing the symptoms and manifestations of low oxygen) to Resident 49 as indicated in the physician's order. The facility also failed to label and date Resident 49's plastic respiratory equipment bag (a plastic bag that holds and transports respiratory equipment), which contained a nasal cannula (NC- a tube that provides oxygen through the nose) tubing. 2. Store Resident 21's nebulizer (a device used to administer medication in the form of a mist inhaled into the lungs) equipment in a bag. 3. Administer 2 to 3 LPM oxygen therapy to Resident 54 as indicated in the physician's order. This failure had the potential for Residents 49 and 54 to experience hypoxia (deficiency in the amount of oxygen reaching the body's tissues) or respiratory distress (difficulty breathing), and for Residents 21 and 49 be at risk for infection. Findings: 1.During a review of Resident 49's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD- a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), anxiety (mental disorder that involves persistent and excessive worry that can interfere with daily activities), and depression (mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest in life). During a review of Resident 49's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 1/19/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 49 had moderately impaired cognitive skills (ability to understand and make decisions) for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 49 needed partial/moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort needed to complete the activity) with bathing, dressing, oral and toileting hygiene and setup or clean-up assistance (helper helps only prior to or following the activity completion) with eating. During a review of Resident 49's Order Summary Report, the Order Summary Report indicated an order for oxygen at 2 to 3 LPM via nasal cannula to keep oxygen saturation level (O2 sat- a measurement of how much oxygen the blood is carrying as a percentage) at/above 92 percent (%) every shift for COPD, started 2/6/2025. During a review of Resident 49's Medication Administration Record (MAR - a daily documentation record used by a licensed nurse to document medications and treatments given to a resident), dated 2/1/2025 to 2/28/2025, the MAR indicated oxygen at 2 to 3 LPM via NC to keep O2 sat at/above 92% every shift for COPD, started 2/6/2025. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/10/2025 at 9:56 AM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) at Resident 49's bedside, Resident 49's plastic respiratory equipment bag, which contained Resident 49's NC tubing, was observed unlabeled and undated. The ADON stated the bag should be labeled and dated with the resident's name and date the bag was changed to maintain infection control. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/10/2025 at 4:22 PM with Resident 49 and Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1), Resident 49 was observed sitting in bed with no oxygen therapy being administered via NC and the oxygen concentrator (a medical device that produces a higher concentration of oxygen from the room air) was off. Resident 49 stated she needs the oxygen because she gets shortness of breath (SOB). RN 1 stated Resident 49 was not receiving any oxygen therapy, and oxygen is only administered as Resident 49 needs it, not at all times. During an interview on 2/12/2025 at 3:30 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated Resident 49 receives oxygen for her COPD and Resident 49's order indicated every shift, which means she should be receiving the oxygen continuously. ADON stated it is important to give oxygen as ordered because Resident 49 uses it for SOB and wheezing (a high-pitched sound made when breathing is restricted/obstructed in the lungs). During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 3:04 PM with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), the IPN stated per facility policy, all respiratory equipment including nebulizer masks are to be in a labeled and dated respiratory bag while not in use. The IPN stated it is important to ensure the respiratory bags are used, labeled and dated, to prevent contamination of the masks and tubing and to prevent the residents from getting respiratory infections. During a review of the facility's Policy & Procedure (P&P) titled, Oxygen Therapy, revised 11/2017, the P&P indicated licensed nursing staff will administer oxygen as prescribed and per physician orders. 2. During a review of Resident 21's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 21 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe), interstitial pulmonary disease (a group of conditions that cause inflammation and scarring in your lungs) and centrilobular emphysema (a chronic lung condition that damages the upper lobes). During a review of Resident 21's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 21 had moderately impaired cognitive skills. The MDS indicated Resident 21 needed setup or clean-up assistance (helper helps only prior to or following the activity completion) with eating and oral hygiene and substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort needed to complete the activity) with bathing, dressing and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 21's Order Summary Report, the Order Summary Report indicated an order for Albuterol Sulfate (medication used to treat wheezing and SOB) Nebulization Solution 2.5 milligram (MG- a unit of measurement) /3 milliliter (ML- a measurement of volume) 0.083% 3ML inhale orally via nebulizer every 6 hours as needed for wheezing. The Order Summary Report also indicated to change nebulizer mask and tubing every Monday morning. During an observation on 2/10/2024 at 10:06 AM at Resident 21's bedside, Resident 21's nebulizer equipment [nebulizer, nebulizer cup and aerosol mask] was observed unbagged, sitting on Resident 21's bedside table. During a review of the facility's Policy & Procedure (P&P) titled, Nebulizer (Small Volume), revised 10/15/20, the P&P indicated after assembling equipment needed for therapy and label the set-up bag with the residents' name and date when new. The P&P also indicated to place the nebulizer in the set-up bag and nebulizer cup into the resident's equipment bag after treatments. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Oxygen Therapy, revised 11/2017, the P&P indicated oxygen is administered under safe and sanitary conditions and oxygen supplies will be changed no more than every seven (7) days and as needed and will be dated each time they are changed. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Nebulizer (Small Volume), revised 10/15/20, the P&P indicated after assembling equipment needed for therapy and label the set-up bag with the residents' name and date when new. The P&P also indicated to place the nebulizer in the set-up bag and nebulizer cup into the resident's equipment bag after treatments.
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 follow proper food storage handling practices in accordance with its policy and procedure (P&P) by failing to ensure: 1. Foo...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow proper food storage handling practices in accordance with its policy and procedure (P&P) by failing to ensure: 1. Food was labeled and stored in refrigerators, freezers and dry storage. 2. Proper sanitization of dishes by ensuring all dishes in the dishwasher were washed with a temperature of at least 120 degrees Fahrenheit (F) during use. These deficient practices have the potential to result in food borne illness (any sickness that is caused by the consumption of foods or beverages that are contaminated with certain infectious or noninfectious agents) in a population of 50 residents consuming food by mouth. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/10/2025 at 7:49 AM in the facility kitchen with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), the following food items were observed: a. Refrigerated container of sausage labeled with a use by date of 2/8/2025 b. Refrigerated container of cheese frosting labeled with a use by date of 2/8/2025 c. Refrigerated container of turkey meat labeled with a use by date of 2/9/2025 d. Refrigerated container of tomato paste labeled with a use by date of 2/9/2025 e. Refrigerated container of spaghetti labeled with a use by date of 2/9/2025 f. Four (4) cups of refrigerated milk labeled with a use by date of 2/9/2025 g. Refrigerated container of sour cream labeled with a use by date of 1/30/2025 h. Refrigerated carton of thickened apple juice from concentrate labeled with a use by date of 2/7/2025 i. Refrigerated carton of silk almond milk without a use by date j. Tray of green gelatin cocktail without a use by date k. Frozen box of bread rolls without a label, open or use by date l. Frozen bag of corn without a label, open or use by date m. Frozen bag of carrots without a label, open or use by date n. Frozen cup of juice without a label, open or use by date o. A container of paprika seasoning labeled with a use by date p. A container of ground cayenne pepper seasoning labeled with unreadable use by date q. Two (2) packages of sugar cookies labeled with a use by 2/7/2025 r. Box of baking soda without a label, open or use by date s. Box of honey nut cereal without a use by date t. Buttermilk biscuit mix without a use by date u. Buttermilk biscuit mix with a use by date of 2/7/2025 v. Bag of Thai jasmine rice without a use by date DSS stated per facility policy, all food items should be labeled with a receive date and a use by date once opened. DSS stated the use by date is the last day the item is ok to use and must be discarded after that date. DSS also stated it is important to label, store and discard food items per policy to ensure that the food items are safe to eat for the residents. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Food Storage and Handling, revised 2/29/2024, the P&P indicated to label and date all food items and storage products. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview with [NAME] 1 on 2/12/2025 at 11:43 AM, [NAME] 1 loaded the rack of dishes into dishwasher, ran the dishwasher with the hottest temperature reaching 100 degrees F. [NAME] 1 then removed the rack of dishes and stated cleaning cycle was complete, and dishes were clean. [NAME] 1 stated she does not know what temperature the dishwasher reached because she did not check the temperature gauge during the run cycle. During an interview on 2/12/2025 at 11:48 AM with DSS, DSS stated per facility policy, staff are to check the temperature during each dishwashing cycle, and if the temperature does not reach 120 degrees F, staff are to run the cycle again until the temperature reaches at least 120 degrees F. DSS stated it is important to ensure the dishwasher is at the right temperature to make sure the dishes are being cleaned and disinfected, to prevent residents from getting sick. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Dish Machine Temperature Recording, revised 10/1/2014, the P&P indicated the dish machine will be routinely monitored during use to ensure appropriate wash and rinse temperatures of 120- 150 degrees F are maintained and staff are to allow the dishwasher to run through several cycles in order to bring the water temperature up to the proper level by sending empty racks through the machine. The P&P also indicated staff are to read the temperature gauges on the machine while racks are in the machine, and any temperatures that are below the required levels must be brought to the attention of the Dietary Manager promptly.
CONCERN (E)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of three garbage container (dumpster) lids remained closed and were not overflowing with trash as indicated on the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of three garbage container (dumpster) lids remained closed and were not overflowing with trash as indicated on the facility policy. This failure had the potential to result in the attraction and spread of vermin (animals that are believed to be harmful, or that carry diseases, e.g., rodent's parasitic worms or insects) that could potentially enter the facility and spread diseases to the residents. Findings: During an observation on 2/12/2025 at 10:27 AM in the facility's parking lot dumpster area, two dumpsters were observed with trash overflowing out of the top of both dumpsters, with lids opened due to overflowing trash. During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 1:32 PM with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS), MS stated per facility policy, boxes and trash should be compressed into the dumpsters to ensure the lids stay closed and trash should not be overflowing. MS stated the outside dumpster lids were supposed to be closed and clean to keep out flies and rodents. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Waste Management, revised 4/21/2022, the P&P indicated to maintain appropriate regulated waste containers, they must be closable and food waste will be placed in covered garbage and trash cans.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 12 out of 22 resident rooms (Rooms 3, 4, 5, 6,...

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 12 out of 22 resident rooms (Rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15,16, 17, and 18) met the requirements of 80 square feet (sq. ft.) for each resident in multiple resident bedrooms. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the residents' personal space, decrease freedom of mobility and could compromise the provision of care. Findings: During an observation of the facility and resident's rooms from 2/10/2025 to 2/13/2025, Rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 did not meet the minimum requirement of 80 sq. ft. per resident in multiple residents' rooms. During an interview with Resident 11 on 2/11/2025, at 11:36 AM, Resident 11 stated was comfortable in his room and had enough space for his belongings and wheelchair. During an interview with Resident 28 on 2/12/2025, at 8:39 AM, Resident 28 stated was comfortable in his room and had enough space for himself and his belongings. During an observation on 2/11/2025 at 10:08 AM in room [ROOM NUMBER], Certified Nursing Assistant 5 (CNA 5) was observed assisting Resident 28 who was able to transfer to the wheelchair safely. CNA 5 wheeled him out of his room. During a review of the facility's Client Accommodation Analysis Form, dated 2/10/25, the form indicated the facility had several rooms that measured less than the required 80 square footages per resident in multiple bedrooms. The following resident bedrooms were: 1) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 222 sq. ft., to equal 74 sq. ft. per resident. 2) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 194 sq. ft., to equal 64.6 sq. ft. per resident. 3) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 212 sq. ft., to equal 70.6 sq. ft. per resident. 4) room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) and measured 148 sq. ft., to equal 74 sq. ft. per resident. 5) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 219 sq. ft., to equal 73 sq. ft. per resident. 6) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 209 sq. ft., to equal 69.6 sq. ft. per resident. 7) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 227 sq. ft., to equal 75.6 sq. ft. per resident. 8) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 211 sq. ft., to equal 70.3 sq. ft. per resident. 9) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 221 sq. ft., to equal 73.6 sq. fl. per resident. 10) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 221 sq. ft., to equal 73.6 sq. fl. per resident. 11) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 230 sq. ft., to equal 76.6 sq. ft. per resident. 12) room [ROOM NUMBER] (4 beds) and measured 293 sq. ft., to equal 73.25 sq. ft. per resident. During an observation of the facility and residents' room from 2/10/2025 to 2/13/2025, the residents residing in the rooms (Rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) with an application for variance were observed to have enough space to move freely inside the rooms. Each resident inside the affected rooms had beds and side tables with drawers. There was an adequate room for the operation and use of wheelchairs, walkers, canes or hoyer lift (a mechanical device that helps move people between beds, chairs, and other places). The room variance did not affect the care and services provided to the residents when nursing staff were observed providing are to these residents. The Department is recommending approval of the room waiver request for 12 of 22 rooms (Rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18).
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident ' s physician/medical doctor when the resident ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the resident ' s physician/medical doctor when the resident was refusing more than 50% of his meal 3 consecutive times for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1) on 10/4/2024 to 10/5/2024. This deficient practice had the potential to delay in the necessary care and services for Resident 1 and lead to severe malnutrition. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record indicated resident was admitted on [DATE] with the following diagnosis of protein-calorie malnutrition (lack of sufficient nutrients in the body), dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), Alzheimer ' s disease (a disease characterized by a progressive decline in mental abilities) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing foods or liquids). During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/4/2024, indicated resident has no mental capacity to make decisions for self. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS – a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 10/10/2024, indicated resident is severely impaired in cognitive (ability to understand and make decisions) skills for daily decision making. MDS also indicated resident is dependent (helper does all of the effort. Resident does none of the effort to complete the activity. Or, the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) in eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Nutrition Meal Intake, dated 9/27/2024-10/12/2024, indicated as follows: 1. 10/4/2024: breakfast – refused, lunch – refused, dinner – 0-25% eaten. 2. 10/5/2024: breakfast – refused, lunch – refused, dinner – refused. 3. 10/12/2024: breakfast – refused, lunch – refused, dinner – resident not available. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Physician Orders, dated 10/4/2024, indicated to monitor poor appetite as manifested by eating less than 50% for use of Mirtazapine (antidepressant used as appetite stimulant) due to depression indicate the number of behavior occurrences followed by non-pharmacological interventions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Care Plan with focus of using mirtazapine related to Depression manifested by eating less than 50%, dated 10/7/2024, indicated to monitor/document/report when there is a change in behavior or appetite loss. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Chance of Condition (COC – a sudden, clinically important deviation from a resident ' s baseline in physical, cognitive, behavioral, or functional domains.), dated 10/12/2024, indicated resident had abnormal vital signs and altered mental status. COC also indicated resident is lethargic, increasing oxygen demand, a temperature of 100.3 degrees Fahrenheit and coffee colored urinary output. COC indicated resident has decline in eating, drinking, and taking medications. During a concurrent record review of Resident 1 ' s October 2024 physician orders and interview on 10/29/2024 at 11 AM, MDS Nurse stated Resident 1 does not have any nourishments or supplements ordered. MDS Nurse also stated there is no COC done for the resident ' s poor appetite. During an interview on 10/29/2024 at 12:45 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) stated a COC is when the resident eats less than 50% of 3 consecutive meals. DON also stated nourishment and supplements would be offered to resident in that situation and the physician and registered dietitian would be notified. During a concurrent record review of the facilities Policy and Procedure titled Food Intake – Recording Percentage & Nutritional Assessment, revised 1/1/2012, and interview on 10/29/2024 at 12:45 PM, DON stated if a resident ate less than 50% for three (3) consecutive meals, it is considered a COC, and the doctor should be notified. DON also stated according to the policy follow through is required means when there is a COC; and when there is a COC, the charge nurse should inform the doctor. During an interview and record review of Resident 1 ' s medical records on 10/29/2024 at 1:28 PM, DON stated Resident 1 ' s physician was not informed of the resident ' s meal intake of less than 50% for three (3) consecutive meals. During a review of the facilities Policy and Procedure titled Food Intake – Recording Percentage & Nutritional Assessment, revised 1/1/2012, indicated if any resident refuses a meal, or the food eaten is less than 50%, a nourishment or meal replacement will be offered. Policy also indicated if more than 50% of the entire meal is refused by the resident for three (3) consecutive meals, the charge nurse will request a dietary evaluation and notify the attending physician.
Mar 2024 15 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** c. A review of the admission record indicated Resident 15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included b...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** c. A review of the admission record indicated Resident 15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included bilateral primary osteoarthritis of knee (a degenerative joint disease that affects both knees, causing pain, stiffness, swelling, and decreased mobility), unspecified protein calorie malnutrition (a disorder caused by a lack of proper nutrition or an inability to absorb nutrients from food), Alzheimer's disease (a brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills, and eventually, the ability to carry out the simplest tasks), unspecified dementia (a term used to describe a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities), unspecified hearing loss, stiffness of unspecified joint, not elsewhere classified (unable to move one or more joints properly), cellulitis of left lower limb (a common bacterial skin infection that causes redness, swelling, and pain in the infected area of the skin). A review of the MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 15 was severely impaired in cognitive skills for daily decision making, and needed total assistance from the staff for the activities of daily living such as eating, oral and toilet hygiene, shower, and dressing. A record review of Resident 15's care plan initiated on 6/17/2024 and revised on 3/27/2024 indicated Resident 15 was at risk for falls, injuries due to Alzheimer's disease .immobility. The care plan interventions indicated, be sure the resident's call light is within reach and encourage the resident to use it for assistance as needed. Maintain call light within reach and answer promptly. During an observation on 3/26/2024 at 8:52 AM, Resident 15 was in bed in a crouch position in the lower part of the bed (near the foot board) with legs up. Resident 15's call light was inside the nightstands drawer away from Resident 15's reach. During interview with CNA 1 on 3/26/2024 at 8:57 AM, CNA 1 stated Resident 15's call light was inside the nightstands drawer and is out of the residents' reach. During an interview with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1) on 3/27/2024 at 8:40 AM, RN 1 stated the call light should not be inside the nightstands drawer. RN 1 stated, the call light should be clipped to the resident's bedside closer to the pillow or linen to be always within the resident's reach. RN 1 also stated, It would be dangerous for a resident not to have the call light within reach, the resident could have an accident or fall. During an interview with the DON on 3/28/2024 at 2:51 PM, the DON stated, The resident's call light should always be within reach. It is not appropriate for the call light to be inside a drawer. The resident cannot call for help or assistance. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure titled, Communication-Call System, revised 1/1/2012, indicated, To provide a mechanism for residents to promptly communicate with Nursing Staff. The policy also indicated call cords (call light) will be placed within the resident's reach in the resident's room. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the call light (a device used by patients to call for assistance from hospital staff) was within reach (an arm's length) of three of 13 sampled residents (Resident 5, Resident 27, and Resident 15). This deficient practice had the potential to result in delayed provision of services, delay in care and Residents 5, 27, and 15 not receiving assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). Findings: a. A review of Resident 5's admission Record indicated Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of difficulty of walking, lack of coordination, neuralgia (severe, sharp, often shock-like pain that follows the path of a nerve) and neuritis (inflammation of the nerves), and schizophrenia (a chronic and severe mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves). A review of Resident 5's History and Physical (H&P, the initial clinical evaluation and examination of the resident), dated 11/6/2023, indicated Resident 5 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 5's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 2/8/2024, indicated Resident 5's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decision making were moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 5 required setup assistance (helper assists only prior to or following the activity) with lying to sitting on side of bed. A review of Resident 5's Care Plan, dated 2/8/2024, indicated Resident 5 was at risk for falls related to postural dizziness (dizziness relating to or involving the body when lying, sitting, or standing), and multiple psychotropic medications (drug or other substance that affects how the brain works and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behavior). Staff interventions were to ensure the resident's call light was within reach and encourage the resident to use the call light for assistance as needed. During an observation on 3/26/2024 at 8:59 AM in Resident 5's room, Resident 5 was sleeping in bed and his call light was placed inside of the closed drawer of the nightstand. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/26/2024 at 9:18 AM in Resident 5's room with Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1), CNA 1 stated Resident 5's call light was placed in the closed drawer of the nightstand. CNA 1 stated call lights were supposed to be placed within reach on the resident's bed and clipped on the bed. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 2:38 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was not appropriate to keep the call light inside of the drawer. The DON stated the call light was out of reach. The DON stated the resident would not be able to call for help or assistance. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:34 AM with the DON, the DON stated call lights should be left within reach of the resident. The DON stated call lights may be placed at a different location based on the resident's preference. The DON stated if the resident preferred to have the call light placed in a different location which was not within reach of the resident, then it would have been discussed with the resident and included in the resident's care plan. The DON stated Resident 5's care plan would indicate the resident's preference where to place the call light. b. A review of Resident 27's admission Record indicated Resident 27 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality), dementia (progressive brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills) with psychotic (mental health disorder which a person loses touch with reality) disturbance, schizophrenia, and difficulty in walking. A review of Resident 27's H&P, dated 2/29/2024, indicated Resident 27 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 27's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 27's cognitive skills for daily decision making were severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 27 required supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity) for toileting hygiene, shower/bath self, upper and lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, roll left and right, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to stand, chair/bed-to-chair, toilet transfer, and walk ten feet (once standing). The MDS also indicated Resident 27 had a fall in the last two to six months. A review of Resident 27's Care Plan, dated 3/3/2024, indicated Resident 27 was at risk for falls related to confusion, gait (a manner of walking or moving on foot)/balance problems, psychoactive (drug or other substance that affects how the brain works and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behavior) drug use. Staff interventions included were to ensure the resident's call light was within reach, encourage the resident to use the call light for assistance as needed, a safe environment with floors free from spills and/or clutter, a working and reachable call light, and personal items within reach. A review of Resident 27's Care Plan, dated 3/4/2024, indicated Resident 27 was at risk for impaired mobility, activity of daily living (ADL) decline due to medical conditions Alzheimer's Dementia (a brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills and eventually the ability to carry out the simplest tasks), Osteoarthritis (the cartilage within a joint begin to break down and the underlying bone begins to change causing reduced function and disability) of left and right shoulder and knees; and needed substantial/maximal assist (helper does more than half the effort) with ADLs. Staff interventions included were to keep call light within reach at all times, assist with ambulation and transfer, and encourage to use assistive devices as needed. During an observation on 3/26/2024 at 9:07 AM in Resident 27's room, Resident 27 was lying in bed. Resident 27's call light cord was wrapped and hanging on the wall located above his bed frame. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/26/2024 at 9:16 AM in Resident 27's room with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated the call light was hanging on the left side of the wall. CNA 1 stated Resident 27's call light should be placed on the bed. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 2:38 PM, the DON stated the resident would not be able to call for help or assistance when the call light was not within reach. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:34 AM with the DON, the DON stated call lights should be left at the reach of the resident. The DON stated call lights may be placed at a different location based on the resident's preference. The DON stated if the resident preferred to have the call light placed in a different location which was not within reach of the resident, then it would have been discussed with the resident and included in the resident's care plan. The DON stated Resident 27's care plan would indicate the resident's preference where to place the call light.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the assessment entries on the Minimum Data Set...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the assessment entries on the Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment and care screening tool) related to eating was accurately documented to reflect the resident's ability to eat for one of one sampled resident (Resident 6) for the resident assessment care area. This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect Resident 6's plan of care and delivery of necessary care and services. Findings: A review of Resident 6's admission Record indicated Resident 6 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included anorexia (lack of loss of appetite for food), legal blindness, and unspecified hearing loss. A review of Resident 6's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 3/7/2024, indicated Resident 6 was assessed having severely impaired cognition (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) for daily decision making and required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort, helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) with upper and lower body dressing, personal hygiene, toileting hygiene, and eating. During an observation in Resident 6's room on 3/26/2024, at 12:41 PM, Resident 6 was observed eating lunch inside her room by herself. During an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 6), on 3/28/2024, at 12:45 PM, CNA 6 stated Resident 6 was blind and hard of hearing. CNA 6 stated she assists Resident 6's for her meals by making her sit up on the bed and telling Resident 6 what her food is and where the food is placed on her plate. CNA 6 often needs encouragement to eat. CNA 6 stated Resident 6 smells and touches her food so she knows what she is eating. CNA 6 stated Resident 6 was able to eat by herself. During an interview with the Infection Control Nurse (IPN 2), on 3/28/2024, at 1:45 PM, the IPN 2 stated Resident 6 was able to feed herself and move her upper extremities. During a concurrent interview with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) and record review of Resident 6's MDSC, on 3/28/2024, at 2:22 PM, the MDSC stated Resident 6's eating ability in the MDS was based on the weekly notes of the licensed nurses, interview and documents from the certified nursing assistants, and the assessment of the MDSC. MDSC stated Resident 6's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 6 needed substantial/maximal assistance for eating because she was blind. MDSC stated Resident 6's eating assessment should be set-up or clean up assistance if she was able to sit up on her own during meals and only needed to be informed where her food was on the plate. During the same interview with MDSC on 3/28/2024, at 2:22 PM, MDSC stated the MDS needs to reflect the correct level of acuity (the measure of a resident's severity of illness or medical condition) of the resident. MDSC stated the MDS entry under eating was based on the assessment of the charge nurse. MDSC stated he does not remember if he assessed Resident 6's eating ability during the look back period (the time period over which the resident's condition or is captured by the MDS assessment). A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI, assessment tool that helps nursing home staff in gathering definitive information on a resident's strengths and needs, which must be addressed in an individualized care plan) Process, revised on 10/4/2016, indicated that the purpose of the policy was to provide resident-assessments that accurately depict and identify resident-specific issues and objectives as required, while meeting state and federal guidelines and date submission requirements.
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 the preadmission screening assessment (PASRR - 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 the preadmission screening assessment (PASRR - Preadmission Screening and Resident Review - a federal requirement to ensure that every person entering a Medicaid Certified Nursing Facility [NF] receive a Level I screening and if necessary a Level II evaluation to ensure that their NF residence is appropriate and to identity what specialized services they may need) form was accurately completed for a resident who had a mental illness for one of three sampled residents (Resident 24) for PASRR care area. This deficient practice led to the resident not receiving the necessary and appropriate psychiatric level of treatment and evaluation in the facility. Findings: A review of the Resident 24's admission Record indicated Resident 24 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses of schizophrenia (a chronic and severe mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (a disease that occurs when there is a problem in the way the body regulates and uses sugar as fuel), and hyperlipidemia (a condition in which there are high levels of fat particles in the blood). A review of Resident 24's History and Physical (H&P, the initial clinical evaluation and examination of the resident), dated 3/1/2024, indicated Resident 24 was intermittently able to understand and make decisions. Resident 24's mental status was confused. Resident 24 was not oriented to time, place, and person. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment and care screening tool) dated 3/12/2024, indicated Resident 24's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) patterns were severely impaired. Resident 24 required substantial/maximal assist (helper does more than half the effort) for shower/bathe self and putting on/taking off footwear. Resident 24 required partial/moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) for toileting hygiene and personal hygiene (the ability to maintain hygiene including combing hair, shaving, washing/drying face and hands). The MDS also indicated Resident 24 had a psychiatric (relating to mental illness or its treatment)/mood disorder and was taking antipsychotic drugs (the main class of drugs used to treat people with schizophrenia). A review of Resident 24's PASRR Level I Screening document, dated 8/31/2023, indicated the PASRR Level I was negative. Section three of the PASRR indicated Resident 24 did not have a serious diagnosed mental disorder such as depressive disorder (low mood or loss of pleasure or interest in activities for long periods of time), anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities), panic disorder, Schizophrenia/Schizoaffective (a mental illness that causes loss of contact with reality) disorder, or symptoms of psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality), delusions (believed to be true or real but is actually false or unreal), and/or mood disturbance. Section three also indicated Resident 24 was not prescribed psychotropic medications (drug or other substance that affects how the brain works and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behavior) for mental illness. A review of Resident 24's PASRR Level I Screening document, dated 1/29/2024, indicated the PASRR Level I was negative. Section three of the PASRR indicated Resident 24 was did not have a serious diagnosed mental disorder such as depressive disorder, anxiety disorder, panic disorder, Schizophrenia/Schizoaffective disorder, or symptoms of psychosis, delusions, and/or mood disturbance. Section three also indicated Resident 24 was not prescribed psychotropic medications for mental illness. A review of Resident 24's Care Plan, dated 1/29/2024, indicated resident with diagnosis of paranoid Schizophrenia (characterized by predominately positive symptoms of schizophrenia including delusions and hallucinations) manifested by extreme paranoid hallucination interfering with activity of daily living (ADL) causing fear and inability to process internal stimuli causing stress and anger. Staff interventions were to give medication at bedtime for Schizophrenia, intervene as necessary to protect the rights and safety of others, approach/speak in a calm manner, divert attention, monitor behavior episodes, and attempt to determine underlying cause. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 7:38 AM with the admission Coordinator (AC), AC stated he was in charge of completing the PASSR. AC stated the facility was responsible for submitting the PASRR when a resident was readmitted to the facility. AC stated the resident's clinical records were reviewed for mental illness and medications and were inputted into the PASRR. AC stated it was important to review and input the resident's mental illness when completing the PASRR. AC stated if the PASRR was filled out incorrectly the resident would not get the recommendations needed for their plan of care. During the same concurrent interview with AC on 3/29/2024 at 7:38 AM and record review of the PASRR placed in Resident 24's chart, indicated the latest PASARR was completed on 8/31/2023. AC stated Resident 24 was readmitted to the facility. AC stated Resident 24 was negative for the Level I screening. AC reviewed section III indicating Resident 24 had no mental disorder and no psychotropic medications for mental illness. AC stated Resident 24 did not have any mental conditions. During the same concurrent interview with AC on 3/29/2024 at 7:38 AM and record review of Resident 24's admission Record, indicated Resident 24 had a diagnosis of Schizophrenia. A concurrent record review via the PASRR website with the AC indicated there was an updated PASRR dated 1/29/2024. The PASRR dated 1/29/2024 did not indicate Resident 24's mental illness (Schizophrenia) and psychotropic medication. A record review of Resident 24's medical record with AC, the AC was not able to determine when Resident 24 was diagnosed with Schizophrenia and when he started the psychotropic medication. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 24's medical record on 3/29/2024 at 8:12 AM with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC), MDSC stated Resident 24 was first admitted on [DATE] with the diagnosis of schizophrenia and was taking psychotropic medication. MDSC stated Resident 24 was readmitted from the acute hospital on 1/29/2024 and a PASSR was completed on 1/29/2024. MDSC stated Resident 24 had the diagnosis of schizophrenia and was taking psychotropic medication during this time (1/29/2024). MDSC stated the MDSC, AC, and licensed nurses were responsible for verifying the PASRR was completed accurately within seven days. MDSC stated another PASRR should had been submitted within the seven days since the PASRR done on 1/29/2024 was not correct since it indicated Resident 24 did not have mental disorder. MDSC stated it was important to submit an accurate PASRR in order to implement the recommendations made on the PASRR. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:34 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated PASRR needed to be completed accurately to determine the appropriate care needed and the correct placement for the resident. The DON stated the acute hospital would initiate the PASRR and the facility would follow up. The DON stated the PASRR should be reviewed for accuracy with seven days. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, admission Screening Resident Review (PASRR), revised 9/1/2023, indicated the facility staff will ensure that a PASRR Level I is completed for each resident prior to admission. The facility staff will complete a new PASRR upon readmission from the acute hospital if there has been a significant change in the resident's condition. A copy of the PASRR will be printed and placed in the resident's medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to review and revise the care plan for one of 13 sampled residents (Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to review and revise the care plan for one of 13 sampled residents (Resident 11) who has a history of seizures (epilepsy- abnormal electrical activity in the brain that happens quickly). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively affect the provision of care and services for Resident 11. Findings: A review of Resident 11's admission Record indicated Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the area between the brain and the thin tissues that cover and protect it), paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), and epilepsy. A review of Resident 11's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 1/10/2024, indicated Resident 11 was assessed having moderately impaired cognition (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) for daily decision making and required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) with eating, personal hygiene, upper/lower body dressing, and toileting hygiene. A review of Resident 11's Order Summary Report, dated 3/26/2024, indicated a physician order for the following medications for seizures: 1. Depakote Oral (Divalproex Sodium, medication for seizure) Tablet Delayed Release 125 mg (milligram-unit of measurement) give 1 mg by mouth two times a day for seizure disorder with a start date of 2/15/2024. 2. Levetiracetam Oral (medication for seizure) Solution 100 mg/ml (milliliter- unit of measurement) give 5 ml by mouth every 12 hours for seizure disorder with a start date of 12/26/2023. 3. Vimpat Oral Tablet 100 mg (Lacosamide, medication for seizure) give 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for seizure activity with a start date of 12/24/2023. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 11's care plan for seizures, with Registered Nurse Supervisor 1 (RNS 1), on 3/28/2024, at 9:20 AM, RNS 1 stated Resident 11 had a history of seizures. RNS 1 stated Resident 11's Dilantin (medication for seizure) was discontinued on 2/15/24 and currently taking Depakote, Levetiracetam, and Vimpat for her seizures. RNS 1 stated Resident 11's care plan did not reflect all of Resident 11's seizure medications. During the same interview with RNS 1 on 3/28/2024 at 9:20 AM, RNS 1 stated Resident 11's care plan should be revised to reflect all of Resident 11's current seizure medications. RNS 1 stated it is important for the care plan to be revised and updated because licensed staff follow the interventions indicated on the care plan for seizures. RNS 1 stated all licensed staff are responsible in revising the care plan. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 3/29/2024, at 1:52 PM, the DON stated all licensed staff are responsible for revising and updating the care plan. The DON stated Resident 11's medication should have been revised and corrected when Resident 11's Dilantin was discontinued. The DON stated it is important for care plans to be revised so staff know what the interventions are needed to care for the residents. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, effective on 9/7/2023, indicated: 1. Additional changes or updates to the resident's comprehensive care plan will be made based on the assessed needs of the resident. 2. The comprehensive care plan will be periodically reviewed and revised by Interdisciplinary Team (IDT- a group of healthcare professionals who work together to help residents receive the care they need) after each assessment which means after each MDS assessment as required, except discharge assessments. In addition, the comprehensive care plan will also be reviewed and revised at the following times: a. Onset of new problems. b. Change of condition. c. Other times as appropriate or necessary. d. Appropriate or necessary.
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 provide necessary respiratory care services for one (...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care services for one (1) of 1 sampled resident (Resident 16) for respiratory care area by failing to: 1. Ensure Resident 16's nasal cannula (NC, device used to deliver supplemental oxygen placed directly on a resident's nostril) tubing was changed per facility's policy. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 16 to develop a respiratory infection. 2. Place visible oxygen signage by Resident 16's door/wall prior to entering the room. This deficient practice had the potential for harm to Resident 16 and other residents, in an event of a fire. Findings: A review of Resident 16's admission Record indicated Resident 16 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs) with acute exacerbation (sudden worsening in airway function and respiratory symptoms), dependence on supplemental oxygen, anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities), and acute respiratory failure (an inability to maintain adequate oxygenation for tissues or adequate removal of carbon dioxide from tissues) with hypoxia (lack of oxygen in the tissues to sustain bodily function). A review of Resident 16's History and Physical (H&P, the initial clinical evaluation and examination of the resident), dated 3/26/2024, indicated Resident 16 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 16's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 2/11/2024, indicated Resident 16's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decision making were cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident 16 was dependent (helper does all the effort and resident does none of the effort to complete the acidity or the assistance of two or more helpers are required) for sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, and chair/bed-to-chair transfer. The MDS indicated Resident 16 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort, helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) for toileting hygiene, shower/bath self, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, roll left and right, and toilet transfer. The MDS indicated Resident 16's ability to walk ten feet and ability to sit to stand were not attempted due to medical condition or safety concerns. The MDS also indicated Resident 16 was on continuous oxygen therapy. A review of Resident 16's Care Plan, dated 2/3/2024, indicated Resident 16 was at risk for ineffective airway clearance potential for shortness of breath associated with COPD. Staff interventions included were to administer oxygen two (2) to three (3) liters per minute (LPM, volume of oxygen supplied over a period of time) via NC continuously via concentrator (a medical device that gives extra oxygen) for comfort, change oxygen tubing weekly and as needed every Monday, and encourage sustained deep breaths. A review of Resident 16's Physician Order Summary Report, dated 3/25/2024, indicated to: a. Administer oxygen 2 to 3 LPM via NC continuously via concentrator for comfort. b. Change oxygen tubing weekly and as needed every Monday. During an observation on 3/26/2024 at 8:40 AM in Resident 16's room, Resident 16 was sleeping with a nasal canula infusing oxygen at 2 LPM. Resident 16's NC tubing was dated 3/18/2024 (tubing used for eight days). There was no visible oxygen in use signage on Resident 16's door or wall. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/26/2024 at 10:27 AM in Resident 16's room with Restorative Nursing Assistant 2 (RNA 2), RNA 2 stated Resident 16 was receiving oxygen. RNA 2 stated the NC tubing label was dated 3/18/2024. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/26/2024 at 10:43 AM with Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2), LVN 2 stated Resident 16 received 2 to 3 LPM of oxygen. LVN 2 stated Resident 16's NC tubing was labeled and dated 3/18/2024. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/26/2024 at 12:09 PM outside Resident 16's door, RNA 2 placed an oxygen signage. RNA 2 stated there was no oxygen signage indicated Resident 16 was using oxygen. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 8:29 AM with the Infection Prevention Nurse 2 (IPN 2), IPN 2 stated the oxygen tubing should be labeled and changed weekly. IPN 2 stated the oxygen tubing used longer than a week could cause the resident to develop an infection since the tubing could accumulate a lot of bacteria with continued use. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:34 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated oxygen tubing should be labeled to know when the tubing was changed. The DON stated oxygen tubing should be changed weekly. The DON stated oxygen tubing should not be used longer than one week (seven days) to prevent harboring of bacteria. The DON stated harboring of bacteria could lead to the resident developing an infection. The DON also stated when residents were using oxygen, an oxygen label was supposed to be placed outside the door to allow everyone to know oxygen was in use. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure titled, Oxygen Therapy, revised 11/2017, indicated No Smoking signs will be prominently displayed wherever oxygen is being stored or administered. Oxygen tubing, mask, and cannulas will be changed no more than every seven (7) days and as needed. The supplies will be dated each time they are changed.
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 (1) of six (6) sampled residents (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 ensure one (1) of six (6) sampled residents (Resident 40) receive all medications in accordance with the physician's order and facility's policy and procedure (P&P) when Resident 40 was observed in possession of three (3) clear red capsules on 3/28/2024. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 40 to have an overdose of the medication, which could result in harm. Findings: A review of Resident 40's admission Record indicated Resident 40 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of hemiplegia (a condition caused by brain damage or spinal cord injury that leads to paralysis [loss of motor function in one or more muscles] on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (also known as a stroke, damage to tissue in the brain due to loss of oxygen to the area) affecting the left non-dominant side, degenerative disease of the nervous system (chronic condition that damage and destroy parts of the nervous system over time especially the brain), noninfective (not caused by an infection) gastroenteritis (inflammation of the lining of the stomach and intestines) and colitis (inflammation of the large intestine), and Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (a disease that occurs when there is a problem in the way the body regulates and uses sugar as fuel). A review of Resident 40's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 3/15/2024, indicated Resident 40's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decision making were moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 40 required partial/moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) for toileting hygiene, shower/bath self, upper and lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, personal hygiene (ability to maintain personal hygiene including combing hair, shaving, washing/drying face and hands), roll left and right, sit to stand, chair/bed-to-chair transfer, toilet transfer, tub/shower transfer, and walk ten feet. A review of the Physician Order Summary Report, dated 1/22/2024, indicated to give 1 capsule of docusate sodium (Colace, a stool softener that makes bowel movements softer and easier to pass, relieving constipation) by mouth two times a day for constipation, hold for loose stool. A review of Resident 40's Medication Administration Record (MAR, a medical record used by healthcare providers to document the administration of a medication or treatment) for the month of March 2024, indicated Resident 40 was administered all 56 doses of docusate sodium from 3/1/2024 to 3/27/2024. During a medication pass observation on 3/28/2024 at 8:28 AM in Resident 40's room with the Infection Prevention Nurse 2 (IPN 2), IPN 2 handed Resident 40's four medications (including 1 capsule of Colace) in a medication cup to Resident 40. Resident 40 took all the medications except the Colace capsule. Resident 40 took out a small clear zip lock bag from his bag on the bed which contained three (3) clear red capsules and took the Colace from the medication cup and placed the Colace into the zip lock bag along with the other 3 capsules. Resident 40 stated, I already took the pill this morning. During a concurrent interview on 3/28/2024 at 8:28 AM with IPN 2, IPN 2 stated Resident 40 had 3 Colace capsules with him. IPN 2 stated Resident 40 informed him he was hiding the Colace capsules. IPN 2 stated the 3 red and clear capsules in the possession of Resident 40 were Colace capsules. IPN 2 stated the capsules in Resident 40's possession were compared and verified when IPN 2 inspected the Colace bottle, and verified that they were Colace capsules that he was going to administer to Resident 40. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 9:59 AM in Resident 40's room, Resident 40 stated, I don't want to take too much, so I hid the pill. Resident 40 stated the nurses gave him the pill and he did not want to have diarrhea, so he kept the pills. Resident 40 stated, This morning, I used the pill I saved and took it, that's why I didn't want the one from earlier. Resident 40 stated when the nurses gave him the medications in the cup, he waited for the nurses to leave. Resident 40 stated, he took out the pill from the medication cup and hid it once the nurses left. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:34 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated when any Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN), brings the residents the medication(s), the LVN, needed to observe the residents take the medication(s). The DON stated the LVN should make sure the residents were taking all the medications that they needed to take. The DON stated when the LVN does not witness the residents taking the medication(s) given, it could lead to double dosing, missed medications, and could cause adverse reactions to the residents. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Medication Administration, revised 1/1/2012, indicated medications and treatments will be administered as prescribed to ensure compliance with dose guidelines. Medications must be given to the resident by the Licensed Nurse preparing the medication. The Licensed Nurse will chart the drug, time administered and initial his/her name with each medication administration.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

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 that a shower chair used by residents was in g...

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 that a shower chair used by residents was in good condition and free from stains. This deficient practice had the potential for the resident to feel uncomfortable during showers and affect the resident's quality of life. Findings: During an observation on 3/28/2024, at 10:06 AM, an unnamed Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) pushed a white shower chair and placed it outside of room [ROOM NUMBER]. The shower chair seat had brown and yellowish stains and the plastic woven backrest was ripped and worn out. During a concurrent observation and interview with Registered Nurse Supervisor 1 (RNS 1), on 3/28/2024, at 10:10 AM, RNS 1 stated the brown marks on the shower chair seat were old stains. RNS 1 stated the shower chair look old and needed to be replaced. RNS 1 stated she would not want to sit on that shower chair if she was a resident in the facility. During an interview with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) on 3/28/2024, at 10:15 AM, the MS stated the shower chair should not be used in the facility based on the condition that it was in. MS stated he was not aware that a shower chair in that condition was being used in the facility. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 3/28/2024, at 3 PM, the DON stated the shower chair had brown and yellowish stains and backrest was ripped. The DON stated CNAs should inform the charge nurse right away if the supplies and equipment in the facility are old so it can be replaced. The DON stated the resident's dignity and self-worth are affected if they use equipment that are stained and old and in addition it is to provide a safe and clean equipment for the resident. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled, Resident Rooms and Environment, revised on 1/1/2012, indicated, The Facility provides residents with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Facility Staff will provide residents with a pleasant environment and person-centered care that emphasizes the residents' comfort, independence, and personal needs and preferences.
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** 2. A review of Resident 11's admission Record indicated Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that i...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of Resident 11's admission Record indicated Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included nontraumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage (bleeding in the area between the brain and the thin tissues that cover and protect it), paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), and epilepsy (abnormal electrical activity in the brain that happens quickly). A review of Resident 11's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 11 was assessed having moderately impaired cognition for daily decision making and required substantial/maximal assistance with eating, personal hygiene, upper/lower body dressing, and toileting hygiene. During a concurrent observation in Resident 11's room and interview with CNA 1 on 3/26/2024, at 12:50 PM, Resident 11 was observed eating in bed with the head-of-the bed elevated (resident in a sitting position). CNA 1 stood on the right side of the bed and above Resident 11's eye level while feeding the resident's lunch. CNA 1 stated she should be sitting down at eye level of Resident 11 while assisting with feeding. CNA 1 stated she was not sitting because there was no available chair to sit on inside Resident 11's room. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2), on 3/27/2024, at 2:38 PM, LVN 2 stated staff assisting residents with meals need to be at eye level with the residents to encourage the resident to eat and ensure that the resident is eating properly. LVN 2 stated sitting down next to the resident while feeding makes the resident feel good and dignified. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled, Resident Rights, 1/1/2012, the P&P indicated, Employees are to treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity and honor the exercise of residents' rights. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to promote dignity and respect for two of three sampled residents (Resident 16 and 11) for the dignity care area by: 1. Ensuring Resident 16's urinary catheter bag (tube that drains urine from the bladder into a drainage bag) was covered with a dignity bag (a bag used to cover and hold the catheter drainage/collection bag, so it is not visible). 2. Failing to ensure facility staff did not stand above Resident 11's eye level while assisting the resident to eat. These deficient practices have the potential to affect Resident 16 and 11's self-esteem and self-worth and violates Resident 16 and 11's right to be treated with dignity. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 16's admission Record indicated Resident 16 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs) with acute exacerbation (sudden worsening in airway function and respiratory symptoms), urinary tract infection (UTI, an infection of the bladder and urinary system), and difficulty in walking. A review of Resident 16's History and Physical (H&P, the initial clinical evaluation and examination of the resident) dated 3/26/2024, indicated Resident 16 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 16's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 2/11/2024, indicated Resident 16's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decision making were cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident 16 was dependent (helper does all the effort and resident does none of the effort to complete the acidity or the assistance of two or more helpers are required) for sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, and chair/bed-to-chair transfer. The MDS indicated Resident 16 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort, helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) for toileting hygiene, shower/bath self, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, roll left and right, and toilet transfer. A review of Resident 16's Care Plan, dated 2/26/2024, indicated Resident 16 had an foley catheter due to diagnosis of obstructive uropathy (a disorder of the urinary tract that occurs due to obstructed urinary flow caused by structural or functional hinderance). During on observation on 3/26/24 at 12:56 PM in Resident 16's room, Resident 16 was lying in bed with an indwelling catheter bag with no dignity bag. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/26/2024 at 2:22 PM in Resident 16's room with Certified Nursing Assistant 2 (CNA 2), CNA 2 stated Resident 16's indwelling catheter bag was not covered with dignity bag, and it was supposed to be covered. During an interview on 3/27/2024 at 3:43 PM with CNA 3, CNA 3 stated the dignity bag should cover the indwelling catheter bag to protect the resident's dignity. CNA 3 stated the dignity bag prevents others from seeing the resident's urine. CNA 3 stated the dignity bag should had been placed as soon as Resident 16 returned from the hospital on 3/25/2024. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 8:29 AM with the Infection Prevention Nurse 2 (IPN 2), IPN 2 stated a dignity bag should be placed to cover the indwelling catheter bag to protect the residents' dignity. IPN 2 stated some residents may feel self-conscious about having their indwelling catheter bag uncovered. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:34 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated residents who had an indwelling catheter bag should have a dignity bag to preserve their dignity.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary care and services to ensure the resident's abilities in activities of daily living (ADLs) for two of two sampled residents (Resident 15 and 29) of advance daily living (ADLs) care area. 1. Facility failed to ensure Resident 15 was provided communication device with the resident's primary language and failed to ensure Resident 15 with limited range of motion (ROM - movement of the joints) receive appropriate positioning in bed. 2. Facility failed to ensure Resident 29 was provided a communication device (a visual aid with symbols, pictures, or words that users can point to or select to express their thoughts and needs) with the language that the resident was able to understand. This deficient practice prevented the resident from communicating with the staff and had a potential to delay receiving appropriate care/treatment the resident needed. Findings: 1. A review of the admission record indicated Resident 15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included bilateral primary osteoarthritis of knee (a degenerative joint disease that affects both knees, causing pain, stiffness, swelling, and decreased mobility), unspecified protein calorie malnutrition (a disorder caused by a lack of proper nutrition or an inability to absorb nutrients from food), Alzheimer's disease (a brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills, and eventually, the ability to carry out the simplest tasks), unspecified dementia (a term used to describe a group of symptoms affecting memory, thinking and social abilities), and unspecified hearing loss, stiffness of unspecified joint, not elsewhere classified (unable to move one or more joints properly). A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 3/15/2024, indicated Resident 15 was severely impaired in cognitive skills (ability to understand and make decision) for daily decision making, and needed total assistance from the staff for the activities of daily living such as eating, oral and toilet hygiene, shower, and dressing. A record review of Resident 15's care plan initiated on 6/17/2021, indicated the resident has an ADL self-care performance deficit r/t confusion, dementia, impaired balance, limited mobility, bilateral primary osteoarthritis of knee. Interventions indicated to maintain safe and hazard free environment. A record review of Resident 15's care plan revised on 3/11/2024, indicated the resident has communication problem related to (r/t) language barrier. The goal indicted, the resident will maintain current level of communication function by .using communication board. The care plan indicated the following interventions: a. To use alternative communication tools as needed. b. Resident prefers to communicate in Language 1. c. Resident requires (translate from staff or online translator assistance) with communication. During an observation in Resident 15's room on 3/26/2024 at 8:52 AM, Resident 15 was in bed, awake, there was no communication board in the resident's room. Observed Resident 15's head of bed was at approximately 90 degrees; Resident 15 was very low in bed in a crouch position with legs up. During an interview with Certified Nurse Assistant 1 (CNA 1) on 3/26/2024 at 8:57 AM, CNA 1 stated Resident 15 was too low in bed and did not look comfortable. CNA 1 stated, he is too low, he should be more up, sometimes he slides down, he does not look comfortable. The head of the bed should be lower. The head of the bed looks to be at about 90 degrees, it is all the way up, it should be at 45 degrees so he would not slide down. During the same interview with CNA 1 on 3/26/2024 at 8:57 AM, CNA 1 stated there was no communication or picture board at Resident 15's bedside to be able to communicate to staff. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/28/2024 at 2:51 PM, the DON stated, Resident 15 has been here for a very long time. He does not like to be repositioned; he does not like to be moved. If I was as old as Resident 15, I would not want to be bothered either, but there should be more frequent visual checks to make sure Resident 15 is positioned correctly in bed. A review of the facility's Policy titled Position and Body Alignment, revised 1/1/2012, indicated, to improve or maintain the resident's self-performance in moving to and from a laying position, turning side to side, and positioning while in bed. IV. Position resident to maintain comfort and redistribute pressure. VII. When changing resident's positions: F. Avoid excess stress on contractures (a fixed tightening or shortening of muscles, tendons, ligaments, or skin that affect joint mobility). G. Semi-Fowler's Position (a position in which an individual lies on their back on a bed, with the head of the bed elevated between 30-45 degrees, and the legs of the patient can be either straight or bent at the knees). ii. Prevent resident from sliding to foot of bed by raisin knees slightly, using frame of bed or a pillow. 2. A review of the admission record indicated Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease (is a medical condition in which a person's kidneys cease functioning on a permanent basis leading to the need for a regular course of long-term dialysis [a procedure to remove waste products and excess fluid from the blood when the kidneys stop working properly] or a kidney [a pair of small organs in the body that take away waste matter from the blood] transplant to maintain life), paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (a type of irregular heartbeat), and cardiomegaly (enlargement of the heart). A review or Resident 29's History and Physical dated 7/13/2023 indicated Resident 29 has the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of the MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 29 was independent for the activities of daily living such as eating, oral and toilet hygiene, shower, and dressing. A record review of Resident 29's care plan initiated on 1/5/2024 and revised on 2/20/2024, indicated the resident has communication problem r/t language barrier. The goal indicted, the resident will maintain current level of communication function by .using communication board. The care plan indicated the following interventions: a. To use alternative communication tools as needed. b. Resident prefers to communicate in Language 1. c. Resident requires (translate from staff or online translator assistance) with communication. During an observation in Resident 29's room on 3/26/2024 at 9:34 AM, Resident 29 was resting in bed and greeted surveyor in Language 1. There was no communication board at bedside. During an interview with Registered Nurse 1 (RN1) on 3/27/2024 at 8:40 AM, RN1 stated, for Language 1 speaking residents the staff use CNAs or a housekeeper to translate. RN1 stated, we also use communication boards, we provide them for the residents. We use translation from other staff, it they are busy we should use the communication board at bedside., if it pertains to nursing information or medical terms, we should not use the housekeeper to translate that. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/28/2024 at 2:51 PM, the DON stated, Resident 15 is Language 1 speaking and hard of hearing. Most of the time we assign stated, Resident 15 and Resident 29 did not have communication boards at bedside. During an interview with Resident 29 on 3/29/2024 at 8:54 AM, Resident 29 stated that some of the staff did communicate with Resident 29 in Language 1 but others would speak to her in English. Resident 29 stated in Language 1, I understand a few words in English, but I have asked them since I was admitted I would prefer to speak in Language 1, that way I would understand what they are telling me. Resident 29 stated she had not been provided with a communication board since admitted in the facility and the nurses that spoke to her in a different language were nice but most of the time, she did not understand what they were saying and could not hold a full conversation with them. A review of the facility's Policy titled Accommodation of Residents' Communication Needs Operations Manual-Social Services, revised March 2017, indicated, The Facility provides assistance to residents with communication challenges through a number of adaptive services. VI. The following are examples of adaptive devices the staff may provide the resident: B. Communication Boards/Charts
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of the admission record indicated Resident 36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of the admission record indicated Resident 36 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included unspecified atrial fibrillation (an irregular heart rhythm), acute respiratory failure with hypoxia (a condition where the body doesn't have enough oxygen in the tissues), morbid obesity (weight more than 80 to 100 pounds above the ideal body weight), dysphagia, and oropharyngeal phase (swallowing problems occurring in the mouth and/or the throat). A review of the History and Physical report completed on 2/7/2027, indicated Resident 36 did have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 1's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident needed maximal assistance from the staff for the activities of daily living and was dependent for toileting hygiene, showers, and dressing. A review of Resident 36's care plan initiated 2/5/2024 and revised on 3/27/2024, indicated the resident has an activities of daily living (ADL) self-care performance deficit with an overhead trapeze (a triangle-shaped metal bar. It hangs from a metal frame, which is attached to the headboard and footboard of the bed) on bed to help increase bed mobility. The care plan indicated interventions which include encourage the resident to use bell to call for assistance and to encourage the resident to participate to the fullest extent possible with each interaction. During an observation on 3/26/2024 at 9:17 AM, Resident 36 was sitting up in bed watching television (TV). Overhead trapeze hanging next to resident's head had multiple cords hanging from it. The call light, bed remote were some of the cords that were hanging from the overhead trapeze. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 on 3/28/2024 at 7:31 AM, RN 1 stated, the resident has a trapeze overhead. She attaches the call light up on the trapeze. She can reach the cords, the bed remote and the call light. That is not the practice of the facility of have the wires up with the trapeze, the resident can hurt herself and possibly also hurt her head. She has periods of confusion, and she could get tangled and that can cause an accident. During concurrent observation on 3/28/2024 at 7:54 AM, Resident 36 was sitting up in bed eating breakfast. The metal overhead trapeze was hanging above the resident's bed, hanging next to resident left side making contact and slightly hitting Resident 36's face. Resident 36 stated, it is hitting the side of my face, unfortunately I have no choice. I have the wires there because I cannot reach the remote for the bed or call light most of the time. During a concurrent observation and interview with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 on 3/28/2024 at 7:59 AM, CNA1 stated the metal overhead trapeze was making contact with Resident 36's face and head. CNA1 stated, The trapeze can hurt her if it hits her face or head. I cannot remove it; I would have to call maintenance. The trapeze is heavy and it can cause an accident. During an interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/28/2024 at 2:59 PM, the DON stated, Resident 36 loves to put the call light up there and the resident is fluctuating with being alert and confused at times. The DON also stated, the trapeze might be metal or made out of iron. I would say she could get injured if it makes contact with her face or head. A review of the facility's policy and procedure, Resident Rights-Accommodation of Needs, revised 1/1/2012, indicated, to ensure that the facility provides an environment and services that meet residents' individual needs. The policy also indicated Residents' individual needs and preferences are accommodated to the extent possible, except when the health and safety of the individual or other residents would be endangered. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Rooms and Environment, reviewed 1/2024, indicated the facility will provide residents with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. The facility staff will aim to create a personalized, homelike atmosphere, paying close attention to the cleanliness and order. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of three sampled residents (Resident 16 and 36) were provided with a safe environment to prevent avoidable accidents and hazards for accidents care area. This deficient practice had the potential to place the residents at risk for falls, injuries, and delayed care. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 16's admission Record indicated Resident 16 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD- disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs) with acute exacerbation (sudden worsening in airway function and respiratory symptoms), dependence on supplemental oxygen, anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities), and difficulty in walking. A review of Resident 16's History and Physical (H&P, the initial clinical evaluation and examination of the resident) dated 3/26/2024, indicated Resident 16 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 16's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 2/11/2024, indicated Resident 16's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decision making were cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident 16 was dependent (helper does all the effort and resident does none of the effort to complete the acidity or the assistance of two or more helpers are required) for sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, and chair/bed-to-chair transfer. The MDS indicated Resident 16 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort, helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) for toileting hygiene, shower/bath self, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, roll left and right, and toilet transfer. The MDS indicated Resident 16's ability to walk ten feet and ability to sit to stand were not attempted due to medical condition or safety concerns. The MDS also indicated Resident 16 was taking high-risk drugs: antianxiety (treat symptoms of anxiety), antidepressant (treat depression), antibiotic (treat bacterial infections), opioid (treat persistent or severe pain), and antiplatelet (prevent blood clots) medications. A review of Resident 16's Care Plan, dated 1/14/2023 indicated Resident 16 uses antianxiety medications related to anxiety disorder. Staff interventions were to monitor the resident for safety. Resident 16's antianxiety medication was associated with an increased risk of confusion, amnesia (a partial or total loss of memory), loss of balance, and cognitive impairment that looks like dementia (progressive brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills) and increases the risk of falls, broken hips, and legs. Adverse reactions to antianxiety therapy included drowsiness, clumsiness, slow reflexes, confusion and disorientation, dizziness, lightheadedness, impaired thinking and judgement, memory loss, forgetfulness, and blurred or double vision. A review of Resident 16's Fall Care Plan, dated 2/3/2024, indicated Resident 16 was at risk for falls due to the following diagnosis anxiety (on Xanax, [medication used to treat anxiety disorders and panic disorders]), pain (on gabapentin, medication used to treat partial seizures [sudden bust of electrical movement in the brain which causes changes in behavior, movements and consciousness] and neuropathic [nerve damage leads to pain, weakness, numbness, or tingling in one or more parts to the body] pain) and Norco [(medication used to relieve moderate to severe pain)] - which cause dizziness), and depression (on Remeron [medication used to treat depression]). Staff interventions were to anticipate the resident's needs, be sure the resident's call light was within reach, and monitor/intervene for factors causing falls. A review of Resident 16's Altered Mood State Care Plan, dated 2/3/2024, indicated depression manifested by verbalization of sadness. Staff interventions were to monitor/document/report adverse reactions to antidepressant therapy: gait (a manner of walking or moving on foot) changes, rigid (stiff) muscles, balance problems, movement problems, tremors (shaking or trembling movements), muscle cramps, falls, and dizziness. A review of Resident 16's Care Plan, dated 2/3/2024, indicated Resident 16 has a decreased ability to perform self-care related to impaired activity tolerance, imbalance/safety, impaired coordination, and weakness. Staff interventions were to provide functional mobility training (rehabilitation techniques), graded functional activities (increasing or decreasing the difficulty of the activity provided), and occupational therapy treatment as indicated. A review of Resident 16's Care Plan, dated 2/5/2024, indicated Resident 16 uses antidepressant medication Remeron related to depression manifested by feelings of sadness. Staff interventions were to monitor adverse reactions to antidepressant therapy such as hallucinations/delusions, suicidal thoughts, decline in activities of daily living ability, gait changes, rigid muscles, balance problems, movement problems, muscle cramps, falls, and dizziness/vertigo (feeling of spinning, even when not moving). A review of Resident 16's Care Plan, dated 3/26/2024, indicated Resident 16 presented with tendency to lose balance during transfers and ambulation related to decreased motor planning (ability to organize the body's actions), decreased safety awareness, increased loss of balance, and leg weakness. Staff interventions were to provide physical therapy orders daily three times a week for four weeks, gait training, and group therapy. A review of Resident 16's Fall Risk Evaluation, dated 3/25/2024, indicated Resident 16 was at high risk for falls. During an observation on 3/26/2024 at 8:40 AM in Resident 16's room, Resident 16 was sleeping with a nasal canula (NC - device used to deliver supplemental oxygen placed directly on a resident's nostril) infusing oxygen at 2 liters per minute (LPM - volume of oxygen supplied over a period of time). Resident 16's right side of the bed was against the wall. On the left side of Resident 16's bed was a nightstand, 2 cabinets each with four drawers, a black stand, a trash can, an oxygen concentrator (a medical device that gives extra oxygen), and a bedside table. All the items on the left side of the bed were parallel and equivalent to the length of the bed. At the foot of Resident 16's bed was his wheelchair. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/29/2024 at 8:37 AM of Resident 16's room with the Infection Prevention Nurse 2 (IPN 2), IPN 2 stated there were 3 nightstands, an oxygen concentrator, a trash can, and a bedside table placed parallel on the left side of the resident's bed. IPN 2 stated Resident 16's room had a lot of clutter. IPN 2 stated it was not safe for Resident 16 to have all the items next to the resident's bed. IPN 2 stated there was too much stuff on the floor. IPN 2 also stated Resident 16's wheelchair was at the foot of the bed. IPN 2 stated in an emergency situation, all the stuff on the left side of bed needed to be moved out before we can bring the wheelchair closer to the resident to be able to assist him with transfer and evacuate. IPN 2 stated the clutter would cause a delay to access Resident 16. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:34 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated Resident 16's room was tight. The DON stated it was Resident 16's preference for all the items to be placed next to his bed and she did not think Resident 16 was at risk for falls. The DON stated Resident 16's room was not free of accident hazards with all the items next to his bed. The DON stated Resident 16 was able to walk around in short distances and the resident's room arrangement was not an ideal environment for the resident. The DON stated staff would take longer to reach Resident 16 in case of an emergency because of all the clutter next to the resident's bed. During the same interview and a concurrent record review of the facility's room measurements with the DON on 3/29/2024 at 10:34 AM, the DON stated Resident 16's room was one room that required a room waiver (a document recording the waiving of a right or claim). The DON stated Resident 16's room was less than the required 80 square feet (sq ft - unit of measurement) per resident. The DON stated Resident 16 was high risk for fall according to the fall risk evaluation and the resident was taking medications which put him at risk for falls. The DON also stated Resident 16 had anxiety attacks which could place him at risk for falls and injury. The DON stated if Resident 16 had an emergency, staff would be slowed down in reaching the resident and providing him with the needed care due to the items placed next to the resident's bed. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Safety, reviewed 1/2024, indicated residents will be evaluated on admission, quarterly and whenever there is a change in condition to identify circumstances that pose a risk for the safety and wellbeing of the resident.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the storage, preparation and distribution of food was done under sanitary conditions for fifty-two (52) residents of t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the storage, preparation and distribution of food was done under sanitary conditions for fifty-two (52) residents of the facility by: 1. Facility failed to ensure that conventional oven temperature knob indicates the temperature setting. 2. Facility failed to ensure that food items inside kitchen produce refrigerator and dry storage were labeled with a received date and/ or expiration date, and expired food items were discarded and not mixed with other non-expired foods. 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 and can lead hospitalization. Findings: 1. During observation and interview with the Dietary Staff Supervisor (DSS) and [NAME] on 3/26/2024 at 8:31 AM, in the kitchen, DSS stated, we do not know the temperature of the oven, the knob has no settings printed on there. It was difficult to guess, maybe the food does not heat or cook properly and that can be dangerous for the residents if the food does not cook properly. [NAME] stated, the stove knobs have no settings (unable to recall since when), sometimes it does not heat accordingly. I have to guess the temperature when I cook. During an interview with Maintenance Supervisor (MS) on 3/29/2024 at 8:55 AM, MS stated, the numbers on the temperature knob are faded. MS stated, the exact temperature is important to cook since it can be an issue, it can be dangerous to not know the exact temperatures when cooking the food for the residents. 2. During concurrent observation of the kitchen produce refrigerator and interview with the DSS on 3/26/2024 at 8:03 AM, DSS stated some of the food items inside the kitchen produce refrigerator were not labeled with date opened or expiration date. DSS further stated today's date was 3/26/2024 and some of the food had passed the use by date. DSS stated the following foods observed in the produce refrigerator were as follows: a. Parmesan cheese with date of best by (use by) 3/18/2024. b. Whole egg mayonnaise use by 3/15/2024. c. Premium sweet pickle relish use by 3/17/2024. d. Liquid whole eggs with citric acid use by 3/25/2024. e. Cream cheese with open date of 3/10/2024 best by date 3/18/2024. f. Frozen sausage labeled with used by date of 3/15/2024. g. Frozen pizza dough and doughnuts not labeled with used by or expiration date. During concurrent observation of the kitchen produce refrigerator and interview with the DSS on 3/26/2024 at 8:07 AM, DSS stated, I go through the produce section when I do inventory, when things go bad, I take them out. I must have missed all the expired food items. During concurrent observation of the dry storage and interview with the DSS on 3/26/2024 at 8:10 AM, DSS stated the black eye peas was not labeled with open date or expiration date. DSS stated, I do not know why the black eye peas are not labeled, all staff must check the food. During the same observation of the shelves above the stove, the following items did not have a label of open date and/ or expiration date: ground black pepper, oregano leaves, domestic paprika and dark chili powder. During a review of the facility's policies and procedures titled Food Storage, reviewed January 2024, indicated, Food items will be stored, thawed, and prepared in accordance with good sanitary practice. All items will be correctly labeled and dated.
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 to reduce inappro...

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 to reduce inappropriate antibiotic (medication used to kill bacteria and to treat infections) use by not administering antibiotic drug if the McGeers (named Infection Screening Evaluation in facility's medical record, surveillance definitions of infections in Long-Term Care Facilities) criteria were not met for two (2) of three (3) sampled residents (Residents 16 and 35) for antibiotic care area. This deficient practice had the potential for the residents to develop antibiotic resistance (when bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites no longer respond to antimicrobial medicine and become ineffective making infections difficult or impossible to treat increasing the risk of disease spread, severe illness, disability, and death) and suffer adverse side effects from unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic use. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 16's admission Record indicated Resident 16 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs) with acute exacerbation (sudden worsening in airway function and respiratory symptoms), pneumonia (lung inflammation caused by bacterial or viral infection), sepsis (the body's overwhelming and life-threatening response to infection that can lead to tissue damage, organ failure, and death), and urinary tract infection (UTI, an infection of the bladder and urinary system). A review of Resident 16's History and Physical (H&P, the initial clinical evaluation and examination of the resident) dated 3/26/2024, indicated Resident 16 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 16's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 2/11/2024, indicated Resident 16's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decision making were cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident 16 was dependent (helper does all the effort and resident does none of the effort to complete the acidity or the assistance of two or more helpers are required) for sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, and chair/bed-to-chair transfer. The MDS indicated Resident 16 required substantial/maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort, helper lifts or holds trunk or limbs and provides more than half the effort) for toileting hygiene, shower/bath self, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, roll left and right, and toilet transfer. A review of Resident 16's Physician Order Summary Report, dated 3/25/2024, indicated Resident 16 was prescribed Cefepime (an antibiotic used to treat a wide range of bacterial infections) one (1) gram (gm, unit of measurement) intravenous (IV, administered into a vein) every 12 hours for pneumonia for four days to start on 3/26/2024. A review of Resident 16's Care Plan, dated 3/26/2024, indicated Resident 16 had diagnosis of pneumonia and was on intravenous antibiotic until 3/30/2024. Staff interventions included were to administer antibiotic as per physician orders, notify the physician of any significant changes, and to monitor temperature/pulse as ordered. A review of Resident 16's Care Plan, dated 3/28/2024, indicated Resident 16 had a potential for adverse side effects from antibiotic therapy used 3/27/2024 to 3/30/2024 due to not meeting McGeers Criteria (named Infection Screening Evaluation in facility's medical record, surveillance definitions of infections in Long-Term Care Facilities) for Cefepime. Staff interventions included were to monitor resident for any adverse side effects, monitor for change in level of consciousness, and inform the physician of any changes in the resident's status. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/28/2024 at 11:00 AM of Resident 16's Infection Screening Evaluation with the Infection Prevention Nurse 1 (IPN 1), IPN 1 stated the Infection Screening Evaluation was the computer version of the McGeer's Criteria. IPN 1 stated Resident 16's screening score was zero (0). IPN 1 stated a score of 0 was a suspected infection and the physician should be informed. IPN 1 stated score of 1 met the McGeer's Criteria to receive the antibiotic. IPN 1 stated the physician was not notified of Resident 16's Infection Screening Evaluation score of 0. IPN 1 stated the physician should have been notified immediately when the assessment score was 0 and did not meet the criteria to receive the antibiotic. IPN 1 stated the purpose of the Infection Screening Evaluation was to determine if the symptoms the resident was experiencing required the antibiotic. IPN 1 stated Resident 16 should not be given the antibiotic if he did not need the antibiotic. IPN 1 stated when residents were given unnecessary antibiotics, the residents could develop resistance to the antibiotic. 2. A review of Resident 35's admission Record indicated Resident 35 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of Extended Spectrum Beta Lactamase (ESBL, enzymes break down and destroy some commonly used antibiotics) resistance, open wound of unspecified external genital organs male (penis, scrotum [external pouch that contains the testicles] and testicles), cutaneous (relating to the skin) abscess (an enclosed collection of pus in tissues, organs, or confined spaces in the body) of groin (area between the abdomen and the thigh), bacteremia (bacteria in the blood), and Type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disease that occurs when there is a problem in the way the body regulates and uses sugar as fuel) with diabetic neuropathy (a type of nerve damage that can occur in people with diabetes). A review of Resident 35's H&P, dated 3/1/2024, indicated Resident 35 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 35's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 35's cognitive skills for daily decision making were cognitively intact. The MDS indicated Resident 35 required substantial/maximal assistance for toileting hygiene, shower/bathe, upper and lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, personal hygiene (ability to maintain personal hygiene including combing hair, shaving, washing/dry face and hands), roll left and right, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to stand, chair/bed-to-chair transfer, toilet transfer, and tub/shower transfer. The MDS also indicated Resident 35 had an indwelling catheter (tube that drains urine from the bladder into a drainage bag). A review of Resident 35's Physician Order Summary Report, dated 2/29/2024, indicated Resident 35 was prescribed Ertapenem Sodium (an antibiotic used to treat severe infections caused by a wide variety of bacterial infections) 1 gm - use 1 dose intravenously one time a day for ESBL of urine for nine days to start on 3/1/2024. A review of Resident 35's Care Plan, dated 3/28/2024, (care plan created 28 days after Resident 35 received antibiotic) indicated Resident 35 had a potential for adverse side effects from antibiotic therapy used 3/1/2024 to 3/8/2024 due to not meeting McGeers Criteria for Ertapenem. Staff interventions included were to monitor resident for any adverse side effects to antibiotic, monitor vital signs for any abnormalities, and inform the physician of any adverse side effects or changes in level of consciousness. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/28/2024 at 11:00 AM of Resident 35's Infection Screening Evaluation IPN 1, IPN 1 stated Resident 35's screening score was 0. IPN 1 stated Resident 35's physician was not notified of the Infection Screening Evaluation score that indicated he did not meet the criteria to receive the antibiotic. IPN 1 stated the physician should have been notified immediately when the assessment score was 0 and did not meet the criteria to receive the antibiotic. IPN 1 stated the purpose of the Infection Screening Evaluation was to determine if the symptoms the resident was experience required the antibiotic. IPN 1 stated Resident 35 should not be given the antibiotic if he did not need to antibiotic. IPN 1 stated when residents were given unnecessary antibiotics, the residents could develop resistance to the antibiotic. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:34 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the physician should be notified when a resident's McGeer's Criteria had a score of 0. The DON stated the physician should be made aware the resident did not meet the criteria to receive the antibiotic and ask if the physician wanted to continue with the antibiotic. The DON stated the physician should be notified as soon as Infection Screening Evaluation was completed and showed the resident did not meet the criteria to receive the antibiotic. The DON stated the importance of implementing the Infection Screening Evaluation and notifying the physician when the criteria was not met was to prevent the residents from developing drug resistance to antibiotics. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Antibiotic Stewardship, revised 5/20/2021, indicated the purpose of the Antibiotic Stewardship Program was to optimize use of antibiotics by improving prescribing practices and reduce inappropriate antibiotic use. The facility will implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program (ASP) to promote appropriate use of antibiotics optimizing the treatment of infection, reducing the threat of antibiotic resistance, reducing adverse events associated with antibiotic use and improve outcomes for residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide education, offer, and/or document the updated Covid-19 (Coronavirus Disease 19, a respiratory viral infection that affects primaril...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide education, offer, and/or document the updated Covid-19 (Coronavirus Disease 19, a respiratory viral infection that affects primarily the lungs and result in cough and difficulty breathing) for the year 2023-2024 vaccinations for 96 of 105 employees. This deficient practice placed the residents and staff at risk for possible Covid-19 infection due to missed vaccination dosage. Findings: A review of the undated Employee List and Vaccines, it did not indicate how many employees were offered, received, and/or declined the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccine. The Employee List indicated 3 employees were exempt from the vaccination. A review of the Covid-19 Vaccination Employee Consent or Refused, dated 11/16/2023, 11/28/2023, and 11/29/2023, indicated 3 employees received the updated Covid-19 2023-2024 vaccination offsite (not at the facility). During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 10:18 AM with Certified Nursing Assistant 7 (CNA 7), CNA 7 stated CNA 7 the last covid vaccine offered (unable to recall when) by the facility was the bivalent (Covid booster) vaccination. CNA 7 stated CNA 7 was not offered the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024. CNA 7 stated CNA 7 had not declined any covid vaccinations offered by the facility. CNA 7 stated every time a vaccine was offered, CNA 7 consents and receives the vaccination. CNA 7 did not have a consent or refusal form for the updated Covid-19 for the 2023-2024 vaccine. During a concurrent interview and record review of the staff Covid-19 immunizations records on 3/28/2024 at 11:50 AM with the Infection Prevention Nurse 1 (IPN 1), IPN 1 stated she verbally offered and consented two (2) employees for the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccine on 11/13/2023. IPN 1 stated she received the vaccine along with two other employees on 11/13/2023. IPN 1 stated there were 3 employees who received the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccine offsite and declined the vaccine. IPN 1 stated the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccine should be offered to all employees. IPN 1 stated the employees needed to sign a consent or declination form when she offered the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccination to the employees. IPN 1 stated there was no declination forms signed by the employees who did not receive the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccination. During the same interview and record review of the Employee List and Vaccines on 3/28/2024 at 11:50 AM with IPN 1, IPN 1 stated the Employee List and Vaccines form was not completed. During the same interview 3/28/2024 at 11:50 AM with IPN 1, IPN 1 stated the Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccine became available around October 2023. IPN 1 stated she was responsible to offer and document when the vaccination was consented, received, or declined. IPN 1 stated the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccinations were not ordered for the employees. IPN 1 did not respond when asked how all employees were notified of the vaccination clinic since employees had different work schedules and shifts. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 2:46 PM with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated CNA 1 could not remember the last time the facility offered her the Covid- 19 vaccination. CNA 1 stated when the facility offered a vaccination, she would need to sign a consent or refusal form. CNA 1 did not have a consent or refusal form for the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccine. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 5:50 PM with the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC), MDSC stated MDSC could not recall the last time the facility offered the Covid- 19 vaccine. MDSC stated if the facility had offered him the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccine then he would have signed a refusal form. MDSC did not have a consent or refusal form for the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccine. During an interview on 3/29/2024 at 10:34 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the facility offered her the covid vaccine sometime in June of 2023 (prior to the availability of Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccine). The DON stated when the covid vaccination was offered they need to sign the consent or declination form and be provided a copy. The DON did not have a consent or refusal form of the facility staff for the updated Covid-19 for the year 2023-2024 vaccine. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, SARS-CoV-2 (Covid- 19) Vaccination Program, revised 8/2/2023, indicated although the California Department of Public Health has rescinded its requirement for healthcare worker vaccination, the facility will continue to offer vaccine and booster doses per the requirements of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), the Centers and Disease Control (CDC), and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and document such. The facility must also maintain records of the vaccination status of all workers. A review of the CDC website titled, Stay Up to Date with Covid-19 Vaccines, dated 3/7/2024, indicated the CDC recommends the 2023-2024 updated Covid-19 vaccines: Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Or Novavax, to protect against serious illness from Covid-19. The CDC 2023-2024 updated vaccines: As of 10/3/2023, the 2023-2024 updated Novovax vaccine was recommended by the CDC for use in the United States. As of 9/12/2023, the 2023-2023 updated Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna Covid-19 vaccines were recommended by the CDC for use in the United States. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html#preferential
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy to post the nurse staffing information hours at the start of each shift. On 3/26/2024, the facility did not...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy to post the nurse staffing information hours at the start of each shift. On 3/26/2024, the facility did not post the nurse staffing information for the current date and did not indicate the total number of projected hours and the actual hours of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift. This deficient practice had the potential to inaccurately reflect the actual nurses providing direct care to the residents. Findings: During a general observation at the nurse's station and interview on 3/26/2024 at 9:19 AM, Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated the Nurse Staffing Information posted was not updated, and last date the Nurse Staffing Information document posted was 3/24/26. DSD further stated, today's date is 3/26/2024. During a follow up interview, on 3/27/2024 at 2:20 PM, the DSD stated she was not quite sure of what the Nurse Staffing Information sheets format was required to post. DSD stated, the staffing sheet was created by the previous DSD. I made copies and just update it daily. I was just using that one. It was what I was handed from the previous DSD. DSD also stated the Nursing staffing information sheet that is being used and posted was not for the current date and did not indicate whether the numbers in the column was the projected nursing hours or the actual nursing hours. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Nursing Department-Staffing, Scheduling & Postings, reviewed January 2024, indicated Nurse Staffing Postings: A. The Facility will post the following information on a daily basis: i. Facility name ii. The current date iii. The total number and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift. B. The Facility will post the nurse staffing data specified above, on daily basis at the beginning of each shift
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure 12 out of 22 resident rooms (Rooms 3, 4, 5, 6,...

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 12 out of 22 resident rooms (Rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) met the requirements of 80 square feet (sq. ft.) for each resident in multiple resident bedrooms. This deficient practice had the potential to affect the residents' personal space, decrease freedom of mobility and could compromise the provision of care. Findings: During an observation of the facility and resident's rooms from 3/26/2024 to3/29/2024, Rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18 did not meet the minimum requirement of 80 sq. ft. per resident in multiple residents' rooms. During an interview with Resident 33 on 3/29/2024, at 9:50 AM, Resident 33 stated he was comfortable in his room and had enough space for his belongings and wheelchair. A review of the facility's Client Accommodation Analysis Form, dated 3/27/2024, the facility had several rooms that measured less than the required 80 square footages per resident in multiple bedrooms. The following resident bedrooms were: 1) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 222 sq. ft., to equal 74 sq. ft. per resident. 2) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 194 sq. ft., to equal 64.6 sq. ft. per resident. 3) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 212 sq. ft., to equal 70.6 sq. ft. per resident. 4) room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) and measured 148 sq. ft., to equal 74 sq. ft. per resident. 5) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 219 sq. ft., to equal 73 sq. ft. per resident. 6) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 209 sq. ft., to equal 69.6 sq. ft. per resident. 7) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 227 sq. ft., to equal 75.6 sq. ft. per resident. 8) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 211 sq. ft., to equal 70.3 sq. ft. per resident. 9) room [ROOM NUMBER] and room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 221 sq. ft., to equal 73.6 sq. ft. per resident. 10) room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) and measured 230 sq. ft., to equal 76.6 sq. ft. per resident. 11) room [ROOM NUMBER] (4 beds) and measured 293 sq. ft., to equal 73.25 sq. ft. per resident. During an observation of the facility and residents' room from 3/26/2024 to 3/29/2024, the residents residing in the rooms (Rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) with an application for variance were observed to have enough space to move freely inside the rooms. Each resident inside the affected rooms had beds and side tables with drawers. There was an adequate room for the operation and use of wheelchairs, walkers, or canes. The room variance did not affect the care and services provided to the residents when nursing staff were observed providing are to these residents. The Department is recommending approval of the room waiver request for 12 of 22 rooms (Rooms 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 18).
Nov 2023 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise the care plan for one (1) of three (3) sampled...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to revise the care plan for one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident 1) to include bowel and bladder retraining assessment as indicated on the bowel and bladder screener (assessment of how the resident's bladder and bowel are working). This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 1 not to receive specific interventions to maximize control of the bowel and bladder function. Findings: A review of the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included history of falling, left hip fracture, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (when a person lacks bladder control due to brain, spinal cord, or nerve problems). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/3/23, indicated Resident 1 had severely impaired cognition (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and the senses) and required extensive, one-person physical assistance from staff for dressing and toilet use. Resident 1 required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance) with bed mobility and personal hygiene. Resident required supervision with eating. A review of Resident 1 ' s Bowel and Bladder (B&B) Program Screener (assessment of how the resident's bladder and bowel are working), dated 7/27/23, indicated Resident 1 always voids appropriately without incontinence. B&B program screener indicated Resident 1 has the ability to get to the bathroom/transfer to toilet/ commode/ urinal, adjust clothing and wipe with assistance of one person/staff. It also indicated Resident 1 was always aware of need to toilet and was a good candidate for retraining. A review of Resident 1 ' s B&B Program Screener, dated 10/27/23, indicated Resident 1 voids appropriately without incontinence less than daily. B&B Program Screener indicated Resident 1 has the ability to get to the bathroom/transfer to toilet/commode/urinal, adjust clothing and wipe with assistance of one person/staff. Program Screener indicated Resident 1 was usually aware of need to toilet and can be a candidate for schedule toileting (timed voiding). A review of Resident 1 ' s B&B Program Screener, dated 11/10/23, indicated Resident 1 voids appropriately without incontinence less than daily. B&B Program Screener indicated Resident 1 was sometimes aware of the need to toilet and can be a candidate for scheduled toileting. During a concurrent record review of Resident 1 ' s Care Plan and interview with Registered Nurse 1 (RN1) on 11/20/23 at 1:30 PM, RN 1 stated Resident 1 ' s Care Plan, initiated on 7/7/23 and revised on 11/15/23, titled, Resident is frequently incontinent for both bowel and bladder function indicated Resident 1 was not a good candidate for retraining at this time. RN 1 stated the care plan does not reflect the B&B Program Screener completed on 7/7/23 that Resident 1 was a good candidate for retraining. RN 1 stated the care plan does not reflect the B&B Program Screener completed on 10/27/23 that Resident 1 was a candidate for schedule toileting. RN 1 stated that care plan should have been revised and B&B program should have been started. During a concurrent record review of Resident 1 ' s B&B Program Screener and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/20/23 at 3 PM, the DON stated that Resident 1 ' s care plan addressing her incontinence was not revised accordingly. The DON stated that revising the care plan was important so facility staff members would know the specific care to be provided to the resident. The DON stated that B&B Program was important because it helps the facility staff to know what to monitor the resident for and learn the resident ' s pattern and times of voiding/defecating. A review of facility ' s P&P titled, B&B Training/ Toileting Program, revised 8/21/20, indicated the licensed nurse will communicate instructions for the interventions to facility staff by documenting the B&B Retraining Program on the care plan.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a bowel and bladder retraining program (use of a timed sched...

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 bowel and bladder retraining program (use of a timed schedule for voiding/bowel movement based on the resident's identified need and routine to maximize control of their bowel and bladder function as much as possible) and scheduled toileting program (use of a timed schedule for voiding/bowel movement to match the Resident's voiding/bowel habits. Appropriate Residents for this program are caregiver dependent, cognitively impaired and cannot gain control of their bowel and bladder function) were implemented for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) as indicated on the facility policy. This deficient practice had the potential to result in not restoring the resident ' s bowel and bladder function,development of urinary tract infection (UTI- an infection in any part of the urinary system, the kidneys, bladder, or urethra), and fall. Findings: A review of the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included history of falling, left hip fracture, and neuromuscular dysfunction of bladder (when a person lacks bladder control due to brain, spinal cord, or nerve problems). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/3/23, indicated Resident 1 had severely impaired cognition (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought and the senses) and required extensive, one-person physical assistance from staff for dressing and toilet use. Resident 1 required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance) with bed mobility and personal hygiene. Resident required supervision with eating. A review of Resident 1 ' s Bowel and Bladder (B&B) Program Screener (assessment of how the resident's bladder and bowel are working), dated 7/27/23, indicated Resident 1 always voids appropriately without incontinence. B&B program screener indicated Resident 1 has the ability to get to the bathroom/transfer to toilet/ commode/ urinal, adjust clothing and wipe with assistance of one person/staff. It also indicated Resident 1 was always aware of need to toilet and was a good candidate for retraining. A review of Resident 1 ' s B&B Program Screener, dated 10/27/23, indicated Resident 1 voids appropriately without incontinence less than daily. B&B Program Screener indicated Resident 1 has the ability to get to the bathroom/transfer to toilet/commode/urinal, adjust clothing and wipe with assistance of one person/staff. Program Screener indicated Resident 1 was usually aware of need to toilet and can be a candidate for schedule toileting (timed voiding). A review of Resident 1 ' s B&B Program Screener, dated 11/10/23, indicated Resident 1 voids appropriately without incontinence less than daily. B&B Program Screener indicated Resident 1 was sometimes aware of the need to toilet and can be a candidate for scheduled toileting. A review of a facility form titled, Intervention/Task of Bladder Elimination, indicated for October 2023, Resident 1 ' s task indicated every shift (Day shift 7-3, Evening shift 3-11 and Night 11-7) documentation by the Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) assigned to Resident 1. The task did not indicate how many times Resident 1 had episodes of continence and incontinence. During an interview on 11/20/23 at 12 PM with Certified Nurse Assistant 1 (CNA1), CNA 1 stated that Resident 1 fell on [DATE] because Resident was trying to use the commode next to her bed. During a concurrent record review of Resident 1 ' s Care Plan and interview with Registered Nurse 1 (RN1) on 11/20/23 at 1:30 PM, RN 1 stated Resident 1 ' s Care Plan, initiated on 7/7/23, titled, Resident is frequently incontinent for both bowel and bladder function indicated Resident 1 was not a good candidate for retraining at this time. RN 1 stated the care plan does not reflect the B&B Program Screener completed on 7/7/23 that Resident 1 was a good candidate for retraining. RN 1 stated the care plan does not reflect the B&B Program Screener completed on 10/27/23 that Resident 1 was a candidate for schedule toileting. RN 1 stated that care plan should have been revised and B&B program should have been started. During a concurrent record review of Resident 1 ' s B&B Program Screener and interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN1) on 11/20/23 at 2:15 PM, LVN 1 stated that B&B Program Screener, dated 10/27/23, indicated that Resident 1 can be a candidate for scheduled toileting. LVN 1 stated that Resident 1 has never been and should have been on scheduled toileting program. LVN 1 stated that Residents on B&B retraining program were being monitored closely by staff and should be in the resident ' s care plan. LVN 1 stated that starting Resident 1 on a bowel and bladder program could have benefited Resident 1 and could have prevented Resident 1 ' s fall on 11/3/23. LVN 1 stated that if Resident 1 was on B&B program, the staff assigned to take care of Resident 1 would have known her pattern of voiding and it could have been helpful in providing care to Resident 1. During a concurrent record review of Resident 1 ' s B&B Program Screener and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 11/20/23 at 3 PM, the DON stated that Resident 1 ' s care plan addressing her incontinence was not revised accordingly. The DON stated that revising the care plan was important so facility staff members would know the specific care to be provided to the resident. The DON stated that B&B Program was important because it helps the facility staff to know what to monitor the resident for and learn the resident ' s pattern and times of voiding/defecating. During a concurrent record review of facility ' s Bowel and Bladder Tracking form and interview with the DON on 11/20/23 at 5 PM, the DON stated that this form is utilized for residents who will be started on the B&B Program. The DON stated the resident will be monitored every hour and if the resident uses a pad, staff will indicate wet/dry/bowel movement. The DON stated if the resident uses a toilet, bedpan, or urinal, staff would indicate if the resident refused/voided/had a bowel movement. The DON stated that after three (3) days of monitoring the resident, the pattern will be added to the CNA ' s charting, The DON verified that Resident 1 was never on B&B program and therefore, was not started on the 3 days B&B tracking form. The DON stated that if B&B program was initiated and implemented, Resident 1 ' s fall incident could have been prevented. A review of facility ' s P&P titled, B&B Training/ Toileting Program, revised 8/21/20, indicated each resident who is incontinent of bowel and/or bladder is identified, assessed, and provided appropriate treatment and services to achieve or maintain as much normal bladder and/or bowel functions as possible. The policy also indicated that B&B Retraining Program are consisted of the following: a. The Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) or Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) will observe and document the Resident's current voiding/bowel evacuation pattern for a minimum of 3 days. b. Following review and determination of the Resident's voiding/bowel evacuation pattern, the licensed nurse will develop an individualized Bowel and Bladder Training Program to meet the Resident's needs. c. The established pattern and individualized bowel and bladder training intervention(s) will be documented in the care plan. d. The licensed nurse will communicate instructions for the interventions to facility staff by documenting the Bowel and Bladder Retraining Program on the care plan The policy provided definitions of the following: · bowel and bladder retraining program: use of a timed schedule for voiding/bowel movement based on the Resident's identified need and routine in order to maximize control of their bowel and bladder function as much as possible. · scheduled toileting program: use of a timed schedule for voiding/bowel movement to match the Resident's voiding/bowel habits. Appropriate Residents for this program are caregiver dependent, cognitively impaired and cannot gain control of their bowel and bladder function. · prompted voiding: a behavioral technique primarily used with dependent or cognitively impaired persons. Prompted voiding is implemented to teach the incontinent person to be aware of his/her incontinence and to request toileting assistance, either independently or after being prompted by a caregiver. The policy also indicated Scheduled Toileting Program are consisted of the following: a. The CNA or RNA will observe and document the Resident's current voiding/bowel evacuation pattern for a minimum of 3 days. b. Following review and determination of the Resident's voiding/bowel evacuation pattern, the licensed nurse will develop an individualized Scheduled Toileting Program to meet the Resident's needs. c. The established pattern and individualized Scheduled Toileting intervention(s) will be documented in the care plan. d. The caregiver will observe and document results according to the established pattern.
Jul 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to supervise/monitor the whereabouts of one (1) of three...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to supervise/monitor the whereabouts of one (1) of three (3) sampled residents (Resident 1) who was assessed as at risk for elopement (a form of unsupervised wandering that leads to the resident leaving the facility) in accordance with the care plan and facility ' s policy and procedure. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1's elopement on 7/15/23, which placed the resident at risk for injury and serious harm. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1 ' s diagnoses which included anxiety disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by feeling of worry, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one ' s daily activities), depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), difficulty in walking and lack of coordination. A review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 10/14/22, indicated Resident 1 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 1's Elopement Evaluation (a tool used to determine if an individual requires an alarmed, delayed exit door as a necessary safety intervention), dated 7/2/23 , indicated Resident 1 had a history of elopement or had attempted leaving the facility without informing staff. The elopement evaluation also indicated Resident 1 had verbally expressed the desire to go home, packed belongings to go home or stayed near an exit door. A review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report indicated Resident 1 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with an order to monitor door seeking behavior every shift on 7/10/23. A review of Resident 1's risk for elopement care plan, initiated on 7/7/23, indicated staff interventions included were to constantly monitor the whereabouts of Resident 1 and to maintain a safe and hazard free environment. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 7/8/23, indicated the resident had severe impairment in cognitive skills (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding). The MDS also indicated Resident 1 required extensive assistance (resident involved in activity; staff provide weight bearing support) in bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use. The MDS further indicated Resident 1 walked in room and in corridor including locomotion on unit only once or twice during the MDS observation period. During a concurrent observation and interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 7/31/23 at 11 am, the DON stated the facility ' s main entrance door which was used for resident drop off and pick up and for facility staff and was located by the nurses' station did not have an alarm installed. The DON stated an alarm should be installed to alert staff when residents open the door to prevent elopement. During an interview on 7/31/23 at 11:30 am, Resident 1 stated there were no staff present when he left the facility before daylight (unable to remember exact time). During an interview on 7/31/23 at 11:50 am, the DON stated Resident 1 was assessed as at risk for elopement. The DON stated Resident 1's elopement was a safety issue because he was confused. The DON also stated, Resident 1 could have gotten dehydrated (excessive loss of water from the body) and hit by a car while he was outside the facility. During an interview on 7/31/23 at 12pm, Resident 2 stated the last time he saw Resident 1 was in the dining room, by the vending machine, around 4am on 7/15/23. Resident 2 added there were no facility staff with them while he and Resident 1 were at the vending machine. During an interview on 7/31/23 at 1:15 pm, the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) stated Resident 1 was always at risk for elopement. The LVN also stated facility was aware Resident 1 had plans of leaving the facility because Resident 1 also tried to leave the facility about three weeks ago and was found at the facility parking lot. The LVN further stated, We were worried when Resident 1 eloped on 7/15/23 since he could have been in danger and could have gotten hit by a passing car while crossing the street. During an interview on 7/31/23 at 2:35 pm, CNA 2 stated the last time she saw Resident 1 was at 2am on 7/15/23 in the dining room sleeping. CNA 2 also stated nobody was in the nurses' station because all the CNAs were busy changing some residents and did not notice Resident 1 had already left the facility. CNA 2 stated it was important to always have a staff by the main entrance door so they could see when a resident tries to leave the facility. During an interview on 7/31/23 at 3 pm, the DON stated there was supposed to be an assigned CNA sitting by the main entrance door close to the nurse's station during the night to monitor and ensure residents do not elope. During an interview on 7/31/23 at 3:34 pm, the Administrator (ADM) stated they did not install an alarm on the main entrance door since it was constantly being used to drop off residents and used by staff to go in and out to work. The ADM also stated there was a possibility that the gate in front of the main entrance door was open on 7/15/23, which was when the Resident 1 eloped. The ADM further stated they did not predict Resident 1 would elope. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Wandering & Elopement, revised in 7/2017, indicated its purpose as to enhance the safety of residents of the facility. The policy also indicated that the facility would identify residents at risk for elopement and minimize any possible injury because of elopement. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Safety, revised on 4/15/21, indicated its purpose as to provide a safe and hazard free environment. The policy also indicated that the residents would be evaluated on admission, quarterly and whenever there is a change in condition to identify circumstances that pose a risk for the safety and wellbeing of the resident. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Quality Assurance Assessment (QAA) Program - Role of the Safety Committee, revised on 1/1/12 indicated duties and responsibilities which included promoting a safe environment and demonstrating knowledge of trends, problems, and recommended solutions to minimize accidents and safety hazards in the environment.
Mar 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three (3) sampled residents (Resident 1)...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three (3) sampled residents (Resident 1) was free from verbal abuse as indicated in the facility policy and procedure. This deficient practice has resulted in Resident 1 to experience verbal abuse from a facility staff which could affect the resident's emotional, mental and psychosocial well-being. Findings: A review of the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1's diagnoses included pulmonary embolism (occurs when a blood clot gets stuck in an artery [the blood vessels that deliver oxygen-rich blood from the heart to the tissues of the body], in the lungs, blocking the flow of blood), fatty liver (a common condition caused by having too much fat build up in your liver), and right femur fracture (a break in the thighbone). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 11/30/2022, indicated the resident was independent with cognitive skills (ability to think, understand and reason) for daily decision making. Resident 1 required supervision (oversight, encouragement or cueing) with bed mobility, transfer, walking, locomotion, eating and toilet use. A record review of Social Service Progress Notes, dated 2/10/2023 at 3:04 PM, indicated Resident 1 stated he was outside, at the parking lot, talking to Resident 2 when [NAME] 1 approached them and told Resident 1 that he was a snitch and to stop calling [NAME] 1 names. The IDT note indicated Resident 1 stated, Cook 1 kept on calling me a bitch and wanted to attack me. [NAME] 1 told me, he will be back for me. A review of a facility form titled, Resident Grievance/ Complaint Investigation Report, dated 2/10/2023, indicated Interdisciplinary Team (IDT, may include Physicians, Nurses, Rehabilitation staff who all work together for the shared goal of the resident's treatment and recovery) met with Resident 1 after an incident with [NAME] 1 at the parking lot. Resident 1 stated, [NAME] 1 told him that he was a Snitch and walked up to him to fight. A follow up note, dated 2/15/2023, indicated [NAME] 1 will be terminated as a part of correction after the altercation between [NAME] 1 and Resident 1. During an interview on 2/23/2023 at 9:37 AM, Dietary Supervisor (DSS) stated [NAME] 1 reported that Resident 1 had said, People who work here, could only make shit food. DSS stated, Cook 1 started yelling and telling Resident 1 to shut up. I didn't pay attention to particular cursing words [NAME] 1 said to Resident 1. During an interview with the Director of the Staff Development (DSD) on 2/23/2023 at 10:15 AM, DSD stated while supervising another Resident outside the facility on 2/10/23, he saw [NAME] 1 yell at Resident 1. DSD stated, Cook 1 was aggressive and agitated for some reason. DSD stated Resident 1 and Resident 2 were talking about something else when [NAME] 1 passed by and assumed the residents were talking about him. DSD stated, Cook 1 was so mad and went on Resident 1's face, like he's fighting somebody on the streets. During an interview with the Administrator (Adm 1) on 2/23/2023 at 11:46 AM, Adm 1 stated she conducted the investigation on the incident that happened on 2/10/2023 between Resident 1 and Cook1. Adm 1 stated [NAME] 1 was terminated on the grounds of violation of policy and procedure. Adm 1 stated [NAME] 1 cursed and was aggressive with Resident 1 and the behavior was not acceptable. Adm stated not being aware of complaints received from kitchen staff with regards to [NAME] 1's mean attitude, as reported by the DSS on the same day of the altercation between [NAME] 1 and Resident 1. During an interview with Resident 1 on 2/23/2023 at 3:41 PM, Resident 1 stated, The situation was not good between me and [NAME] 1 because back in November 2022, I ordered food and [NAME] 1 would tell me that this is not a hotel or you can't be ordering this and that, and that's how I was treated. Resident 1 stated, About 2 weeks before the incident that happened outside, I was complaining about him. I just thought [NAME] 1 was being rude towards me. When I asked for juice, water, bread or anything, [NAME] 1 had said, we don't have it, what do you want? You are always asking for stuff, and this is that and all that or he'll say, No. I don't have it. Resident 1 stated, I always send the nurses to go to the kitchen because I'm trying to avoid conflict with him. During an interview with Resident 1 on 2/23/2023 at 3:47 PM, Resident 1 stated, [NAME] 1 overheard him and Resident 2 talking about some clowns when [NAME] 1 started responding to him saying, Oh man, are you familiar with the word snitching? You snitched on me and you are always snitching to the administrative people. Resident 1 stated he told [NAME] 1 that was what they were supposed to do if they have a complaint so Administration can be aware of the situation. Resident 1 stated [NAME] 1 was cursing while talking to him. During an interview on 2/24/2023 at 2:40 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) stated, Resident 1 was verbally abused by [NAME] 1. During an interview on 3/2/2023 at 3:57 PM, [NAME] 1 stated Resident 1 was outside with Resident 2 when Resident 1 started using profanity (swearing, which were considered to be inappropriate and offensive). [NAME] 1 stated, Resident 1 looked at me and said you are nothing but a bitch, so to me that word means a lot. I was raised in the street and it means fighting words. [NAME] 1 stated, I went in front of Resident 1's face and called him a bitch. I slurred out some cursing words towards him. A review of Resident 1's undated Care Plan (CP) indicated Resident 1 was at risk for disruption of psychosocial well-being related to verbal altercation with employee, cursed and yelled at by an employee. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Resident Rights, revised January 1, 2012, indicated Employees are to treat all resident with kindness, respect, and dignity and honor the exercise of resident's rights. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Abuse - Prevention, Screening, & Training Program revised July 2018, indicated the facility establishes a safe environment that supports resident to the extent as possible. The facility identifies, corrects, and intervenes in situations in which abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property, and/or mistreatment is likely to occur.
Jul 2021 13 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation and record review the facility failed to provide pharmacy services, have safeguards and systems ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, observation and record review the facility failed to provide pharmacy services, have safeguards and systems in place for the control, accountability, and reconciliation of controlled medications by failing to: 1. Reconcile and account for the use of Methadone (a Schedule II controlled substance [medications with a high potential for abuse]) among licensed nurses prior to the start/end of their working shift to conduct the narcotic counts (a physical inventory of all controlled medications, including the emergency supply, is conducted by two licensed nurses) and document on the facility's controlled medication accountability record for one resident (Residents 25) in 22 sampled residents on controlled drugs to prevent diversion [stealing prescription medicines or controlled substances such as opioids for their own use] or accidental misuse and exposure of the controlled drug medication in accordance with the facility's policy. 2. Create a Controlled Drugs Count sheet (medication accountability record or an inventory log for controlled substances [CS] -medications which had a potential for abuse that may also lead to physical or psychological dependence) when receiving the CS Methadone liquid bottles (medication packaging system that contains individual doses of medication per bottle) dispensed by the Methadone Clinic Dispensing Pharmacy every Fridays since November 2020, for Resident 25 in one of two inspected Medication Carts. 3. Ensure the dosage in Resident 25's Methadone liquid's pharmacy label was checked for the correct dosage as indicated in the physician's order and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) prior to administration, for one of 22 sampled residents on controlled drugs (Resident 25) to prevent underdosing or overdosing of the medication. 4. Accurately document the medication administration of Resident 25's Methadone liquid in the facility and at the Methadone Clinic for one of one sampled resident (Resident 25) who receives medication dispensed outside the facility's own pharmacy to ensure proper dosage of medication is being given to the resident in accordance with the physician's order. 5. Resident 251's Percocet (medication is used to help relieve moderate to severe pain) tablet was discarded in the medication disposal container inside the facility's Medication Room. 6. Resident 251's PRN Percocet was not consistently documented on the Medication Administration Record after drug administration. 7. Resident 299's Bupren-Nalox (medicine used to treat opioid addiction) was discarded in the facility's medication room. 8. Failed to verify the identity of Resident 3 prior to administering the medication. These deficient practices had the potential to impact all 22 residents in the facility receiving controlled drug medications with the increased risk for drug diversion, misuse, and had the potential for residents to not receive the dosage amount of controlled drug as ordered by the physician. On 7/14/2021 at 7:40 pm, an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ, a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident) was identified in the presence of the facility's administrator (ADM), director of nursing (DON), and quality assurance (QA) nurse regarding the facility's failure to provide pharmacy services and have safeguards and systems in place for the control, accountability, and reconciliation of controlled medications. On 7/16/2021 at 1:29 PM, the IJ was lifted after the ADM and the DON submitted an acceptable Plan of Action (POA, interventions to correct the deficient practices). The surveyor verified and confirmed the implementations of the POA while onsite by observation, interview, and record review. The IJ was removed in the presence of the ADM and DON. The acceptable POA included the following actions: 1. The DON created a Controlled Drugs Count sheet for Resident 25's Methadone liquid 110 mg once a day and reconciled the current amount on hand. 2. The administrator requested the methadone liquid bottles to be dispensed in a sealed, tamper-evident seal to permit a chain of custody system (disposition of materials). 3. The administrator informed the Methadone Clinic that an escort will accompany the resident to ensure clinician to staff member endorsement of the six bottles of Methadone for each week's administration along with the corresponding dispensing log. 4. The DON conducted an audit of the Methadone Clinic's dispensing logs against Resident 25's MAR to ensure 100% reconciliation. 5. The Facility's Consultant Pharmacist conducted an in-service total of 9 licensed staff present during that time regarding methadone administration at the facility, medication administration competency skills check, how to properly document and utilize Controlled Drugs Count sheets and when it is needed. 6. The licensed nurse would check for any new medications changes such as increase or decrease in dosage and ensure that medications are accounted and reconciled upon returning from the Methadone Clinic. Any new orders will be clarified with the attending physician and transcribed accurately in the MAR. 7. The Consultant Pharmacist will include Resident 25's Methadone treatment in the monthly Medication Regimen Review conducted onsite. 8. The licensed nurses will conduct every shift counting of Controlled Medications - including methadone from an outside source - per standard controlled medication chain of custody system. 9. The facility will request weekly documentation of dispensing logs from the methadone clinic to confirm Resident 25's status and methadone order including other residents on Methadone to ensure accurate accounting of medications. Cross Reference to F760 Findings: 1. A review of Resident 25's admission Record indicated an admission to the facility on 8/17/2020 with diagnoses that included other symptoms and signs involving the musculoskeletal system (a general term which relates to the muscles and the skeleton of the body), anxiety (a mental condition characterized by excessive apprehensiveness and worries ), Hepatitis C (a viral infection contracted only through direct contact with the blood of a person infected with the Hepatitis C virus), and long-term use of opiate analgesic (highly addictive narcotic medication used to relieve pain from a variety of conditions). A review of Resident 25's Minimum Data Set (MDS; a care area screening tool and assessment) dated 2/12/21, indicated the resident's cognition (the process of thinking) was intact, and required supervision (oversight, encouragement or cueing) during activities of daily living (walking, dressing, bed mobility, dressing, eating). A review of Resident 25's History and Physical dated 7/12/21, indicated the resident had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 25's Physician Orders recapped (summarized) for the months of December 2020, January 2021, February 2021, March 2021, April 2021, May 2021, June 2021, and July 2021 indicated an order dated 11/25/2020 for the resident to receive Methadone 120 mg, 1 bottle liquid by mouth every day for opioid (synthetic narcotics that provides pain relief and can be highly addictive) abuse. A review of Resident 25's Medication Administration Record for the months of November 2020 (from 11/25/2020 to 11/30/2020), December 2020, January 2021, February 2021, March 2021, April 2021, May 2021, June 2021, and July 2021 indicated signature initials for the Methadone 120 mg, from the facility's licensed nurses every day, including Fridays except for 6/4/21 (Friday). The Nurses Medication Notes found at the back of the June 2021 MAR indicated that on 6/4/21 timed at 6 AM, the Methadone liquid was not available, and Resident 25 would be picking up the medications. A review of Resident 25's Care Plan Description dated 11/25/2020, indicated the resident had a history of substance abuse and had been taking Methadone since admission [DATE]). The care plan goal indicated the resident would exhibit acceptable behavior as evidenced by not having alcohol/drugs hidden in room. The interventions included for nursing to administer medications as ordered and monitor for side effects of Methadone 120 mg daily for opioid use. The interventions also indicated Resident 25 would go to the Methadone Clinic for counselling (no dates indicated) and that the Methadone Clinic would be providing the medication that will be kept in a lock box and to be kept by the facility in the narcotic drawer. The care plan did not indicate that the facility's licensed nurses would only administer the Methadone liquid at the facility from Saturday to Thursday and the Methadone Clinic would administer the last dose every Friday. On 7/14/21 at 11:05 AM, during an inspection of Station 1's Medication Cart A's narcotic drawer with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, an unlabeled cloth handbag with an attached lock and key was found inside the narcotic drawer. Inside the handbag were six 3.5-inch, opaque plastic bottles. One out of the six plastic bottles contained a quarter-full of pink liquid medication and the remaining five bottles were observed empty. The label on the six bottles indicated Resident 25's name and the medication name and dose of, 110 milligrams (mg), Methadone (physician's order is for 120mg). During a concurrent interview, LVN 1 stated Resident 25 brings the liquid Methadone into the facility from an outside dispensing clinic and the licensed nurses in the facility administers the medication to the resident. On 7/14/21 at 11:30 AM, during an interview, LVN 1 stated the facility did not keep a controlled medication accountability record of Resident 25's Methadone liquid since 11/2020. LVN 1 stated Resident 25 goes to the Methadone Clinic every Friday and picks up six bottles of Methadone for the facility staff to administer to the resident. LVN 1 stated the facility did not keep a controlled medication accountability record of Resident 25's Methadone liquid because the medications were not dispensed from the facility's own pharmacy. LVN 1 stated the licensed nurses signs out the Methadone liquid administration in Resident 25's MAR as administered. LVN 1 stated without a controlled medication accountability record, the licensed nurses would not be able reconcile the controlled drug in the narcotic counts that is typically conducted every shift change. LVN 1 further stated that without a controlled medication accountability record, the facility would not be able to account for any controlled medications that may be missing. During the same interview, on 7/14/21 at 11:30 AM, LVN 1 stated the licensed nurses administers the Methadone liquid to Resident 25 every day during the nightshift at 6 AM except Fridays. LVN 1 stated the facility receives only six bottles of Methadone liquid because Resident 25 would receive the 7th dose at the Methadone Clinic on Fridays. On 7/14/21 at 1:57 PM, during an interview, the DON stated since 11/2020, the Methadone Clinic dispensed Resident 25's Methadone liquid, while the facility staff administered the medication. The DON stated the licensed nurses had been administering the Methadone liquid to Resident 25, the same way (From Saturday to Thursday) since 11/2020. The DON stated that Resident 25's Methadone liquid should be accounted for in the facility's-controlled medication accountability record. A concurrent review and interview with the DON and Resident 25's medical record and controlled accountability records binder indicated no documented evidence the resident's Methadone liquid had been accounted for and reconciled since 11/2020 up to July 14, 2021. The DON stated that Resident 25's Methadone medication should have been counted as part of the narcotics-controlled medication count per facility policy because Methadone is a controlled substance. On 7/14/21 at 3 PM, during an interview, LVN 3 stated Methadone was not included as part of the controlled drugs count. LVN 3 stated she only counted and checked the narcotics that was indicated in the facility's Narcotic binder, where the facility put all controlled drugs count sheets. LVN 3 stated the licensed nurses had to go through each narcotic medication located inside the narcotic drawer and compare it with the count sheets with another nurse at the beginning and end of work shift to account for all the residents narcotics. On 7/14/21 at 3:47 PM, during an interview, Resident 25 stated, I'm always in pain. Resident 25 stated he receives two pain medications in the facility (Dilaudid [narcotic medication] and Methadone). Resident 25 stated he goes to the Methadone clinic every Fridays unaccompanied by facility staff. Resident 25 stated a driver from a transport van takes him to the Methadone Clinic. On 7/14/21 at 3:55 PM, during an interview, the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated the Methadone clinic used to provide the facility with the dispensing logs and the nurse would sign the logs each day to account for the use of Resident 25's Methadone liquid. DSD stated he could not recall when the Methadone Clinic had stopped providing the dispensing logs. The DSD stated the facility could not find documented evidence of the dispensing logs from the Methadone clinic that was provided to the facility several months ago because the facility did not keep copies of the dispensing logs. On 7/14/21 at 4 PM, during a concurrent observation and interview, the DON opened the Methadone bottle containing the quarter-full pink colored liquid medication. The DON verified the Methadone bottles were not sealed and there were no level markings on all 6 of the Methadone bottles for accountability during physical inventory (narcotics count) as required for every shift. The DON stated that Resident 25's Methadone was administered in the facility by the night shift licensed nurses from Saturday through Thursday at 6 AM. The DON stated Resident 25 received the 7th dose in the Methadone clinic every Friday. On 7/14/21 at 4:05 PM during a concurrent interview and review of Resident 25's MAR, the DON stated Resident 25's July MAR indicated the order for Methadone 120 mg and Methadone bottle label indicated 110 mg. The DON stated and confirmed the facility's licensed nurses' signature initials on Resident 25's MAR for the administration of Methadone every day (Saturday through Friday). The MAR indicated the facility's licensed nurses was also signing the MAR as administered on Fridays (7/2/21 and 7/9/21). The DON stated the licensed nurses should not be signing the MAR for the Methadone administration on Fridays because it was not administered by the facility's licensed nurses in the facility. The DON was unable to give an explanation as to why the licensed nurses were signing off as administering the medication on Fridays when it should have been administered at the Methadone clinic. On 7/14/21 at 4:12 PM, during a telephone interview, the facility's Pharmacy Consultant (PC) 1 stated she was not aware that Resident 25 was bringing Methadone into the facility that was being dispensed from a Methadone Clinic. PC 1 stated, The facility should have a recorded controlled count sheet like any other controlled medication. The facility should be keeping a record even if Resident 25 was getting his medication dispensed at the Methadone clinic, either by requesting one from the clinic or by creating their own. On 7/15/21 at 7:07 AM, during a concurrent interview and review of Resident 25's July 2021 MAR, LVN 4 stated she signed the resident's MAR for Methadone administration on Fridays from 7/2/21 and 7/9/21, even if she did not administer the Methadone. LVN 4 was unable to explain as to why she signed off administering the medication to the resident when she did not administer it. LVN 4 stated she was used to signing for the Methadone administration every day, even Fridays. LVN 4 stated there were no instruction or clear directions on how to handle and account for Resident 25's Methadone medication. On 7/16/21 at 10:31 AM, during an interview, the administrator stated the facility did not know when the Methadone medication order was changed from 120 mg to 110 mg by the Methadone Clinic physician (Physician 2). The administrator stated the Methadone 120 mg dose was ordered by Resident 25's attending physician (Physician 1) based on the dispensing logs that the facility used to receive from the Methadone Clinic. The administrator stated the Methadone Clinic did not notify the facility that the dose of the Methadone was changed from 120 mg to 110 mg. The administrator stated the Methadone Clinic stopped providing the facility the medication dispensing logs, since the start of November 2020 where it indicated the number of Methadone liquid bottles and corresponding doses dispensed to Resident 25. The administrator could not provide documented evidence that the facility had followed up and coordinated with the Methadone clinic when it stopped providing the Methadone dispensing logs to the facility. On 7/16/21 at 11:05 AM, during an interview, LVN 1 stated that before a licensed nurse administers a medication, the licensed nurse should check the physician's order in the MAR and compare it with the medication label as to the name of the resident, the route, the dosage and the time. LVN 1 stated if all information were accurate, the licensed nurse can give the medication. During a concurrent review of Resident 25's MAR and a copy of the pharmacy label on the resident's Methadone liquid bottle, LVN 1 stated she would not give Resident 25 the Methadone because the label on the bottle did not match the order in the MAR. LVN 1 stated she would not administer the medication and would call the Methadone Clinic to clarify the medication order. During the same interview, on 7/16/21 at 11:05 AM, LVN 1 stated that on Fridays LVN 1 would receive the Methadone liquid bottles inside a bag from Resident 25. LVN 1 stated that Resident 25 would give LVN 1 the unlabeled cloth bag. LVN 1 stated she would count if there were (6) six bottles inside the bag, but LVN 1 did not check and review the methadone pharmacy labels to reconcile the medications for any changes in dosing. LVN 1 stated she did not document how many methadone liquid bottles were received on Fridays. LVN 1 stated she did not know when the medication dose was changed from 120 mg to 110 mg. A review of a document titled Patient Orders provided by Resident 25's Methadone Clinic to the facility via fax on 7/16/21 timed at 1:07 PM, indicated a change of Methadone dose on 2/21/2021 from 120 mg to 110 mg. The order was signed by Physician 2 from the Methadone Clinic. The Patient Order indicated the reason for the dose change was due to Patient requesting to lower dosage due to drowsiness. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Medication Storage in the Facility; Controlled Medication Storage, dated 8/1/2010, indicated medications included in the Drug Enforcement (DEA) classification as controlled substances are subject to special handling, storage, disposal and recordkeeping in the facility in accordance with federal, state and other applicable laws and regulations. The policy indicated a controlled medication accountability record is prepared by the facility for all Scheduled II, III, IV, and V (III, IV, and V are drugs with an abuse risk less than Schedule II) medications The following information should be completed: 1. Name of resident, if applicable 2. Prescription number, if applicable 3. Name, strength, and dosage form of medication 4. Date Received 5. Quantity received 6. Name of person receiving medication supply. The policy indicated, At each shift change, a physical inventory of all controlled medications, including the emergency supply, is conducted by two licensed nurses and is documented on the controlled medication accountability record. The policy indicated that any discrepancy in controlled substance medication counts is reported to the director of nursing immediately. The policy indicated that current controlled medication accountability records are kept in medication books and upon completion would be kept on file for five years. 2. During an observation of the facility's medication room, in the presence of the Director of Nurses (DON) on 7/14/21 at 9:16 AM, a rectangular dark gray bin covered with a lid labeled Discontinued Medications was observed placed on the floor beside a white circular covered container labeled for incineration only Upon uncovering the white, circular container, a clear pouch with a manufacturing label 'Silent Knight' (pill crusher pouch) indicating, Resident 251's room and bed number, Percocet (controlled medication) half tablet. Inside of the clear pouch half of a white colored tab and two yellow capsules that were still intact, were observed. During an interview, on 7/14/21 at 9:18 AM, the DON stated discontinued medications were discarded in the discontinued medications bin before removing from the packaging and then discarded into the pharmaceutical waste bin during destruction of discontinued non-controlled medications. The DON stated that only non-controlled medications (medication considered not to be of risk) were discarded in the medication room in the presence of a licensed nurse (LN) to witness. The DON stated that controlled medications (medications that can create mental and physical addiction or dependency) were given to the DON and kept in a locked drawer, inside the DON's office while awaiting destruction. The DON stated that all controlled medications were discarded by the DON and the facility's pharmacist. The DON stated that Percocet should not be discarded in the pharmaceutical waste bin inside the Medication Room since it was a controlled medication. During an interview on 7/14/21 at 1:02 PM, the director of staff development (DSD) stated non- controlled medications should be placed in the dark gray, rectangular bin located in the Medication Room. The DSD stated that another licensed nurse must witness the wasting of a medication. The DSD stated that wasting of medication should be documented on the Medication Discretion Form for non-controlled medications. The DSD stated that controlled medication should be given to the DON with the narcotic inventory form. A review of Resident 251's Face Sheet indicated an admission to the facility on 7/12/21 with diagnoses that included quadriplegia (paralysis of all four limbs), schizoaffective disorder (a mental health condition including schizophrenia and mood disorder symptoms), and alcohol abuse. A review of Resident 251's July 2021 Recapped Physician's Order indicated an order for Percocet 7.5-325 mg tablet one tablet via gastrostomy tube (g-tube- a tube inserted through the belly that brings nutrition directly to the stomach) as needed every four hours for severe pain (8-9). A review of Resident 251's recapped Physician Orders for July 2021 indicated Percocet (medication is used to help relieve moderate to severe pain; Percocet is a scheduled II controlled substance [exposes users to the risks of addiction, abuse, and misuse]) 7.5-325 milligrams (mg) tablet one tablet via gastrostomy tube (g-tube: a tube placed directly to the stomach for nutrients and medication administration) as needed every four hours for severe pain (8-9). A review of Resident 251's Narcotic and Hypnotic Record indicated on 7/19/2021 at 8 AM, Percocet 7.5-325mg tablet, was the last dose administered to Resident 251. The Narcotic and Hypnotic Record indicated a total of 21 doses of Percocet was administered to Resident 251 since 7/14/2021. A review of Resident 251's Pain Assessment Flowsheet indicated 7/19/2021 at 2 AM was the last administration and efficacy of medication documented. A review of Resident 251's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for July 2021 indicated a total of 18 doses of Percocet administered to Resident 251. 3. During an interview and concurrent record review on 7/14/21 at 1:45 PM, the Medication Destruction form dated 4/3/21 for non-controlled medication, the DON validated the signatures indicated at the bottom of the form was the DON and licensed vocational nurse (LVN) 2. During concurrent record review the DON stated she could not identify any controlled medications on the form. The form indicated a total quantity of 5 Bupren-Nalox (maintenance treatment of opioid dependence; Scheduled III controlled substance [a potential for abuse less than substances in Schedules I or II and abuse may lead to moderate or low physical dependence or high psychological dependence.]) 2- 0.5 milligrams (mg) sublingual (under the tongue) wasted for Resident 299 due to medication discontinuation. The DON did not know if Bupren-Nalox was a controlled medication. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/14/21 at 3:45 PM, LVN 2 stated that controlled medications are only discarded by the DON and the pharmacist. LVN 2 stated Bupren-nalox destruction with the DON and the pharmacist. A review of Resident 299's Face Sheet indicated an admission to the facility on 2/25/21 with diagnoses that included of osteomyelitis (bone infection), psychoactive substance abuse, and hepatitis C (an infection caused by a virus that attacks the liver and leads to inflammation). A review of Resident 299's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a care area screening and assessment tool) dated 3/4/21, indicated intact cognition and required extensive assistance (staff provide weight bearing support) with one person physical assist, for bed mobility, walk in room, dressing, and toilet use. Resident 299 required limited assistance (non - bearing weight assistance) with one person physical assist for transfers. Resident 299 required supervision with set up only for eating and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 299's March 2021 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated Suboxone 2mg/0.5mg, give two tablets (4mg) sublingual every 8 hours for opioid use. The MAR indicated a discontinued date of 3/28/2021. 4. During an interview and concurrent review of Resident 251's Narcotic and Hypnotic Record and MAR on 7/19/2021 at 11:08 AM, LVN 1 stated Resident 251 had an order to receive Percocet 7.5-325mg tablet every four hours. LVN 1 validated that Percocet administration indicated on the Narcotic and Hypnotic Record and the MAR dose administration did not match. LVN 1 stated that the two forms, Narcotic and Hypnotic Record and the MAR must always match as an indicator for medication that has been administered During an interview on 7/19/2021 at 12:11 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the facility practices on medication administration was that the licensed nurses (LN) follow the pour, pass and sign when administering medications. The DON stated medications must be documented immediately after a medication is administered to the residents. The DON stated that the LN must not continue with administering medication to another resident without signing the MAR for the medication that was just administered. The DON stated that documenting the administration of medication was part of the medication rights when administering medication to aid in the prevention of errors. The DON stated the MAR and the Narcotic and Hypnotic Record must always match so that all medications were accounted for. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure, titled Medication storage in the Facility, dated 8/1/10, indicated controlled medications remaining in the facility after the order has been discontinued are destroyed by the facility's DON and consultant pharmacist. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Disposal of Medication and Medication-Related Supplies for Medication Destruction, dated 8/1/10, indicated controlled substances are retained in a securely locked area with restricted access by the facility DON and/or pharmacist consultant and/or administrator. The policy indicated for non-controlled medication destruction occurs only in the presence of two licensed nurses. A review of the facility's policy tiled Disposal of Medication and Medication- Related Supplies for Controlled Medication Disposal, dated 8/1/10, indicated the DON and the facility's pharmacist consultant are responsible for the facility's compliance with federal and state laws and regulations in the handling of controlled medication. The policy indicated unused partial tablets and unused portions of single does ampules are destroyed in the presence of two licensed nurses, and the disposal is documented on the accountability record on the line representing that dose. The policy indicated Schedule II medications remaining in the facility after a resident has been discharged , or the order discontinued, are disposed by the director of nursing and pharmacist consultant. Schedule III, IV, and V controlled substance are disposed at the facility and signed off by the DON and Pharmacist Consultant. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Medication Administration with a revision date of 1/1/2012 , indicated the licensed nurse will chart the drug, time administered, and initial his/her name with each medication and sign full name and title on each page of the MAR. The P&P indicated the time and dose of the drug or treatment administered to the patient will be recorded in the patient's individual medication record by the person who administers the drug or treatment. The P&P indicated for as needed (PRN) medication documentation, the medication should be documented on the MAR and the LN would indicate the reason given, the reason for the drug, route of administration, date, and time. The result of the PRN medication will be charted by the responsible nurse on the back. 5. A review of Resident 3's admission Record indicated an admission to the facility on 3/26/2017 with a diagnosis of hemiplegia (paralysis of right limbs), Peripheral Vascular Disease, Essential Hypertension. A review of Resident 3's recapped Physician Orders for June 2021 indicated an order for Gabapentin (drug used for nerve pain) 600 mg one tablet by mouth every eight hours for Neuropathy hold if RR less than 12 or sleepy monitor prior giving med. During medication administration observation on 7/14/21 at 1:30 p.m., the LVN 1 was observed giving the medication to Resident 3's without checking identifying the resident wristband and resident name before administration of the medication. During an interview on 7/14/21 at 1:54 p.m., the LVN 1 stated she knew the resident for a long time and the resident was alert and oriented. The LVN 1 stated she did not verify Resident 1 identity by checking his name and last name or check the wristband before administering the medication and the resident has no wristband. During an interview and record review of the facility policy for Medication Administration on 7/14/21 at 2:00 p.m., the LVN 1 stated she should have verified Resident 3's identification prior to administration of medication. During an interview on 7/14/21 at 3:15 p.m., the DON stated, licensed nurses must verify the resident identity based on facility policy prior to administrating the mediation. The DON stated the licensed nurses must follow the seven rights of medication administration. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure titled Medication Administration with a revision date of 1/1/2012, indicated the Licensed Nurse will verify the resident's identity before administering the medication. The Licensed Nurse will follow the seven rights of medication administration which includes as fallowing: The right medication, the right amount, The right resident, The right time, The right route, Resident has right to know what the medication does, Resident has the right to refuse the medication (unless court ordered).
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to inquire and complete an Advance Healthcare Directive ...

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 inquire and complete an Advance Healthcare Directive for Resident 148 upon admissions. This deficient practice had a potential for the resident to missed the opportunity in making healthcare decision and treatment option. Findings: A review of Resident 148's admission record indicated resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of sepsis (body's response to infection) and urinary tract infection (is an infection in any part of your urinary system, which includes your kidneys, bladder, ureters, and urethra). A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 06/30/2021 indicated Resident 148 does not have cognition impairment (has no trouble with making decisions). Resident 148's functional status in the MDS indicated extensive assistance (staff has to provide support) in bed mobility, transferring (bed to wheelchair), dressing and toileting. On 07/14/21 at 12:50 PM, during an interview and record review with Director of Staff Development (DSD), stated the Advance Directive form had not been completed and should be completed by the Social Services staff during the resident's admissions in the facility to ensure the resident had received information about their rights to an Advance Healthcare Directive (AHCD) and determine whether or not they have an AHCD. On 07/14/21 at 02:06 PM, during an interview with Social Services Designee staff (SSD), stated she was responsible to ensure the resident completed AHCD Acknowledgement form. The SSD stated the record titled Advanced Healthcare Directive (AHCD) Acknowledgement Form has be completed within 2-5 days of admission for every resident to ensure they have been informed and provided with information on their rights to an AHCD. The SSD stated filling out the AHCD Acknowledgement form allows the facility to find out if the resident has or wish to have an AHCD. The SSD stated she had not filled out the AHCD Acknowledgement form for Resident 148 when the facility admitted the resident in the facility because she had missed and overlooked the form and did not complete the appropriate section. On 07/16/21 at 11:10 AM, during interview and record review with the DON, she stated that the AHCD Acknowledgement form should be completed upon admission with SSD (Social Services Staff) to determine if the resident has been informed of their rights for an Advance Healthcare Directive and if they have or want to make an Advance Healthcare Directive. The DON stated the importance for the Advance Directive to be completed during admissions would provide and opportunity for the residents to be informed of healthcare needs to accurately comply with the resident's right. The form was not completed therefore, it can be assumed the resident was never informed of his rights for an Advance Healthcare Directive. During record review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Advanced Healthcare Directives, revised on February 2017, it indicated that staff or designee will inquire about the existence of an Advance Healthcare Directive and provide information to the residents related to their right to execute an Advance Healthcare Directive.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to developed and implement a comprehensive individualized plan for Res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to developed and implement a comprehensive individualized plan for Resident 11 diagnosis of dementia (brain diseases that cause a long-term and often gradual decrease in the ability to think and remember that affect a person's daily functioning). This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for not receiving the necessary services and appropriate treatment related dementia. Findings: A review of Resident 11's admission records indicated that resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of dementia and heart failure (the heart muscle is unable to pump enough blood to meet the body's needs for blood and oxygen). A review of Resident 11's history and physical, dated 4/12/2021, indicated that resident has fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 11's Minimum Data Set (MDS- care-screening tool), dated 11/24/2019, indicated the resident cognition was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 11 required extensive assistance (support) from staff for transfer (moves to and from bed), dressing and toileting. On 7/19/2021 at 1:00 p.m., during an interview with MDS Coordinator, MDS Coordinator stated all residents with dementia or specific diagnosis should had care plan that list interventions and goals specific to the residents' needs or diagnosis. On 7/19/2021 at 1:00 p.m., during an interview and record review with MDS Coordinator stated he could not locate dementia care plan for Resident 11. He stated there was no care plan develop for Resident 11 for dementia. MDS coordinator stated Resident 11's care plan should had been done on 4/12/2021. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning indicated the baseline care plan must be developed and implemented 48 hours upon the resident's admission and should include: i. Initial goals based on the admission orders ii. Physicians orders iii. Dietary orders iv. Physician services v. Social services vi. PASSAR recommendations, if appplicable
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revised and updated plan of care for Resident 25 used of Methadone ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revised and updated plan of care for Resident 25 used of Methadone (a synthetic analgesic drug that is similar to morphine in its effects but longer acting, used as a substitute drug in the treatment of morphine and heroin addiction). This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for not receiving the necessary services and treatment related to Methadone use in the facility. Findings: A review of Resident 25's admission records indicated that resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of other symptoms and signs involving the musculoskeletal system and long term (current) use of opiate analgesics (Opioids are a class of medication used in the management and treatment of pain). A review of Resident 25's history and physical, dated 07/20/2019, indicated that resident has the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 25's Minimum Data Set (MDS- care-screening tool), dated 02/12/2021, indicated Resident 25's cognition was intact. Resident 25 required supervision (support) for transfer (moves to and from bed), dressing and toileting. On 07/15/21 at 11:17 AM, during interview and record review of Resident 25's care plan with MDS coordinator for the processing of reconciliation, administration, and monitoring of Methadone for Resident 25, resident was prescribed on 11/25/20 and the care plan for Methadone was created but he was not able to locate the care plan. The MDS coordinator stated according to the facility's policy the resident's care plan has to be updated when there were changes to the medication. The MDS coordinator stated the most updated care plan for Methadone was on 6/10/2020 and addresses when the resident receives Methadone from an outside service/institution but it does not address how the Methadone was reconciled or accounted for once the resident picks up the medication from the clinic. On 07/15/21 at 11:35 AM during interview with MDS, he stated the care plan was not updated on how Methadone was accounted once the resident received it from the clinic. The MDS stated most updated care plan dated on 6/10/21 was not specific or individualized to address all the resident's needs because it did not include the address of the clinic, time and date the resident would be go to the clinic, how the medication from the clinic would be dispensed from the clinic and who would administer the medication. The MDS stated the care plan has to be revised and updated that include the medication reconcillation from the clinic and when the resident back in the facility. The MDS stated the care plan has to include monitoring of resident's signs and symptoms prior to and after visit to the clinic and monitor effectiveness of of the medication. On 07/15/21 at 11:42 AM, during interview and record review the MDS stated the resident order for Methadone was changed from solid to liquid form in November 2021 and the care plan dated on 6/10/21 did not reflect the change and was not updated. On 07/19/21 at 02:28 PM, during interview with DON, she stated for medications such as Methadone, that are considered controlled medications, the care plan should be updated when there are changes or quarterly. The DON stated according to their policy and procedures, care plans has to be updated and/or revised based on resident's needs and care. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning indicated the comprehensive care plan must be updated to reflect the resident's individualized care and needs. It should include resident-specific information which addresses their health and safety concerns to prevent decline or injury and should also identify needs for supervision, behavioral interventions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0694 (Tag F0694)

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 date, time, and initial Resident 148's left upper arm...

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 date, time, and initial Resident 148's left upper arm (LUA) midline intravenous (IV a line in the vein to get fluids) dressing. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 148 to have delayed dressing change, infection control risks and IV malfunctions including leaking of IV to tissue and pain along the IV site. Findings: A review of Resident 148's admission record indicated resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of sepsis (body's response to infection) and urinary tract infection (is an infection in any part of your urinary system, which includes your kidneys, bladder, ureters, and urethra). A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 06/30/2021 indicated Resident 148 does not have any cognition impairment (has trouble with making decisions) with a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15 out of 15. Resident 148's functional status in the MDS indicated extensive assistance (staff has to provide support) in bed mobility, transferring (bed to wheelchair), dressing and toileting. A review of Physician orders dated on 6/24/21 until 7/29/21 for Infusion Therapy for Resident 148 indicated a LUA midline IV inserted for antibiotic treatment of sepsis. Midline dressing site care: Change dressing within 24 hours of admission, then every 7 days and as needed. On 07/13/21 at 11:15 AM, during initial room inspection of Resident 148's room, Resident 148 is lying in bed watching television. Resident 148 has a midline IV saline locked (clamped off when IV site is not in use) on his left upper arm without label (initials, date and time). On 07/13/21 at 11:31 AM, during interview with Resident 148, resident stated he is not sure when his IV was placed on his arm. On 07/13/21 at 11:33 AM, during a room inspection and interview with CNA 2, CNA 2 was observed trying to remove the tape of the IV from resident 148 when she was questioned about the IV site not being labeled with date, time and initials. On 07/13/21 at 11:34 AM, during interview with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated she does not see a date or any labeling on the IV and it looks like the tape is falling off. CNA 2 stated that when she was asked about the labeling of the IV site, she noticed the tape was falling off and was trying to remove it. She is not sure if she is supposed to remove the tape or handle the IV site. She's not sure if she is able to change the tape or not but she does cover the site when she takes the resident to the showers. On 07/13/21 at 11:41 AM, during observation and interview with DON stated there is no date or time and initials on the LUA midline IV site and the tape is loose and should be changed. The resident has a left upper arm midline IV inserted for his IV antibiotic treatment for sepsis. The midline IV site should be labeled with date and time to prevent the site from infection; to ensure that it is still working; and to know when IV should be replaced. Licensed nurses are to be monitoring the site and the dressing should be changed by the RNs. The CNAs should not handle the IV site at all and should call the licensing staff to cover the site or change the dressing. A review of the facility`s revised policy, titled IV Therapy Policies and Procedures, indicated that midline IV sites/dressing should be labeled with date, time and initials on the dressing label.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the Facility failed to ensure three (CNA Certified Nursing Assistants 5, 6 and 7) out of four CNA employee file reviewed demonstrate competency skills for perinea...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the Facility failed to ensure three (CNA Certified Nursing Assistants 5, 6 and 7) out of four CNA employee file reviewed demonstrate competency skills for perineal care, hygiene and room services annually to care for residents. This deficient practice placed the residents at risk for not receiving appropriate services, treatments, and risk for infection from daily care. Findings: A review of CNA 5's records indicated recent skills check competency completed on April 3, 2019. A review of CNA 6's records titled Skills check for use of lift equipment indicated last completed on January 2, 2019. A review of CNA 7's employee file records indicated the facility hired CNA 7 on June 4, 2018. CNA 7's employee records titled Orientation Competency Evaluation Nursing Skill Performance indicated recent skills check competency completed on June 4, 2018. On 7/19/2021 at 1:10 p.m., during an interview and record review with DSD Coordinator, DSD Coordinator stated that all CNA staff should complete competency skills check within 30 days of hire and annually per our policy. DSD stated CNA 5, 6 and 7 annual skills competencies were not completed because she did not know last completed dates for CNA 5, 6 and 7. DSD states it is important to have annual skills competencies completed annual to know if nurses are competent to care for the residents. A review of facility policy and procedure titled, Staff Competency or Skills Checks, dated August 22, 2019, indicated competency evaluations or skills checks will be performed upon hire during the 90 day probation period, annually, anytime a new procedure is introduced and as needed. IV. The annual evaluation of an employee will include skills checks and/or competency evaluation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

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 document the blood sugar result, amount of insulin ad...

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 document the blood sugar result, amount of insulin administered, and the site the medication administered on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) for Resident 39. This deficient practice had a potential to cause error in medication administration that could lead for the resident to experience adverse reaction from medication. Findings: A review of Resident 39's admission record indicated the resident was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (is an impairment in the way the body regulates and uses sugar (glucose) as a fuel) and Essential Hypertension (high blood pressure). A review of Resident 39's history and physical dated 12/02/2020 indicated he has fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 9/22/2019 indicated Resident 39's cognition was intact. MDS indicated Resident 39 required supervision (support) for transfer (moves to and from bed), dressing and toileting. A review of physician orders for July 2021 for Resident 39 indicated Humalog (Lispro) 100 unit/ml vial before meals and before bed with sliding scale coverage (the progressive increase in the pre-meal or nighttime insulin dose, based on pre-defined blood glucose ranges) subcutaneous (under the skin) injection. On 07/13/21 at 02:05 PM during an interview Resident 39 stated he received insulin therapy and requires insulin monitoring and administration every day because he has type 2 diabetes. On 07/15/21 at 02:07 PM during interview with the Director of Staff Development (DSD) he stated when administering insulin or medication for the resident, the staff administering monitoring/administering the insulin/medication should document on the MAR their initials; results of the assessment; amount of medication that was given; and site where the insulin/medication was given. On 07/15/21 at 02:12 PM during record review of the Medication Administration Record for July 2021 and concurrent interview, the DSD stated Admelog also known for Insulin Lispro 100 unit/ml vial the dated 7/2/21 at 9:00 PM shift, the blood sugar result, staff initials, amount of insulin and site was not documented. The MAR dated 7/8/21 for the 4:30 PM shift, the blood sugar result and the insulin administered was left blank and has no staff initials. For an order that reads Continuation of Lispro dated 7/11/21 timed 12:15 PM shift, the blood sugar result, staff initials, insulin dose and injection site was not documented and were left blank. On 07/19/21 at 01:56 PM during interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 stated with regards to monitoring residents with diabetes mellitus, the blood sugar needs to be assessed daily. The LVN stated on 7/2/21 and 7/11/21 she stated the staff did not document the resident's blood sugar result on the resident MAR. On 07/19/21 at 02:09 PM during interview and record review with the DON, the DON stated the blood sugar result and insulin injection site must be documented on the paper MAR. The DON stated and verified, Resident 39 MAR for insulin monitoring and injection site for Admelog 100 unit/ml vial before meals and before bed time, for 7/2/21 has no documentation (signature/initials, results of blood sugar check, or if insulin was given). The DON stated the policy for medication monitoring and administering requires that staff must always document and sign for medication administration. The DON stated if documentation not completed then the staff did not monitor or administer the medication. On 07/19/21 at 2:14 PM during interview with the DON, she stated the process and protocol for administering insulin, the staff should check the blood sugar, check the results against the sliding scale and administer the medication at the correct site and document. It is important to document the site they gave the insulin so that the next shift can use a different site to prevent the tissue from irritation. A review of the facility`s policy dated 08/01/2010, titled Specific Medication Administration Procedures, indicated document administration of the injection on the MAR along with the site used and include dosage if a sliding scale was used. A review of the facility's revised policy dated 01/01/2012, titled Medication-Administration indicated documentation should include the following: A. The time and dose of the drug or treatment administered to the patient will be recorded in the patient's individual medication record by the person who administers the drug or treatment. B. Recording will include the date, the time and the dosage of the medication or type of the treatment. C. Initials may be used, provided that the signature of the person administering the medication or treatment is also recorded on the medication or treatment record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement interventions to prevent and control the sp...

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 interventions to prevent and control the spread of infection to eight of eight sampled residents (Residents 10, 12, 37, 198, 199, 250,251 and 252) by failing to: 1.Post appropriate Transmission-Based precaution (TBP- infection control precautions) signage outside Residents 198, 199, 250, 251 and 252's rooms in the Yellow Zone (area for residents with close contacts to a known COVID-19 {a disease caused by a virus called SARS-Cov-2} case; newly admitted or re-admitted residents; dialysis patients; those who have symptoms of possible COVID-19 pending test results and unvaccinated residents) and PPE cart (PPE portable storage) readily available in Residents 198 and 199's room. 2. Ensure Resident 252, a yellow zone resident stayed on yellow zone designated smoking area. 3. Ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 adhered to the proper use of Personal Protective Equipment, face shield (PPE-protective equipment designed to protect the wearer's body from injury or infection such as masks, face shields, gowns, and gloves) according to the facility's Mitigation Plan for personal protective equipment guidelines in yellow room. 4. Ensure CNA 1 wear gloves when handling soiled and dirty towel and perform hand hygiene. These deficient practices had the potential to spread COVID-19 and other types of infection among staff, residents, and the community. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 198's Face Sheet (admission record), indicated the facility admitted the resident on 6/15/21 with diagnoses including Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD-long term lung disease that makes it hard to breathe) and anemia (condition in which the blood does not have enough healthy red blood cells). A review of Resident 198's History and Physical (H and P) dated 6/17/21 indicated Resident 198 was competent to understand his medical condition and patient's bill of rights as presented by staff. A review of Resident 198's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 6/22/21, indicated the resident required extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) with eating, toilet use and required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfer, dressing and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 199's Face Sheet, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 7/12/21 with diagnoses including dystonia (involuntary muscle contractions that cause repetitive or twisting movements) and difficulty in walking. A review of Resident 199's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident cognition was intact. Resident 199 required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and required supervision with eating. A review of Resident 250's Face Sheet, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 7/12/21 with diagnoses including Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (long term condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar) and essential hypertension (high blood pressure that doesn't have a known secondary cause). A review of Resident 250's H and P dated 7/7/21 indicated Resident 250 has capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 251's Face Sheet, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 7/12/1 with diagnoses including quadriplegia (paralysis from the neck down, including the trunk, legs and arms), alcohol abuse and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 251's H and P dated 7/13/21 indicated Resident 251 has the capacity to and make own decisions. A review of Resident 252's Face Sheet, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 6/29/21 with diagnosis that included alcohol abuse, essential hypertension and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 252's H and P dated 7/1/21, indicated the resident has the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 252's MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident required extensive assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, personal hygiene and required supervision with eating. A review of Resident 252's Vaccination record with the presence of the Infection Preventionist (IP), indicated Resident 252 refused COVID-19 vaccination on 6/29/21 but changed his mind thus first dose was given on 7/16/21. During a concurrent observation and interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 on 7/13/21 at 10:10 am, Resident 198 and 199 room's has no PPE cart and TBP signage outside the resident's room. CNA 2 admitted that Resident 199 was admitted a day ago, nighttime (7/12/21) and Resident 198 and 199's room was green zone in the morning when the department's surveyors made a quick facility tour. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 10:20 AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 stated Resident 198 and 199's room was green zone when she came in the morning and the IP changed it to yellow zone. LVN 4 stated, yellow zone should have TBP signage and PPE cart outside the resident's room as part of infection control precaution. LVN 4 stated staff worked in green zone would wear surgical mask and N95 (filtering facepiece respirator) for yellow zone. During a concurrent observation and interview with IP on 7/13/21 at 10:32 AM, Residents 250, 251 and 252's room, in yellow zone has no TBP signage outside the room. IP stated TBP signage has to be posted outside yellow zone rooms. IP stated that she was in the process of posting the TBP signage and would post it immediately. IP stated Resident 250 and 251 were newly admitted resident (7/12/21) and Resident 252 was admitted less than 14 days ago and was unvaccinated for COVID-19. IP stated that Resident 252 refused the vaccine but agreed on that day only (7/13/21) to receive vaccine. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 10:48 AM, IP stated she informed the nurses that Resident's 198 and 199 should be yellow zone and TBP signage should be posted. IP stated she did not know why the nurses forgot to set up the room as yellow zone. IP stated TBP signage was important and needed so the nurse entering the room would know the required PPE the staff has to wear to protect themselves. 2. A review of Resident 10's Face Sheet (admission record), indicated the facility admitted the resident on 4/1/21, with diagnosis that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD-long term lung disease that makes it hard to breathe), pneumonia (infection of the lungs) and difficulty in walking. A review of Resident 10's History and Physical (H and P) dated 4/2/21 indicated Resident 10 has the capacity to understand and make her own decision. A review of Resident 12's Face Sheet (admission record), indicated the facility initially admitted the resident on 4/15/21, with diagnosis that included anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities), muscle weakness and difficulty in walking. A review of Resident 12's MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident cognition was intact. During a concurrent observation and interview with IP on 7/13/21 at 11:39 AM, Resident 252 was observed smoking and using the same table with other two green zone (unit for residents who test negative for COVID 19, vaccinated for COVID-19) residents (Resident 10 and 12). Residents 252 was observed on the table outside the yellow zone markings' smoking area (photo attached). IP stated, Resident 252 should not be using the table for green zone smoking residents. IP stated Resident 252 should stayed inside the yellow markings, a designated area for smoking residents in yellow zone. 3. During an observation on 7/13/21 at 8:15 a.m., in the yellow zone area CNA 3 was observed providing care to Resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] Bed A. CNA 3 observed wearing N95 respirator, gown, and gloves, not wearing a face shield or goggles. A review of admission Record for Resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] bed A indicated an admission to the facility on 7/12/2021 with a diagnosis of Hypertensive emergency(an acute, marked elevation in blood pressure that is associated with signs of target-organ damage), DM type 2( impairment in the way the body regulates and uses sugar (glucose) as a fuel), Acute Kidney Injury(A condition in which the kidneys suddenly can't filter waste from the blood), Cerebrovascular Accident 2008 without deficits (Damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply) During an interview on 7/13/21 at 8:50 a.m., CNA 3 stated she knew and received in-services that she had to wear a face shield or goggles when in yellow zone and within 6 feet of resident providing patient care. The CNA stated, I was in a rush and I forgot. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 3:15 p.m., the IP nurse stated based on our Mitigation Plan staff should follow Contact and droplet Precaution when in yellow area and within six feet of a resident .Staff should wear N95 respirator, gown, gloves, and face shield or goggles while taking care of resident in yellow area. 4. A review of Resident 37's Face Sheet (admission record), indicated the facility admitted the resident on 8/21/19, with diagnosis that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (is an impairment in the way the body regulates and uses sugar (glucose) as a fuel) and dementia (A group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning). A review of Resident 37's History and Physical (H and P) dated 8/29/20 indicated Resident 10 has the capacity to understand and make her own decision. A review of Resident 37's MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident cognition was intact. On 07/13/21 at 10:38 AM during observation in Resident 37's room in the green zone, CNA 1 observed picking up dirty towels from Resident 37's bed after resident had wiped himself down with it. CNA 1 placed the dirty towels in a plastic bag without wearing gloves. CNA 1 is then seen going to the dirty linen bin and placing the bag of soiled linens in the bin without first washing her hands or donning gloves. On 07/13/21 at 10:42 AM, during interview with CNA 1, she stated she is assigned to Resident 37. She stated the towels for Resident 37 was soiled because she just gave him some towels to clean himself and would pick them up after he was finished wiping himself down. She did not use gloves to pick up the soiled towels because she was in a hurry and forgot to put them on. She stated she needs to wear gloves when handling dirty towels for all residents due to infection control purposes. On 07/13/21 at 10:46 AM, during interview with Resident 37, he stated CNA 1 had just given him some towels so that he can clean himself and he had placed them on his bed after he had wiped himself with it to be picked up later on. On 07/15/21 01:22 PM, during interview with Infection Preventionist (IP) stated that when staff handles dirty linen for all residents in the facility they should always wear gloves prior to placing them in a plastic bag and hand hygiene should be performed after touching dirty towels or linens. Gloves should be donned to avoid contamination to other surfaces for infection control. A review of the facility's COVID-19 Mitigation Plan, titled Personal Protective Equipment Revised 06/02/2021, indicated that in Yellow Area: Contact and Droplet Precautions, N95 respirator and eye protection. An N95 respirator should be worn for duration of the shift and doffed when contaminated -do not reuse. Wear goggles or a face shield when providing care within six feet of a resident. Gowns should be worn and changed between resident encounters. Gloves are worn and changed between every resident encounter with adherence to hand hygiene. A review of facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled Infection Control-Policies and Procedures revised on 1/01/12, indicated the Administrator, through the Infection Control Committees , adopts the infection control policies and practices to reflect the Facility's needs and operational requirements for preventing transmission of infections and communicable diseases as set forth in current CDC guidelines and recommendations. A review of facility's COVID-19 Mitigation Plan revised on 6/2/21 indicated the ff: 1. Staff, equipment, etc., should be dedicated to a cohort (green, yellow or red) and should not be shared between color coded patient care areas 2. Staff shall be trained on selecting, donning (putting on) and doffing (removing) appropriate PPE and demonstrate competency of such skills during resident care. 3. Signs shall be posted immediately outside of resident's rooms indicating appropriate infection control and prevention precautions in accordance with CDPH guidelines. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Infection Control-Policies and Procedures, revised on 1/1/12 indicated the facility must maintain a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment for personnel, residents, visitors, and the general public. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Soiled Laundry and Bedding, revised on September 2016, indicated that staff who handles soiled laundry (personal clothing, uniforms, gowns, bedsheets, blankets, towels, etc.) should wear protective gloves to prevent the spread of microbial organisms via soiled linens.
CONCERN (D)

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

Smoking Policies (Tag F0926)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement their smoking policy and procedure for four ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to implement their smoking policy and procedure for four of nine sampled residents (Resident 25, 39,200 and 252) by failing to; 1. Provide supervision to Residents' 39 and 252 while smoking in the designated smoking area. 2. Ensure a smoking risk assessment were completed for Resident's 25, 200 and 252 to evaluate resident's safety when smoking. This deficient practice had the potential not to identify risk of accident hazard that can potentially place residents at risk for accident and can result in life-threatening injuries. Findings: 1.A review of Resident 39's Face Sheet, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 11/16/20 with diagnosis that included Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (long term condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar) and essential hypertension (high blood pressure that doesn't have a known secondary cause). A review of Resident 39's History and Physical (H and P) dated 12/2/20, indicated the resident had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 39's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 5/17/21, indicated the resident required supervision (oversight, encouragement and cueing) with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 39's Smoking Safety Evaluation dated 5/19/21, indicated all residents including Resident 39 required supervision when smoking during designated smoking times. A review of Resident 252's Face Sheet, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 6/29/21 with diagnosis that included alcohol abuse, essential hypertension and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 252's H and P dated 7/1/21, indicated the resident has the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 252's MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident required extensive assistance resident involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, personal hygiene and required supervision with eating. A review of Resident 252's Care Plan dated 7/2/21, indicated the resident was a smoker and the intervention included to supervise resident during smoking. During the preparation for entrance conference on 7/13/21 at 8:17 AM in the facility's dining room, Resident 39 and 252 were observed outside the patio, smoking area smoking cigarette. During an observation there were no staff present around the smoking area to supervise Resident 39 and 252. During an observation on 7/13/21 at 11:50 AM, Resident 252 was observed in the smoking patio by himself, without any staff around the smoking area to supervise the resident. IP called a facility staff to stay with Resident 252. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 12:32 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, all residents who smoke needs supervision when smoking. The DON stated mostly department heads/leader were assigned to supervise residents during smoking times. During an observation and an interview on 7/13/21 at 12:55 PM, Infection Preventionist (IP) validated that Resident 39 was smoking in the smoking patio without staff supervision. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 1:50 PM, the Minimum Data Set (MDS) Nurse stated all smoking resident needs supervision from the staff during smoking times in designated smoking area. During a concurrent interview and record review with Case Manger (CM) on 7/13/21 at 2:52 PM, CM stated the Administrator (Admin) and him make the staff schedule for supervising smoking residents. CM stated all residents who smoke needs supervision from the staff all the time regardless if smoking assessment evaluated the resident as safe or unsafe to smoke. 2.A review of Resident 25's Face Sheet, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 8/17/21, with diagnosis that included anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities), major depressive disorder (mood disorder that interferes with daily life) and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 25's History and Physical dated 2/12/21, indicated Resident 25 had the capacity to understand and make her own decision. A review of Resident 25's MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident required supervision with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 200's Face Sheet, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 6/30/21 with diagnosis that included anxiety disorder, Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (long term condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar) and muscle weakness. A review of Resident 200's H and P dated 7/2/21, indicated Resident 200 was able to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 200's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 200 required extensive assistance with toilet use and required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfer and dressing. Resident 200 required supervision with eating and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 200's Care Plan dated 7/1/21, indicated the resident was at risk for smoking related injury due to being a long-term smoker. The intervention included that the resident would smoke safely in accordance with facility policy. During a concurrent interview and record review with IP on 7/13/21 at 12:12 PM, IP validated that there was no smoking assessment done for Residents 25, 200 and 252. IP stated she was not sure who was responsible for completing the smoking assessment for residents who smoke. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 12:32 PM, the DON stated all smoking residents should have smoking assessment. The DON stated Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) were responsible for completing smoking assessment upon admission or if there's any changes in resident's smoking status or condition. During a concurrent interview and record review with MDS nurse on 7/13/21 at 1:50 PM, MDS nurse verified and stated that there was no smoking assessment done for resident 252 and he just completed one that day after the surveyor reviewed Resident 252's medical records. MDS nurse stated any LVN can complete smoking assessment upon admission or the DON, Registered Nurse (RN) Supervisor and/or MDS nurse can complete the assessment the following day if not able to complete during the day of admission. During a concurrent interview and record review with MDS nurse on 7/13/21 at 2:47 PM, MDS nurse stated that there was no smoking assessment completed for Resident 200 since the resident was only admitted recently (6/30/21). MDS verified and stated that he completed Resident 200's smoking assessment only after the surveyor reviewed Resident 200's medical records. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 2:52 AM with CM, residents who wanted to smoke had to be assessed and evaluated if they were alert, safe to hold cigarettes, able to use ashtray and keep smoking paraphernalia. A review of facility's form titled Smoking Safety Evaluation, indicated supervision will be required for all Residents during designated smoking times. A review of facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled Resident Smoking revised on 1/2018, indicated, the facility will assess the resident requesting to smoke upon admission for safety. The policy indicated staff member will accompany residents choosing to smoke on the hour for ten minutes.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Licensed Nurses has an accurate documentation of Methadone (a synthetic analgesic drug that is similar to morphine...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Licensed Nurses has an accurate documentation of Methadone (a synthetic analgesic drug that is similar to morphine in its effects but longer acting, used as a substitute drug in the treatment of morphine and heroin addiction) administration in the Medication Administration Record (MAR) of Resident 25. This deficient practice has the potential for medication error. Findings A review of Resident 25's Face Sheet (admission record) dated 7/09/2021, indicated the facility admitted the resident on 8/17/2020 with diagnosis of Long term (current) use of opiate analgesic. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 2/12/21 indicated Resident 25's has intact cognitive skills for daily decision making). Resident 25 required supervision with bed mobility, transfer, walking, locomotion, dressing, personal hygiene, and bathing. A review of Resident 25 physicians' orders dated 11/25/20 indicated a written order for Methadone 120 mg, 1 bottle liquid by mouth every day for opioid abuse. A record review of Resident 25's MAR from 11/25/20 up to 7/14/21, showed initials from licensed nurses every day, indicted Methadone was administered by licensed nurses in facility. During an interview on 7/14/21 at 11:30 A.M, LVN 1 stated There are only 6 bottles because the resident goes to the Methadone clinic on Fridays and receives the 7th dose of Methadone in the clinic. During an interview on 7/14/21 at 3:47 PM, Resident 25 stated I'm always in pain, my pain was really bad Resident 25 stated he receives Dilaudid and Methadone. Resident 25 stated he goes to the Methadone clinic on Fridays unaccompanied by staff. During an interview and record review on 7/14/21 at 4:05 PM the DON stated and verified that the nurse signatures on Resident 25's MAR for administration of Methadone every day since the beginning of the month of July including on Fridays 7/2/21 and 7/9/21. During an interview and record review on 7/15/21 at 7:07 AM of Residents 25 MAR for the month of July, LVN 4 stated and verified the July 2021 MAR that she had signed MAR on 7/2/21 and 7/9/21. LVN 4 stated she did not administer the Methadone for Resident 25, but she signed the MAR. LVN 4 stated she was used to sign the MAR for Methadone administrator because before she would give it every day. LVN 4 stated she don't know why she signed those dates that she has not given the dose to the resident. LVN 4 stated it was very uncomfortable because there was no direct direction or understating of what to do with the Methadone and she did not clarify the instructions received from another Licensed Nurse. A review of the facility's policy and procedures titled Medication Administration, dated January,01,2012, indicated To ensure the accurate administration of medication for residents in the facility. Nursing staff will keep in mind the seven rights of medication when administering medication The seven rights of medication are: i The right medication ii The right amount iii The right resident iv. The right time v. The right route vi. Resident has the right to know what medication does vii. Resident has the right to refuse the medication (unless court ordered)
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident 10's room is free from accident hazard for one of two sampled residents (Resident 10) when Resident 10's multi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Resident 10's room is free from accident hazard for one of two sampled residents (Resident 10) when Resident 10's multiple boxes and plastic bags with personal belongings were left cluttered on the floor in Resident 10's room. This deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for accident and can result in life-threatening injuries. Findings: A review of Resident 10's Face Sheet (admission record), indicated the facility admitted the resident on 4/1/21, with diagnosis that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD-long term lung disease that makes it hard to breathe), pneumonia (infection of the lungs) and difficulty in walking. A review of Resident 10's History and Physical (H and P) dated 4/2/21 indicated Resident 10 has the capacity to understand and make her own decision. A review of Resident 10's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 4/8/21, indicated the resident required extensive assistance (resident involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and required supervision (oversight, encouragement and cueing) with eating. A review of Resident 10's Care Plan dated 5/6/21 indicated Resident 10 is at risk for fall due to her long tubing of nasal cannula (flexible tube that is placed under the nose, tube includes two prongs that go inside the nostrils; used to deliver oxygen to people who do not otherwise get enough of it) with the following intervention: a. Keep environment free from any other clutter. A review of Resident 10's Care Plan dated 5/17/21 indicated Resident 10 is a t risk for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) decline due to resident's medical condition with the following intervention: a. Maintain safe and hazard free environment. A review of Resident 10's Care Plan dated 5/17/21 indicated Resident 10 is at risk for fall due to resident's medical condition with the following interventions: a. Monitor environment for wet spots or items below field of vision b. Remind resident to ask for assistance. During an observation on 7/13/21 on 10:32 AM, Resident 10 was rummaging her personal belongings inside the cluttered multiple boxes and plastic bags located on the floor of Resident 2's room (foot part Resident 10's bed). There were two beds adjacent to Resident 10's bed and the belongings were almost obstructing the way to Resident 10's bed. At the same time, Case Manager (CM) was observed putting some resident's belongings in resident room's closet. During an interview on 7/13/21 on 10:43 AM, CM stated he was helping Resident 2 put her stuff and belongings inside Resident 2's designated closet. CM validated that the boxes and plastic bags cluttered on Resident 2's foot part of the bed were belongings of Resident 2, During an interview on 7/13/21 on 10:46 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 4 validated that Resident 2's personal belongings were cluttered on the floor, almost blocking the way to Resident 2's bed. CNA 4 stated that the clutter was not safe and putting the Resident 2 at risk for an accident. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 11:28 AM, Resident 10 stated she has a lot of stuff, belongings and it does not fit inside the closet. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 12:08 PM, CNA 1 stated Resident 10's clutter already been fixed and the CNA with the help of CM place the belongings inside Resident 10's closet. CNA 1 stated there were 3 closet spaces in Resident 10's room, one space assigned to each resident. CNA will place the belongings to resident's closet during admission or room change. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 12:18 PM, CNA 3 stated she was usually taking care or Resident 2 when the resident was on another room (Resident 2's previous room). CNA 3 stated Resident 2 likes buying stuff online and placing them on her bed or on the floor. CNA 3 stated Resident 2 always allows her to arranged and organized Resident 2's belongings on her closet when she was still on the other room to prevent resident from accidents. During an interview on 7/19/21 at 10:52 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated that they do not allow anything clutter on the floor including resident's room because It is an accident hazard.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

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 follow the facility's pull out schedule for thawing m...

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 follow the facility's pull out schedule for thawing meat products and ensure proper storage of four defrosted meat packages (two packs of defrosted pork and two packs of defrosted chicken) that were located in the facility refrigerator. This deficient practice had the potential to result in poor quality of food and foodborne illness upon resident consumption. Findings: During the initial kitchen tour on 7/13/21 at 8:19 AM, two closed package of pork and two package of chicken (one open and one closed) was observed defrosting in the refrigerator. The two pork package were placed in a shallow pan. The pork package was soft and observed with dark red colored liquid in the shallow pan. On the clear plastic covering over the shallow pan covering the pork package indicated, Pork dated 7/9/21 and use by 7/12/21. The two chickens were placed in a deep pan and covered with a clear plastic wrap. The writing on the clear plastic wrap indicated, chicken with unclear dates written. Non-clear liquid was observed in the deep pan of the two packages of chicken. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 8:21 AM, the Dietary Staff Supervisor (DSS) stated the two packages of pork were to be served for dinner on 7/13/21 to make pork carnitas, and the two packages of chicken were to be served for lunch on 7/13/21 to make chicken [NAME]. The DSS stated once frozen meat was pulled out from the freezer and placed into the refrigerator to defrost, the meat should be served by the third day, which included the day the frozen meat was pulled out. The DSS stated a wrong date was written on the clear plastic wrapping for both the chicken packages and the pork packages. The DSS stated the use-by-dates written on the clear plastic covering indicated that 7/13/21 was the fifth day the two pork packages and the two chicken packages have been defrosting in the refrigerator. The DSS stated the two pork packages and the two chicken packages would be discarded and a substitute menu will be provided, and residents would be notified. The DSS stated she did not want to risk any food contamination or illness because it was facility practice that meats defrosting in the refrigerator had a maximum of three days to defrost. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 8:24 AM, dietary cook (DC) stated once meats are pulled out from the freezer, the meat was labeled with the date it was pulled out, and a use-by-date must be written. The DC stated the meat must be used by the use-by-date and not after to prevent residents from becoming sick or ill. DC stated it was important to follow the dates written on all food items. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 10:35 AM, registered dietician consultant (RDC) stated all meat defrosting in the refrigerator must have a pull out date and use by date. The RDC stated the defrosted meat must not go past the use-by-date indicated on the labeling by the kitchen staff, and that raw meats from the freezer to the refrigerator could only be defrosting in the refrigerator for a total of three days. A review of the facility's in-service for the topic on Labeling and dating, dated 4/28/21, indicated a review with dietary staff on the importance to label food and avoid mistaking products for another, especially from those food items removed from their original packaging. The in-service reviewed that packages must be labeled, dated, and have a use by date. A review of the undated Refrigerated Storage Guide by Registered Dietician (RD) for Healthcare, INC., provided by the DSS, indicated under Meat taken from Freezer to thaw listed: Roasts, steaks, chops, poultry, fish and ground meat with a maximum refrigeration time once meat has thawed was two days. For Luncheon meats, ham, bacon, frankfurters and other processed meats, the maximum refrigeration time once meat was thawed was five days. A review of the pull out schedule, titled Production Sheet Summer Week 2- 2021 by the RDs for Healthcare, Inc., provided by the DSS indicated under Saturday lunch, thaw chicken for Tuesday. The Production Sheet indicated to thaw pork under Monday lunch for the use of pork for Thursday Lunch and Thursday dinner for the use of pork for Sunday Dinner. There was no indication to thaw pork for Tuesday Dinner. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) dated 7/25/19, titled Food Storage, indicated to thaw food in a covered container. The P&P indicated to date meat when taken out from the freezer and the date of meal service and to follow a meat pull-out schedule on menus. A review of the facility's undated P&P titled Labeling and Dating of Foods indicated that all food items in the storeroom, refrigerator, and freezer need to be labeled and dated. The P&P indicated opened food items need to be closed and labeled with an open date and used by date that follows guidelines.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

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 12 out of 22 residents rooms (Rooms # 3,4,5,6,7...

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 12 out of 22 residents rooms (Rooms # 3,4,5,6,7,8,11,14,15,16,17,18) met the requirements of 80 square feet for each resident in multiple resident bedrooms. The 12 rooms consisted of 1- two bedrooms, 10-three bedrooms and 1-four bedrooms. This deficient practice had the potential to result to inadequate space to provide safe nursing care, and privacy for residents. Findings: According to the Client Accommodations Analysis form dated 7/19/21, indicated the facility had several rooms that measured less than the required 80 square footages per resident in multiple bedrooms. The letter indicated the waiver on room size will not compromise the health, welfare and safety of the residents. The following resident bedrooms were: room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 222 room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 206 room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 205 room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 150 room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 221 room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 223 room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 230 room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 211 room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 222 room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 224 room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 237 room [ROOM NUMBER] (4 beds) 299 During the Resident Council meeting on 7/14/21 at 7:20 AM, there were no concerns brought up regarding the residents' room size. During an observation of the facility and resident's rooms from 7/13/21 to 7/19/21, the residents residing in the rooms with an application for variance were observed to have enough space to move freely inside the rooms. Each resident inside the affected rooms had beds and side tables with drawers. There is an adequate room for the operation and use of wheelchairs, walkers, or canes. The room variance did not affect the care and services provided to the residents when nursing staff were observed providing care to these 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
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
  • • 22% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 26 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 49 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade C (53/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 53/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Highland Park Skilled Nursing And Wellness Center's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns HIGHLAND PARK SKILLED NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Highland Park Skilled Nursing And Wellness Center Staffed?

CMS rates HIGHLAND PARK SKILLED NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 22%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 60%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at Highland Park Skilled Nursing And Wellness Center?

State health inspectors documented 49 deficiencies at HIGHLAND PARK SKILLED NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 44 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 Highland Park Skilled Nursing And Wellness Center?

HIGHLAND PARK SKILLED NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by PACIFIC HEALTHCARE HOLDINGS, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 59 certified beds and approximately 51 residents (about 86% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LOS ANGELES, California.

How Does Highland Park Skilled Nursing And Wellness Center Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, HIGHLAND PARK SKILLED NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (22%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Highland Park Skilled Nursing And Wellness 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 Highland Park Skilled Nursing And Wellness Center Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, HIGHLAND PARK SKILLED NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in California. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Highland Park Skilled Nursing And Wellness Center Stick Around?

Staff at HIGHLAND PARK SKILLED NURSING AND WELLNESS CENTER tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 22%, the facility is 24 percentage points below the California average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly.

Was Highland Park Skilled Nursing And Wellness Center Ever Fined?

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

Is Highland Park Skilled Nursing And Wellness Center on Any Federal Watch List?

HIGHLAND PARK SKILLED NURSING AND WELLNESS 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.