LOTUS CARE CENTER

6011 WEST BLVD, LOS ANGELES, CA 90043 (323) 292-0749
For profit - Corporation 40 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
56/100
#393 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: October 2024

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

Overview

Lotus Care Center in Los Angeles has a Trust Grade of C, indicating an average quality of care that is neither particularly good nor bad. It ranks #393 out of 1,155 nursing homes in California, placing it in the top half of facilities statewide, and #60 out of 369 in Los Angeles County, meaning there is only one local option better than this one. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with the number of issues rising from 6 in 2023 to 13 in 2024. Staffing is rated 4 out of 5 stars, which is a strength, although the turnover rate is at 43%, slightly above the state average. On the concerning side, the facility has incurred $19,460 in fines, which is higher than 81% of California facilities, and there have been specific incidents like a resident being left unmonitored, posing an elopement risk, and issues with food storage and cleanliness that could lead to infections or foodborne illnesses.

Trust Score
C
56/100
In California
#393/1155
Top 34%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
6 → 13 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
43% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
○ Average
$19,460 in fines. Higher than 57% of California facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 28 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
25 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★☆
4.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★☆☆
3.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 6 issues
2024: 13 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (43%)

    5 points below California average of 48%

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

The Bad

Staff Turnover: 43%

Near California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $19,460

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 25 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Oct 2024 11 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide accurate information in the Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a fede...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide accurate information in the Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a federally mandated assessment tool), for one of eight sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice had the potential to result in inaccurate care and services for Resident 1 due to inappropriate MDS care screening and assessment tool practices. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 1's diagnoses included schizophrenia (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), anxiety (a feeling of uneasiness or fear), and depression. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, the Order Summary Report indicated Resident 1 was receiving Risperidone (a medication for schizophrenia) 3 milligrams ([mg]- a unit of measurement) twice a day. During a review of Resident 1's care plan, dated 9/13/2024, the care plan indicated Resident had auditory hallucinations (hearing things that are not real) and talks to unseen persons. The care plan indicated Resident 1 was receiving Risperidone. During a review of Resident 1's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderately impaired cognition (ability to reason, understand, remember, judge, and learn), and did not have the diagnosis of schizophrenia checked off under Psychiatric/Mood Disorder. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 9:44 AM with the Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDSN), the MDSN stated the purpose of the MDS was to provide an overall assessment of the resident. The MDSN stated the MDS contained information regarding the resident's diagnosis, treatment, and medication. The MDSN stated information recorded in the MDS was obtained by reviewing the resident's medical records, interviewing the resident and/or their representative, assessing the resident, and interviewing staff who were caring for the resident. The MDSN looked through Resident 1's medical record and stated Resident 1 had an active diagnosis of schizophrenia but schizophrenia was not checked off in the MDS and it should have been. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 2:44 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the MDS was to gather information that pertained to the resident's treatment plan, medication, and diagnosis. The MDSN stated an inaccurate MDS may result in the resident not having an appropriate plan of care in place. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Assessments and the Care Delivery Process, dated 12/2016, the P&P indicated comprehensive assessment, and care planning involve collecting and analyzing information, choosing, and initiating interventions, and then monitoring results and adjusting interventions. The P&P indicated the MDS will be completed within 14 days after admission, within 14 days after a resident had a significant change in condition, and annually.
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 ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 15) had a care plan de...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 15) had a care plan developed to address smoking. This deficient practice had the potential to result in a lack of monitoring and risk of injury. Findings: During a review of Resident 15's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 15's diagnoses included heart failure (weakened heart), bipolar disorder (mental illness that causes extreme shifts in mood), and schizophrenia (mental disorder that affects a person's thoughts/perceptions). During a review of Resident 15's History and Physical (H&P), dated 8/15/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 15 could make her needs known but did not have capacity to consent. During a review of Resident 15's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized federally mandated assessment tool) dated 9/6/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 15's cognition (gaining knowledge and understanding) was intact. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 15's care plans were reviewed. RN 1 could not show a care plan was developed for smoking. RN 1 stated a care plan was needed to make goals and interventions to care for the resident. RN 1 stated if there was no care plan for smoking it could be a safety risk because the resident may not receive appropriate monitoring. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 2:34 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated care plans help staff identify potential problems that could affect resident care. The DON stated a smoker should have a care plan because there was a risk for injury and staff needed to create interventions. The DON stated staff could implement interventions to provide proper care and promote quality of life. During a review of Resident 15's Smoking Safety Evaluation, dated 10/17/2024, the evaluation indicated it would be utilized to create the resident's smoking care plan. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Care Plans-Baseline, dated December 2016, the P&P indicated a baseline care plan to meet the resident's immediate needs shall be developed within 48 hours of admission. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Smoking Policy-Residents, dated July 2017, the P&P indicated any smoking related privileges, restrictions, and concerns shall be noted on the care plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to complete a change of condition and notify the doctor ...

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 complete a change of condition and notify the doctor of bruising for one out of one sampled resident (Resident 24) who was receiving Eliquis (a blood thinning medication). This deficient practice had the potential to delay necessary care and services for Resident 24. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/15/2024 at 3:29 PM, with Resident 24 outside of his room, observed both of Resident 24's hands. Resident 24's hands were observed with a dark purplish discoloration by the thumb with the left side being worse than the right. Resident 24 stated he did not know where the bruising came from, and denied falling, being hit, or accidentally hitting his hands against something. Resident 24 stated the nurses were aware of the bruising but did not recall which nurse knew about it. During a review of Resident 24's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 24's diagnoses included schizophrenia (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression to elevated periods of emotional highs), and chronic ischemic heart disease (a condition where the blood vessels in the heart narrow over time and reduces blood flow to the heart muscle). During a review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a federally mandated assessment tool), dated 9/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 24 had moderately impaired cognition (ability to reason, understand, remember, judge, and learn). During a review of Resident 24's Order Summary Report, the Order Summary Report indicated Resident 24 was receiving Eliquis to prevent deep vein thrombosis (a blood clot that forms in the vein), and staff were to monitor for bruising, skin discoloration, gum bleed, bowel movement, and urine output every shift. During a review of Resident 24's Baseline Care Plan Skin Condition, dated 9/10/2024, the baseline care plan indicated Resident 24 was admitted to the facility with no skin problems. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 10:47 AM with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated anything that deviates from the baseline of the resident could be considered a change of condition, and the baseline could be determined by prior documentation and assessment of the resident. RN 1 stated when there was a change in condition, the nurse needed to fill out the change of condition form and notify the doctor to see what the next steps were regarding treatment and monitoring for the resident. RN 1 stated she did not see a change of condition completed for the bruising on Resident 24's hands and did not see documentation that the doctor was notified. RN 1 stated Resident 24 was at risk for bruising because the resident was receiving an anticoagulant (a medication to reduce blood clots from forming in the blood vessels). RN 1 stated there was an order for the charge nurse to monitor for bruising and if they signed off on it, it means they monitored on their shift for bruising. RN 1 stated that by not completing the change of condition form and notifying the doctor, it could delay care for Resident 24. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 2:12 PM with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN), LVN 1 stated nurses document every shift on Resident 24's Medication Administration Record that monitoring was done for bruising regarding Resident 24 receiving Eliquis. LVN 1 stated she was aware that Resident 24 had bruising on both hands but believed they were old and had been there for a long time. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 2:46 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated if there was a change from the resident's baseline, the staff needed to complete a change of condition form and notify the doctor. The DON stated failing to do so could result in delay of care and treatment for the resident. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, dated 5/2017, the P&P indicated the nurse will notify the resident's Attending Physician when there has been a significant change in residents condition, and need to alter the resident's medical treatment significantly. A significant change of condition is a major decline or improvement that will not normally resolve itself without intervention by staff or by implementing standard disease-related clinical interventions. Prior to notifying the Physician, the nurse will make detailed observations and gather relevant information for the provider. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Anticoagulation- Clinical Protocol, dated 11/2018, the P&P indicated the staff and physician will monitor for possible complications in individuals who are being anticoagulated and will manage related problems. The P&P indicated if an individual on anticoagulation therapy shows signs of excessive bruising, hematuria, hemoptysis or other evidence of bleeding, the nurse will discuss the situation with the physician before giving the next scheduled dose of anticoagulant.
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 one out of five sampled employees had an annual skills checklist completed. This deficient practice had the potential to result in s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of five sampled employees had an annual skills checklist completed. This deficient practice had the potential to result in substandard quality of care to residents due to a lack of training/assessment. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/16/2024 at 3:57 p.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the employee file for Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 was reviewed. The DSD stated CNA 2 was hired on 12/21/2022. The DSD could not provide a completed annual skills checklist. The DSD stated CNA 2 should have had an annual skills checklist completed in December 2023. The DSD stated the checklist was important to ensure CNA 2 was competent and understood her job. The DSD stated the check list helped make sure things were done accurately. The DSD stated if the skills check list was not completed, care for the resident may not be done properly. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 2:34 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the skills check list should be completed upon hire and annually. The DON stated the checklist was needed to identify what areas the employee needed to improve. The DON stated if there was no skills checklist completed, staff may not be able to provide appropriate care to the resident. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Competency of Nursing Staff, dated May 2019, the P&P indicated facility and resident-specific competency evaluations will be conducted upon hire and annually.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled residents (Resident 27) received a monthl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled residents (Resident 27) received a monthly Medication Regimen Review ([MRR] evaluation of medications to identify issues) by the pharmacist. This deficient practice put Resident 27 at risk for an adverse drug reaction (harmful response). Findings: During a review of Resident 27's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 27's diagnoses included heart failure (weakened heart), bipolar disorder (mental illness that causes extreme shifts in mood), and schizophrenia (mental disorder that affects a person's thoughts/perceptions). During a review of Resident 27's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/3/24, the H&P indicated Resident 27 could make needs known but could not make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 27's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a federally mandated assessment tool) dated 9/7/24, the MDS indicated Resident 27 had moderate cognitive impairment (problems with the ability to think, learn, and make decisions). During a concurrent interview and record review 10/17/24 at 2:34 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the facility's MRR binder was reviewed. The DON could not show an MRR was completed for Resident 27 for the month of August 2024. The DON stated the MRRwas needed to identify if a medication needed to be clarified, and if it was given for the right diagnosis. The DON stated if there was no MRR completed there was a potential for the resident to have adverse reactions. During an interview on 10/17/24 at 9:15 a.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated the MRR was used to identify if medications were the correct dose/frequency. RN 1 stated if the MRR was not completed the resident's safety was compromised. RN 1 stated the resident could have an adverse reaction. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Regimen Reviews, dated May 2019, the P&P indicated medication regimen reviews are done upon admission and at least monthly.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure three bottles of Enulose (medication used to help with a brain disorder caused by liver disease) in medication Cart 1 ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure three bottles of Enulose (medication used to help with a brain disorder caused by liver disease) in medication Cart 1 was free of sticky residue. This deficient practice put residents at risk for infection related to cross contamination (transfer of bacteria from one object another). Findings: During an observation on 10/15/24 at 12:30 p.m at Medication Cart 1, three bottles of Enulose were found with sticky residue on the outside of the container. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/15/24 at 12:35 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 at Medication Cart 1, LVN 1 picked up the Enulose bottle and stated, It's sticky. LVN 1 stated there was a risk of cross contamination from the hands to bottle. LVN 1 stated a resident could be injured if they were allergic to the medication, and it was transferred to them from the nurse's hands. LVN 1 stated per policy, the bottle should be wiped off. During an interview on 10/17/24 at 2:34 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated after administering medications the nurse had to ensure there was no spillage on the bottle. The DON stated a sticky bottle was a risk for cross-contamination. The DON stated the resident was at risk for an adverse side effect if they came in contact with the medication. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Storage and Labeling, (no date), the P&P indicated no contaminated drugs shall be available for use.
CONCERN (D)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all dumpsters were kept closed. This deficient practice had the potential to attract flies and rodents to the dumpster...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure all dumpsters were kept closed. This deficient practice had the potential to attract flies and rodents to the dumpster area. Findings: During an observation on 10/15/2024 at 9:15 a.m. one out of two dumpsters were noted to have the lid off. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 8:02 a.m. with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS), the MS stated the dumpster should be closed at all times. The MS stated if the dumpster was left open it could attract flies and rats. The MS stated rats could get into the facility. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 2:34 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the dumpster should be closed at all times to prevent harboring of insects and odor. The DON stated an open dumpster could attract rodents and insects. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food-Related Garbage and Refuse Disposal, dated October 2017, the P&P indicated all garbage containers must be kept covered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain clinical records in accordance with accepted professional standards and practices for one of eight sampled residents (Resident 24). This deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact the continuity of care and delivery of services for Resident 24. Findings: During a review of Resident 24's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 24's diagnoses included schizophrenia (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), bipolar disorder (a mental illness that causes extreme shifts in mood, energy, and activity levels), and depression. During a review of Resident 24's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a federally mandated assessment tool), dated 9/13/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 24 had moderately impaired cognition (ability to reason, understand, remember, judge, and learn). During a review of Resident 24's Licensed Nurses Progress Notes, dated 9/10/2024 at 5:05 AM, 9/10/2024 at 9:25 AM, 9/10/2024 at 10:10 AM, 9/10/2024 at 10:20 AM, the notes did not contain the name or title of the staff member who wrote the note, only an illegible (unable to read) initial. During a concurrent interview and record review on 10/17/2024 at 10:30 AM with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 24's Licensed Nurses Progress Notes dated 9/10/2024 at 5:05 AM, 9/10/2024 at 9:25 AM, 9/10/2024 at 10:10 AM, 9/10/2024 at 10:20 AM were reviewed. RN 1 stated the standard for handwritten documentation should be just like if it was documented electronically. RN 1 stated the documentation needed to contain information about what was done and needs to include the date, time, signature, name, and title of the staff member who documented. RN 1 stated all this information was necessary because it tells the reader who wrote the note and performed the task and if clarification was needed, the reader could reach out to that staff member. RN 1stated there was no name or title for the entries made on the Licensed Nurses Progress Notes and if she needed to figure out who wrote the note, sometimes she could recognize the handwriting, or would have to go back and find the staff assignment for the date of the documentation to figure out who wrote the documentation. RN 1stated if there was a printed name and title, then the reader could easily tell who documented in the resident's medical records. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 2:24 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated handwritten documentation should be just as if it was entered electronically and that should include the note and the date, time, name, and title of the person who documented. The DON stated only licensed nurses such as registered nurses or licensed vocational nurses could document in the resident's progress notes, not certified nurse assistants. The DON stated it would be difficult to follow up with the writer who documented if the note did not have the name or title of the writer. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Charting and Documentation, dated 7/2017, the P&P indicated documentation of procedures and treatment shall include at a minimum the signature and title of the individual documenting, name and title of the individual(s) who provided the care, and the date and time.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items were stored in a manner to prevent the growth of microorganisms that could cause food borne illnesses (any ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food items were stored in a manner to prevent the growth of microorganisms that could cause food borne illnesses (any illness resulting from spoiled or contaminated food). This deficient practice had the potential to cause food borne illnesses for residents in the facility. Findings: During an observation on 10/15/2024 at 8:40 AM, in the kitchen dry storage room, the following findings were observed: 1. One container of peanut butter was found to have sticky residue and jelly like substance on the outside of the container. 2. One bottle of liquid smoke was found to have sticky residue on the outside of the container. During an interview on 10/15/2024 at 8:48 AM with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), the DS was shown the container of peanut butter and bottle of liquid smoke. The DS stated the container had sticky residue on both the containers and it was important to ensure food containers were clean to prevent attracting pests and roaches to food storage areas. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Receiving and Storage, dated 12/2008, the P&P indicated food services will maintain clean food storage areas at all times.
CONCERN (F)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the laundry room was free from personal food items. This deficient practice had the potential to spread infection thr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the laundry room was free from personal food items. This deficient practice had the potential to spread infection throughout the facility. Findings: During an observation on 10/17/2024 at 7:49 AM, in the laundry room, a bag of dried food items was observed on a chair next to a table where clean linens were folded and where clean residents clothing were stored below. There was also a small orange and a jar of sugar packets in the drawer where personal protection equipment (PPE) was stored. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 8:01 AM with the Laundry Aide (LA) and Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1, the LA stated staff stored their food in the laundry room, but did not eat it in the laundry room. The LA stated staff ate in the break room. CNA 1 stated having food around clean linen and PPE was an infection control risk which could also cause bad odors in the laundry room. During an interview on 10/18/2024 at 10:33 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated if food items were kept in the laundry area amongst clean linen and PPE it was a potential risk for infection due to cross contamination. The DON stated PPE should be kept in a clean area and ready to use and all food items should be placed in the breakroom with clean and potentially dirty linens. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Laundry and Bedding, Soiled, dated 10/2018, the P&P indicated soiled laundry/bedding shall be handled, transported, and processed according to best practices for infection prevention and control.
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 each resident had at least 80 square feet (sqf...

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 each resident had at least 80 square feet (sqft, unit of measure of living space in Rooms 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17. This deficient practice had the potential to result in residents not being able to move around freely or store personal items, and staff may also have difficulty providing care due to a lack of space. Findings: During an observation on 10/17/2024 at 10:18 a.m., in room [ROOM NUMBER], room [ROOM NUMBER] was observed with four occupied beds. During an interview on 10/17/2024 at 2:34 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the residents may have limited space to move around. The DON stated there was a potential less space could affect patient care. During a review of the Client Accommodations Analysis (form that indicates room measurement and capacity), dated 10/17/2024, the client accommodations analysis indicated the facility had the following room measurements: Room Number: Number of beds: Square Feet (sqft): room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 beds 125 sqft room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 beds 138 sqft room [ROOM NUMBER],8 2 beds 156 sqft room [ROOM NUMBER] 2 beds 141 sqft room [ROOM NUMBER] 4 beds 290 sqft room [ROOM NUMBER], 14, 15, 16, 17 4 beds 295 sqft During a review of the room waiver request letter, dated 10/17/2024, submitted by the Administrator (ADM), the waiver request letter indicated the following room measurements: Room Number: Number of beds: Dimensions: Sqft per resident: 1 2 13.9 x 9 ft 62.6 sqft 6 2 9.9 x 14 ft 69.4 sqft 7,8 2 11 x 14.2 ft 78.3 sqft 9 2 11.2 x 14.2 ft 70.6 sqft 10 2 11.2 x 14.2 ft 80.1 sqft 11 4 27.1 x 10.7 ft 72.4 sqft 12,14,15,16,17 4 27.6 x 10.7 ft 73.8 sqft The letter indicated resident Rooms 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10 measured more than the required 80 sqft per resident. The letter also indicated the waiver will not adversely affect the health, safety, and welfare of each resident.
Sept 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide the low air loss mattress ([LAL] special mattr...

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 low air loss mattress ([LAL] special mattress for wound management) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), as ordered by the physician. This failure placed the resident ' s wound at risk for poor healing and worsening condition. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1 ' s diagnoses included Stage four (4) pressure ulcer (full thickness skin loss with extensive destruction; tissue necrosis; or damage to muscle, bones)on the sacral (tail bone) region and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Order Summary Report dated 9/19/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated a LAL mattress every shift. During a review of Resident 1 ' s care plan titled, Alteration in skin condition, dated 9/19/2024, the interventions indicated to provide pressure relieving surface as ordered. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Pressure Sore Risk Assessment dated 9/19/2024, Pressure Sore Risk Assessment indicated Resident 1 was at high risk of developing pressure ulcers. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardize care screening and assessment tool) dated 9/23/2024, the MDS indicated Resident could understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent and required a two or more person ' s assist with activities of daily living (ADLs) such as toileting hygiene, dressing, and bed mobility. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had a Stage 4 pressure ulcer. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/25/2024 at 12:04 p.m., with Resident 1, Resident 1 was observed laying on a regular mattress. Resident 1 stated he was supposed to get an air loss mattress 7 days ago because he had a pressure ulcer stage 4 on his back, and he did not get the mattress. During a concurrent observation, interview and record review on 9/25/2024 at 2:00 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1), Resident 1 ' s physician order dated 9/19/2024 was reviewed. LVN 1 stated the physician ' s order indicated LAL mattress every shift for Resident 1. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was not on LAL as per physician order. LVN 1 stated the LAL mattress was important for Resident 1 to prevent worsening of current pressure ulcer and to prevent future skin breakdown. During a review of the facility ' s undated policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Physicians Orders, the P&P indicated the facility should provide care and services to the resident in accordance with the physician ' s order.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility ' s telephone system was able to receive outsid...

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 facility ' s telephone system was able to receive outside calls from one of three resident ' s (Resident 1) representative or an outside caller. This deficient practice had the potential for all the residents in the facility not receiving phone calls from family members. Findings: 1). During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1 ' s diagnoses included Stage four (4) pressure ulcer (full thickness skin loss with extensive destruction; tissue necrosis; or damage to muscle, bones) on the sacral (tail bone) region and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardize care screening and assessment tool) dated 9/23/2024, the MDS indicated Resident could understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent and required a two or more person ' s assist with activities of daily living (ADLs) such as toileting hygiene, dressing, and bed mobility. The MDS indicated Resident 1 had a Stage 4 pressure ulcer. During a phone interview on 9/25/2024 at 10:34 a.m., with Family Member 1 (FM 1), FM 1 stated she had been calling the facility ' s phone number at [PHONE NUMBER] every day since Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and her calls were sent to a voicemail. FM 1 stated she had left several voicemails; however, no one had returned the call. This Surveyor placed a phone call to facility ' s phone number at [PHONE NUMBER] on 9/25/2024 at 10:50 a.m., however, the call was sent directly to a voicemail. Surveyor left a message to call back. No facility staff returned the call. This Surveyor placed a phone call to facility ' s phone number at [PHONE NUMBER] on 9/26/2024 at 9:54 a.m., no one answered the call. A voice message was left and no facility staff returned the call. This Surveyor placed a phone call to facility ' s phone number at [PHONE NUMBER] on 9/26/2024 at 11:29 a.m., no one answered the call. A voice message was left and no facility staff returned the call. This Surveyor placed a phone call to facility ' s phone number at [PHONE NUMBER] on 9/26/2024 at 3:53 p.m., no one answered the call. A voice message was left and no facility staff returned the call. During a phone interview on 9/26/2024 at 8:55 a.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated she was not aware the facility had a voicemail set up for incoming phone calls. The DON stated she did not have access to the facility ' s voicemail. The DON stated when resident ' s family members call and the facility was unable to answer, and did not call back, it could cause the residents and residents ' families frustrations and worries.
Oct 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

PASARR Coordination (Tag F0644)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR, a fed...

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 and Resident Review (PASRR, a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care) for two out of 17 sampled residents (Resident 28 and 22) Level 2 (a person-centered evaluation completed for anyone identified by the Level I Screening as having, or suspected of having, a PASRR condition, i.e serious mental illness, intellectual disability, developmental disability or related condition to determine whether placement or continued stay in a Nursing Facility is appropriate), were completed. Resident 28, who had a PASRR positive Level 1 (a preliminary assessment completed for all individuals prior to admission to a Medicaid-certified Nursing Facility in order to determine whether an individual might have a mental illness or intellectual disability), was not screened for Level 2 by a Level 2 contractor (by evaluators from The Department of Health Care Services or The Department of Developmental Services' Regional Centers). Resident 22, who was screened at the general acute hospital and had a PASRR positive Level 1, the facility did not follow up to ensure the Level 2 screening was completed. This deficient practice had the potential for the affected residents with mental illness to not having assessessed aprropriately and to not receive the appropriate care necessary to maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial wellbeing. Findings A. During a review of Resident 28's admission Record, dated 10/9/2023, the admission Record indicated Resident 28 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder (a mental health condition that can affect mood, thoughts, and behavior), paranoid schizophrenia (a pattern of behavior where a person feels distrustful and suspicious of other people and acts accordingly), and cognitive communication deficit (a deficit that results in difficulty with thinking and how someone uses language). During a review of Resident 28's History and Physical (H&P), dated 7/28/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 28 could make needs known but could not make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 28's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 8/4/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 28 usually understands and was able to be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident required extensive assistance from staff for dressing, limited assistance from staff for activities of daily living such as bed mobility, transferring (moving between surfaces to and from bed, chair, and wheelchair) , walking, locomotion, toileting, and personal hygiene, and supervision from staff for eating. During a review of Resident 28's Psychiatric follow up note, dated 9/7/2023, the Psychiatric follow up note indicated Resident 28 had a diagnosis of schizophrenia with hallucinations of talking to unseen person. During a review of Resident 28's PASRR (Preadmission Screening and Resident Review, a federal requirement to help ensure that individuals are not inappropriately placed in nursing homes for long term care), Level 1 (a preliminary assessment completed for all individuals prior to admission to a Medicaid-certified Nursing Facility in order to determine whether an individual might have a mental illness or intellectual disability), dated 11/12/2021, the PASRR Level 1 indicated Resident 28 had a positive Level 1 screening that was positive for suspected mental illness (MI), which indicated a Level 2 (a person-centered evaluation completed for anyone identified by the Level I Screening as having, or suspected of having, a PASRR condition, i.e serious mental illness, intellectual disability, developmental disability or related condition to determine whether placement or continued stay in a Nursing Facility is appropriate) mental health evaluation was required. During a review of Resident 28's PASRR Level 2, dated 3/14/2022, it indicated the PASRR Level 2 evaluation indicated the Level 2 evaluation was not scheduled due to the resident being isolated as a health or safety precaution and the case was closed. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 28's PASRR Level 1 and Level 2, with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 10/22/2023 at 3:07 p.m., the DON stated she was responsible for overseeing PASRR in the facility. The DON stated Resident 28 had a positive PASRR Level 1 so a Level 2 was required. The DON stated the PASRR Level 2 was not done, and it was closed. The DON stated a new PASRR would have been done if the resident had a significant change of condition but Resident 28 did not have a significant change of condition. The DON stated, since Resident 28 did not have a significant change of condition, she never sent out another PASRR and because of that, Resident 28 was not assessed for appropriateness of placement when Resident 28 should have been assessed. B. During a review of Resident 22's admission record, the admission record indicated Resident 22 was admitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis that included Paranoid schizoaffective disorder (mental illness that can affect your thoughts, mood and behavior.), anxiety disorder (persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities) and depressive disorder (A mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life.) During a review of Resident 22's history and physical (H&P) dated 8/4/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 22 has the capacity to understand and make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 22's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 22's cognitive skills (thought process) was adequate and could understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 22 required extensive assistance with activities such as dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, limited assistance while transfer and bed mobility. During a review of Resident 22's PASRR Level 1 screening dated on 7/27/2023, indicated that Resident 22's Level 1 screening was positive for suspected MI (Mental Illness). During a review of Resident 22's chart on 10/21/2023 at 2:26 p.m., it did not indicate a PASRR level II screening was completed by a Level 2 contractor nor any documentations from the Level 2 contractor that the case was closed. During an interview and record review on 10/21/2023 at 2:26 p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, PASRR level 1 was screened at the hospital prior to admission. DON stated upon admission, all residents are screened for PASRR level I. DON stated, Resident 22 was admitted to this facility on 8/1/2023, and on admission, Resident 22 had PASRR level 1. DON stated, I oversee following up for PASRR level II, however, Resident 22's chart did not indicate the PASRR Level 2 was done. DON stated, when Resident 22 was screened at the general acute hospital (hospital) for PASRR level 1, the facility should have called the hospital and find out if Resident 22 was screened for PASRR level 2. The DON stated, the importance of getting Resident 22's PASRR level 1 was to determine if Resident 22 is appropriate to be at the facility, so Resident 22 will receive the proper care for MI diagnosis. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASRR), dated 8/2023, it indicated that When an individual is being admitted to a SNF from a Hospital, the SNF must not submit a new Level I Screening and must instead confirm that the PASRR process was completed by the Hospital. It also indicated, in instances of positive Level 1 screenings, the Level 2 contractor will call the SNF to confirm the information on the Level 1 screening and determine if a Level 2 evaluation is needed. As part of the Initial Assessment process, the Level 2 contractor would make two attempts in 48 hours and to confirm a positive Level I Screening and request medical records from the SNF. SNFs must participate in the initial assessment process within 24 hours of submitting the completed Level 1 screening or upon request of the Level 2 contractor. SNFs must coordinate with the Level II Contractor to ensure the PASRR process is completed before admitting the individual to their facility. If the Level II Contractor is unable to complete the Initial Assessment process because the SNF is nonresponsive or does not provide the required documentation timely (within 14 hours), the Level II Contractor will close the case as an Attempt or Unavailable. A PASRR case closed as an Attempt or Unavailable due to the facility not providing the required documentation to the Level II Contractor does not complete the PASRR process and the SNF will be required to restart the PASRR process by completing a new Level I Screening.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food products stored in the freezer were labeled use by dates (last date recommended for the use of the product while ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food products stored in the freezer were labeled use by dates (last date recommended for the use of the product while at peak quality) as per the facility's policy and procedure. This deficient practice can affect the palatability (taste) of the food prepared and had the potential to place the residents at risk for food borne illnesses. Findings During an observation on 10/21/2023 at 7:44 a.m. in the kitchen, three bags of hash browns and three bags of tater tots (shaped diced potatoes for cooking) were in the freezer and had no label when the bags were received and had no use by (last date recommended for the use of the product while at peak quality) dates. During an interview with the kitchen manager (KM) on 10/21/2023 at 7:50 a.m., the KM stated the bags of hash browns and tater tots were not expired but the bags did not have a blue label indicating when the bags were received and when to use the bags by. During another interview with the KM on 10/22/2023 at 1:26 p.m., the KM stated when food arrives to the facility, the food must be labeled with the date received. The KM stated the food needed to be labeled so the staff would know which products to use first and to make sure the food was not expired. The KM stated if food was not labeled, the food could be in the freezer for a long time, could be expired, and the food could lose their nutrition, texture, and flavor. If the staff served the expired food, the residents could get sick. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 10/22/2023 at 5:38 p.m., the DON stated when storing all products, the products must be labeled with the opened date and the expiration date. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Refrigerators and Freezers, dated 12/2014, it indicated that all food should be appropriately dated to ensure proper rotation by expiration dates; received dates would be marked on cases and on individual items removed from cases for storage and the expiration date should be on unopened food and the use by date should be on opened food. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Food Receiving and Storage, dated 7/2014, the P&P indicated all foods stored in the refrigerator or freezer would be covered, labeled, and dated.
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure, two of seven sampled residents (Resident 3 and...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure, two of seven sampled residents (Resident 3 and Resident 32), were assisted with nail hygiene and Resident 32 did not have a dry and scaly feet. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 3 and Resident 32 to scratch themselves, result in itchy skin and can result in skin breakdown. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 3's admission record, the admission record indicated Resident 3 was admitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis that included cognitive communication deficit (an impairment in organization/ thought organization, sequencing, attention, memory, planning, problem-solving, and safety awareness.), diabetes (abnormal blood sugar), and hypertension (high blood pressure) During a review of Resident 3's history and physical (H&P) dated 5/3/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 3 had the mental capacity to make needs known but cannot make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 3's minimum data set ([MDS] a standardized care assessment and care screening tool), dated 8/25/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 3's cognitive skills (thought process) was adequate and could understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 3 required extensive assistance with activities of daily care such as dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, transfer (moving between surfaces to and from bed, chair, and wheelchair) and bed mobility (how resident moves from lying to turning side to side). During a review of Resident 3's care plan for Activity of Daily Living (ADL) Functional, dated 8/25/2023, the care plan indicated impaired functional mobility as manifested by: Personal Hygiene, goal indicated grooming hygiene at sink with/without assistance, interventions indicated staff will provide grooming and hygiene. During an observation on 10/21/2023 at 4:19 p.m., in Resident 3's room. Resident 3 was sitting on a wheelchair next to her bed. Resident 3 had both hands nails untrimmed and dirty inside of nails. During an interview on 10/22/2023 at 2:36 p.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated, I assisted Resident 3 with daily care such as shower, change of clothes, diaper change, and making her bed. CNA 1 stated, Resident 3's hands nails are long and needs to cut the nails. CNA 1 stated, we must check the Resident 3 's hands nails during ADL care. CNA 1 stated, it is important to cut the hand nails to Resident 3, so she does not scratch herself or the nurses while proving care. During an interview on 10/22/2023 at 4:56 p.m., with Registered Nurses (RN)1, RN 1 stated the CNAs are responsible in checking the nails while providing ADL care and in trimming them (nails). RN 1 stated it is important to trim the hand nails for Resident 3's safety. RN 1 stated, Resident 3 can scratch herself and could potentially cause skin infections. b. During a review of Resident 32's admission record, the admission record indicated Resident 32 was admitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis that included vascular dementia (cognitive impairment/loss), other abnormalities of gait and mobility (a change to your walking pattern), and other symptoms and signs involving the musculoskeletal system (very common and may arise from joints, bones, muscles, ligaments, tendons, or bursas). During a review of Resident 32's H&P dated 9/8/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 32 had the mental capacity to make needs known but cannot make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 32's MDS, dated [DATE] the MDS indicated Resident 32's cognitive skills (thought process) was adequate and could understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 32 required limited assistance with activities of daily care such as dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, transfer and bed mobility. During a review of Resident 32's care plan for activity of daily living (ADL) Functional, dated 9/8/2023, the care plan indicated impaired functional mobility. One of the interventions indicated staff will provide grooming and hygiene. During a review of Resident 32's care plan dated 9/8/2023, indicated Resident 32 is at risk for skin breakdown related to: history of skin breakdown. The goal indicated Resident 32 will be free from signs and symptoms (s/s) of skin breakdown. One of the interventions indicated to check skin for s/s of breakdown such as redness, open areas daily during care, skin care every shift. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/21/2023 at 2:17 p.m., in Residents 32's room. Resident 32 was observed sitting on his bed. Resident 32 had dryness on feet and hands. Resident 32 stated, I need some lotion on my legs for my dry skin. Resident 32 hands and feet nails untrimmed. Resident 32 stated, you can cut my nails. Resident 32 stated, I would like my nails to be cut. During an interview on 10/22/2023 at 4:48 p.m., with Resident 32, Resident 32 stated, today the nurse cut my nails on my both hands but not my feet. Resident 32 stated, I want nurse to cut my nails from my feet but not today, tomorrow. During an interview on 10/22/2023 at 4:48 p.m., CNA 2 stated, the CNAs are responsible in cutting residents hands nails. CNA 2 stated, the Podiatrists comes and cuts the nails on the feet. CNA 2 stated, when Resident 32's takes a shower, nurses must assist in putting lotion for the dryness on the skin. CNA 2 stated, they will notify the charge nurses if any issues with skin are found. CNA 2 stated the importance of applying lotion to Resident 32's feet is to keep the skin moist because dry skin can cause skin breakdown. CNA 2 stated, if Resident 32 had dryness in his feet, the nurses need to apply lotion. CNA 2 stated, Resident 32 can be at risk for a cracked skin and could lead to infection. During an interview on 10/22/2023 at 4:56 p.m., with Registered Nurses (RN) 1, RN 1 stated, the CNAs are responsible in assessing resident's hygiene while providing the ADL care and in trimming the nails if needed. RN 1 stated, if the hand nails are long, they should cut it. RN 1 stated it was important to cut Resident 32's hand nails because Resident 2 could scratch himself and as well as the staff, it could prevent any potential skin infection and provide Resident 32 safety. RN 1 also stated, if CNA observed Resident 32 had dry skin during ADLs, the CNAs must apply body lotion to keep the skin moisturized. RN 1 also stated, it could prevent skin tears, or skin infection. During an interview on 10/22/2023 at 5:45 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, the CNAs are responsible in cutting the nails during the ADL care. If resident refused, they need to notify the DON or charge nurses. The DON stated, nurses need to trim residents' nails to prevent bacteria getting harbored under the nails, prevent the resident from scratching themselves and prevent skin injuries, and are important for Resident 3 and Resident 32's safety. DON stated, when CNAs see residents' dry skin, CNAs must apply lotion on the skin. The DON stated, if something major was observed during residents' care, the CNAs need to notify the charge nurses. The DON stated, CNAs can apply baby oil or lotion to keep the skin moist. If the skin is dry, it is more prone for skin tears, and itchy skin. The DON also stated, residents' skin and nails must be assessed daily while performing ADL care. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Nail Care, dated 4/2020, it indicated, All Residents shall provide with basic nursing care that includes good personal hygiene. Certified nursing assistance may provide hygiene services such as cutting of fingernails as directed by the licensed nurse. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Skin Care, dated 4/2020, it indicated to Inspect the skin on a daily basis when performing or assisting with personal care or ADL. Moisturize dry skin daily. Keep the skin clean and hydrated.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to to ensure hygiene products that were stored in the...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record reviews, the facility failed to to ensure hygiene products that were stored in the facility's central supply room were not expired. This deficient practice had the potential for the products to lose its effectiveness and strength and can result to a skin reaction or any adverse reactions to the residents. Findings: During an observation on [DATE] at 8:10 a.m. of the central supply room, 20 bottles of baby powder had an expiration date of [DATE], 48 morning fresh (brand) toothpaste tubes had an expiration date of 9/2023, two (2) boxes of denture cleaner had an expiration date of 9/2023 and 30 bottles of mouth wash had an expiration date of [DATE]. During an interview on [DATE] at 5:32 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated, the central supply room contained all hygiene products the resident needed for their activities of daily care (ADLS, maintaining a safe environment, communication, breathing, eating, and drinking, elimination, washing and dressing] such as, toothpaste, lotions, mouth wash, oils, powder. RN 1 stated, when residents needed any of the supplies, nurses must check the expiration date first before it is used or applied to the residents. RN 1 stated the importance of checking the expiration date is for residents' safety. RN 1 stated, the risk of residents receiving expired products in their mouth or skin can developed an adverse reaction to the products, or causes skin irritation. During an interview on [DATE] at 6:00 pm., with Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated, nursing oversees the central supply room. When the new shipment arrived, the products are usually stored in the shelves. The DON stated, the nurses need to monitor the expiration date of the hygiene products before giving them to the residents to make sure of their effectiveness, preventing any bad reactions, any skin irritations, any gums disease and preventing any injuries related to an expired product. During a review of the facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled Receipt and storage of Supplies and Equipment, dated 12/2016 the P&P indicated All supplies and equipment must be stored in accordance with the manufacturer's recommendations. It shall be the purchasing agent's responsibility to assure that proper storage procedures are maintained.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet the required 80 square feet per resident in a multiple resident bedrooms (Rooms 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet the required 80 square feet per resident in a multiple resident bedrooms (Rooms 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16 and 17) and 100 square feet per resident in single resident rooms (Rooms 2, 3, 4, 5, 10). This deficient practice had the reduced required space for each resident which had the potential for inadequate space during resident care, and or the inability for resident access, use of personal assistive devices, furniture, and enough space for the visitors. Findings: During a concurrent observation of the resident rooms and interview with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) on 10/22/2023 at 7:44 a.m., the MS stated several of the bedrooms were smaller than required. During a review of the facility's Client Accommodations Analysis form, the form indicated the following resident bedrooms measurements: Room Numbers Number of Beds Total Square feet 1 2 125.28 2, 3, 4, 5 1 97.51 6 2 138.88 7 2 156.75 8 2 156.75 9 2 141.36 10 2 160.31 11 4 290.67 12, 14, 15 ,16, 17 4 295.32 During a review of the waiver request letter dated 3/8/2023, submitted by the Administrator (ADM), the request indicated the following room measurements: Room No. No. of Beds Dimensions Total feet Square footage for each resident 1 2 13.92 ft x 9 ft 125.28 62.64 2, 3, 4, 5 1 9.92 ft x 9.83 ft 97.51 97.51 6 2 9.92 ft x14 ft 138.88 69.44 7 2 11 ft x 14.25 ft 156.75 78.38 8 2 11 ft x 14.25 ft 156.75 78.38 9 2 9.92 ft x14.25 ft 141.36 70.68 10 2 11 ft x 14.25 ft 160.31 80.16 11 4 27.1 x 10.7 ft 290.67 72.67 12, 13, 14, 4 27.6 x 10.7 ft 295.32 73.83 15, 16, 17 The letter indicated resident rooms 2, 3, 4, 5 and 10, measured more than the required 80 square feet per resident. The letter also indicated there was enough space for each resident's care and there was no negative outcome with regards to the health, safety, and welfare to all the residents in the facility. The Department is recommending a waiver.
Mar 2023 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide residents with a safe environment and failed to perform v...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to provide residents with a safe environment and failed to perform visual checks, at least every two hours for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) to prevent Resident 1 from eloping (when a resident who is cognitively, physically, mentally, emotionally, and/or chemically impaired wanders away, walks away, runs away, escapes, or otherwise leaves a care-giving facility or environment unsupervised, unnoticed, and/or prior to their scheduled discharge) from the facility on 3/18/2023. Resident 1 had impaired cognition with diagnosis including Alzheimer ' s disease (a progressive mental deterioration that destroys memory and other important mental functions), dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person ' s ability to think, feel, and behave clearly), anxiety (intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations), cognitive communication deficit (impairment in organization/thought organization, sequencing, attention, memory, planning, problem-solving, and safety awareness), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing foods or liquids), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [(COPD) a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breathe]. Resident 1 was assessed as moderate risk for elopement. It was unknown how Resident 1 left the facility with his wheelchair and cane. As a result, Resident 1 left the facility unsupervised and was exposed to harsh environmental conditions including cold weather and rain, had a potential of being hit by a car, and had a potential for medical complications including malnutrition (lack of proper nutrition, caused by not having enough to eat, not eating enough of the right things, or being unable to use the food that one does eat), dehydration (a harmful reduction in the amount of water in the body), and death. There is a potential for Resident 1 to be without medications from 3/18/2023-3/28/2023, a total of ten (10) days. Resident 1 has still not been found on 3/29/2023. On 3/22/2023 at 10:44 a.m., an Immediate Jeopardy ([IJ] a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has cause, or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident) was called in the presence of Director of Nursing (DON) and Administrator (Admin) due to the facility ' s failure to closely monitor and document Resident 1 ' s whereabouts to prevent Resident 1 from leaving the facility unsupervised. On 3/24/202 at 9:51 a.m., the facility submitted an acceptable IJ removal plan ([IJRP] interventions to immediately correct the deficient practices). After verification of IJRP implementation through observation, interview, and record review, the IJ was removed on 3/24/23 at 1:20 p.m., in the presence of the DON. The IJRP included the following immediate actions: 1. After Resident 1 eloped from the facility on 3/18/23, the facility immediately conducted a head count on an hourly basis and implemented and documented on a head count log signed by Licensed nurses, Certified Nursing Assistance (CNAs) and department heads 2. The facility contacted the police department at approximately 8:00 am., to notify of Resident 1 disappearance. Facility has been searching since 3/18/23 exhaustively through today and will continue efforts to locate Resident 1. The facility ' s staff has contacted and kept a log of all hospitals and Emergency rooms (ERs) contacted daily, various neighborhoods in multiple counties, as well as visiting numerous homeless shelters, parks and tents, local shopping centers and stores. The Metro station was provided a description of Resident 1 to check all railways and buses. Resident 1 has not been located however facility is continuing to call and visit locations and neighborhoods. 3. Facility contacted an outside security agency to provide additional monitoring of the facility on 3/19/23. 4. The facility has hourly head count documented on a log since 3/18/23. The Director of Nursing (DON) and Director of Staff Development (DSD) provided in-service to all staff regarding the importance of conducting and documenting the head count hourly using the facility ' s daily census. Licensed nurses and CNAs continue to utilize the facility daily census in accounting each resident in the building during the hourly head count. Licensed nurses and CNAs, under the instruction of the DON, are responsible for conducting hourly rounds. The facility department managers, during their shift, will also conduct hourly rounds and ensure compliance. Licensed Nurses are primarily responsible to conduct and document hourly rounds on all shifts. Residents assessed to be moderate to severe risk for elopement will be identified to staff using a green sticker on their door tag. Residents identified as moderate to severe risk for elopement now have and continue to have a green sticker next to their name plate on the resident ' s door. An in-service was provided to all staff regarding the green sticker notification by the DSD and DON on 3/22/23. The DON provided in-services on 3/22/23 to all department heads (Administrator, Director of Staff Development, Minimum Data Sheet Nurse, Social Services Designee, Medical Records Director, Rehab coordinator, Activities Director, Dietary Supervisor, Business Office Manager) to visually check residents with a green sticker on their door tag during rounds. 5. As of 3/19/23, the facility has 24 hours/7 days a week security personnel monitoring the facility. In the event staff calls off, the outgoing security personnel will stay while awaiting a replacement or until the agency can provide a security personnel. In the event staffing proves challenging, a department head will be called in to monitor until the contracted security agency provides a replacement to ensure 24 hours monitoring. During the daily huddle on each shift licensed nurses will document and inform CNAs which residents are at risk for elopement for additional oversight and monitoring of those residents. The DON provided in-services to licensed nurses on 3/19/23 and will ensure sustained compliance during daily rounds. Security personnel during their rounds document on each shift ensure alarms are tested and functioning and documented on a log, in-services provided on 3/22/23 by DON and DSD. Maintenance Supervisor, weekly checks alarms to ensure functioning and in good working order. Should alarm malfunction the maintenance supervisor will be immediately notified, and the supervisor will change alarm with extra new alarms kept in the maintenance office. 6. All residents assessed to be at moderate to severe risk for elopement will have individualized care plans with interventions in place upon admission and reviewed quarterly and as needed by the Minimum Data Set ([MDS] an assessment and care screening tool) nurse and DON. During daily huddle, each shift licensed nurses will discuss with CNAs interventions and identify residents at risk for elopement. The facility will continue to provide education to the residents regarding the risks of leaving the facility. The facility will develop a care plan for residents when verbalizing they want to leave the facility, and their physicians will be notified for further interventions. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s Face Sheet (admission record), dated 3/20/2023, the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including Alzheimer ' s disease (a progressive mental deterioration that destroys memory and other important mental functions), dementia (a group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person ' s ability to think, feel, and behave clearly), anxiety (intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations), cognitive communication deficit (impairment in organization/thought organization, sequencing, attention, memory, planning, problem-solving, and safety awareness), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), cognitive communication deficit, protein -calorie malnutrition (low energy intake, weight loss, loss of subcutaneous fat [a type of fat that's stored under the skin], loss of muscle mass, fluid accumulation, and decreased hand grip strength), and Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease ([COPD] a group of lung diseases that blocks airflow and make it difficult to breathe). During a review of Resident 1 ' s general acute care hospital (GACH) Psychiatric Initial Evaluation (Psych Eval), dated 2/10/2023, the GACH Psych Eval indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the GACH on 2/10/2023 with psychosis (a severe mental disorder in which thought, and emotions are so impaired that contact is lost with external reality). and suicidal ideation ([SI] when someone thinks about killing themselves) by overdosing on medication. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH History and Physical (H&P), dated 2/10/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1 was placed on AWOL (absent without leave)/Assaultive/Suicidal Precautions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s, H&P from the facility, dated 2/16/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1 could make his needs known but could not make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 was able to understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required limited assistance (staff provided non-weight-bearing assistance) activities of daily living (ADLs) such as transferring, walking, and moving in the unit. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required extensive assistance (staff provided weight bearing support) for dressing and toilet use. The MDS also indicated Resident 1 used a wheelchair for movement. The MDS indicated Resident 1 used an antipsychotic (medication primarily used to manage psychosis [mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality], particularly in schizophrenia) for seven out of the seven days of the week. During a review of Resident 1 ' s physician ' s order dated 2/16/2023, the physician ' s order indicated Risperdal (medication used to treat certain mental/mood disorders such as schizophrenia), 1 milligram ([mg] unit of measurement), two times daily (BID), and Neurontin (medication used to relieve nerve pain) 200 mg, 1 capsule three times daily (TID) for polyneuropathy (a condition in which a person ' s peripheral nerves are damaged). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Elopement Risk Evaluation dated 2/16/2023, the evaluation indicated Resident 1 was at moderate risk for elopement and required care planning for elopement. Resident 1 ' s history of elopement from a previous facility and diagnosis of Alzheimer ' s disease, were not considered during the elopement risk assessment to place the resident at high risk for elopement. During a review of Resident 1 ' s care plan, titled Elopement Risk, dated 2/16/2023, the interventions indicated staff will encourage Resident 1 to notify the nurse if he had to leave the facility for any reason, assess/record/report to the doctor (MD) risk factors for potential elopement like wandering, repeated requests to leave facility, statements such as I am leaving and I wanna go home, attempt to leave the facility, elopement attempts from previous facility or hospital. The care plan intervention also indicated staff would observe Resident 1 ' s location with visual checks, at least every two hours. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Change in Condition (COC), assessment dated [DATE] and timed 6:30 a.m., the COC indicated Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 noticed that on 3/18/2023 at 6:30 a.m., Resident 1 was not in his bed when LVN 1 was doing rounds. The COC indicated LVN 1 looked around the facility and gathered incoming staff to drive around the neighborhood to look for Resident 1 but did not find the resident. During an interview on 3/20/2023 at 2:14 p.m., with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated Resident 1 was alert and aware but had episodes of confusion and during those episodes of confusion, Resident 1 would say he had to go to work. LVN 2 stated she performed visual checks on Resident 1 ' s location at least every 2 hours during her shift but did not document anywhere in the resident ' s medical record that visual checks were done. LVN 2 stated, it was important to document all care given, to indicate it was done. During an interview on 3/20/2023 at 3:13 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated there were two security guards during the day in charge of monitoring residents. The DON stated at night, the nursing staff were supposed to monitor exit doors of the facility during rounds to prevent residents from leaving the facility unsupervised. The DON stated staff was to perform visual checks on Resident 1 at least every two hours and document on the resident ' s chart. The DON stated unfortunately, staff did not document. During an interview on 3/20/2023 at 3:45 p.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had dementia, was confused, and had sundowning syndrome (a state of confusion that can cause restlessness, agitation, irritability occurring in the late afternoon and lasting into the night). After dinner, Resident 1 would get up from his wheelchair and state he had to go to work. LVN 1 stated on 3/18/2023 she noticed Resident 1 was no longer in his room at 6:30 a.m. while she (LVN 1) was doing her final rounds. She was looking for Resident 1 and noticed his wheelchair and his cane were missing. LVN 1 stated she did not remember the last time she performed visual checks on Resident 1. LVN 1 stated she did not document Resident 1 ' s whereabouts in the resident ' s medical record. LVN 1 stated she did not hear the door alarms that night. LVN 1 said if the alarm on the doors were on, it would have sounded, if Resident 1 went through the doors. During an interview with the Administrator (Admin) on 3/21/2023 at 9:59 a.m., the Admin stated the facility ' s security footage was not available because the recordings reset every Sunday. The Admin stated he forgot to review the recordings before it reset. The Admin stated on 3/20/2023, he called the previous facility where Resident 1 resided prior to hospitalization and was told Resident 1 would repeatedly sign himself out and not come back to that facility. The Admin stated the facility was unaware of Resident 1 ' s previous behavior because the facility did not call Resident 1 ' s previous facility to inquire. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/21/2023 at 12:27 p.m., with the DON, Resident 1 ' s Elopement Risk Evaluation dated 2/16/2023 was reviewed. The DON stated Resident 1 was admitted to the GACH for SI and feelings of hopelessness on 2/9/2023. The DON stated an elopement risk evaluation was done for the resident on 2/16/2023 and a care plan written. The DON stated staff was supposed to perform visual checks on Resident 1 but were not required to document routine visual checks. The DON stated on weekends, the entrance to the facility was through the main entrance, ambulance entrance, and hallway exit. The DON stated the three main entrances/exits had alarms on the door. The DON also stated the facility did not know how Resident 1 eloped from the facility on 3/18/2023, because the wires of the facility ' s security cameras were damaged by the rain and did not work well. The DON stated there is a likelihood Resident 1 had not been medicated since eloping from the facility on 3/18/2023 because the resident had still not been located. During an interview on 3/21/2023 at 1:30 p.m., with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS), the MS stated all alarm doors were tested on Wednesdays every week. The MS stated if Resident 1 eloped from any of the exit doors, the alarms would have gone off and the staff would have been alerted to stop the resident from leaving the facility unsupervised. The MS stated there were no alarms on the windows, and that the windows could be opened from residents ' rooms including Resident 1 ' s room. During an interview on 3/21/2023 at 1:44 p.m., with the MS, the MS stated Resident 1 ' s room window can be opened from the resident ' s room. The MS stated Resident 1 could push the window open and get out through the window to the alley. During an interview on 3/21/2023 at 2:16 p.m., with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated Resident 1 would say he had to go to work. LVN 2 stated she did not document Resident 1 ' s statement and did not report it to the MD. LVN 2 stated Resident 1 had a history of suicidal ideation and should have been monitored or supervised more often than just every two hours, per the resident ' s elopement risk care plan, to prevent the resident from eloping. LVN 2 stated staff should have monitored Resident 1 every two hours because the resident stated he wanted to go to work. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/21/2023 at 4:30 p.m., with LVN 1, Resident 1 ' s Elopement Risk care plan dated 2/16/2023, was reviewed. LVN 1 stated the care plan interventions indicated to document and report to the MD risk factors for wandering, such as Resident 1 stating he needed to go to work. LVN 1 stated she did not document Resident 1 saying that he had to go to work and did not report to the MD because she redirected Resident 1 successfully. LVN 1 stated that when Resident 1 stated he wanted to go to work, she should have educated the resident on the risk of leaving the facility. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had Alzheimer ' s and was at risk for elopement. LVN 1 stated she was not concerned about the resident leaving the facility at the time because Resident 1 was redirectable. LVN 1also stated Resident 1 ' s Elopement Risk Evaluation was inaccurate because it scored the resident as a 15 instead of an 18 or more, considering Resident 1 ' s diagnoses of Alzheimer ' s and statement I want to go to work. During a telephone interview on 3/23/2023 at 10:45 a.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated the last time she saw Resident 1 was on 3/18/2023 at 6 a.m., while she was doing her hourly rounds and Resident 1 was in his room in his wheelchair. CNA 1 stated she did not document anywhere when she saw Resident 1 because the charge nurse did not tell her to document Resident 1 ' s visual checks. CNA 1 stated she did not hear any alarms go off during that shift. CNA 1 stated the alarm was very loud and if it went off, everyone would have heard it. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 would talk about missing his wife and that his daughter was coming to see him. During a record review of the Accuweather forecast report for Los Angeles area from 3/18/2023 to 3/24/2023 Los Angeles, CA Monthly Weather | AccuWeather, the temperature was in the low 60's degree Fahrenheit ([°F] unit of measurement) to high 50's °F. It also indicated some days were, rainy, cloudy and with thunderstorms. During a record review of https://crimegrade.org/murder-90043, the Los Angeles city's overall crime grade for violent crimes for zip code 90043, where the facility was located, was an F grade (meaning most dangerous). During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Gate Monitoring, dated 2/18/2018, the P&P indicated the facility will protect residents ' safety in the facility. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled Elopement Risk Assessment, undated, the P&P indicated interventions for elopement include notification of physician for changes in behavior, such as increasing insistence or attempts to leave and environmental controls such as a functional alarm system for egresses.
Dec 2022 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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy for accurately documenting the provision of medic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its policy for accurately documenting the provision of medical records for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice had the potential for miscommunication of care received and a delay in the continuum of care for Resident 1. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's Facesheet (admission Record), the Facesheet indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (impaired brain function) and anemia (low red blood cell count). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H/P) dated 10/21/2022, the H/P indicated Resident 1 did not have the capacity to understand and to make decisions. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/15/2022 at 2:45 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 1's Request for Access to Medical Records dated 11/23/2022 was reviewed. The record indicated Family Member (FM 2) requested a copy of Resident 1's entire health record, all hand-written, and other notes communicated to a secondary nursing facility. DON stated she was not able to find supporting documentation FM2 received the requested records. During an interview on 12/27/2022 at 11:23 a.m., with Administrator (ADM), ADM stated, according to their policies and procedures (P/P), Medical Records should have documented acknowledgement that Resident 1's requested records were received by FM 2 however was not done. During a review of the facility's undated P/P titled, Policy and Procedure of Medical Records, Request of Copies , the P/P indicated acknowledgment of copies of records must be received from resident and/or surrogate decision-maker or legal representative. Acknowledgment may be in the form of certified mail, written acknowledgment, or telephone conversation with corresponding documentation by the medical records.
Dec 2022 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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to wear proper fitting N95 (a facial mask designed to achieve a close facial fit and efficient filtration of airborne parti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility staff failed to wear proper fitting N95 (a facial mask designed to achieve a close facial fit and efficient filtration of airborne particles) facemasks, while having direct resident care for 13 of 13 residents in the yellow zone (area of the facility where new admissions, exposed residents, and symptomatic residents awaiting confirmation of Covid 19 [respiratory infection]). This deficient practice had the potential to spread Covid-19 to residents and staff in the facility. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/7/2022, at 3:02 p.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1), in the outside patio, CNA 1 was observed wearing an N-95 respirator mask and was sitting on the chair next to the residents. CNA 1 stated she did not know when the last time staff was fit test (a test that checks if a respirator mask properly fits and seals) or how often fit test was done. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/7/2022, at 3:21 p.m., with the screener (SCR) for staff and visitors, near the entrance, the screener was observed to have facial hair and was wearing a surgical mask. The screener stated, he did not remember when the last time fit testing was done and was unaware how often fit testing was conducted. The SCR stated, he was responsible for handing cigarettes to residents and was less than 3 feet away from the residents during their smoking session. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/7/2022, at 3:35 p.m., with the screener for staff and visitors, in the outside patio, the screener was observed wearing an N95 mask and a face shield (protective covering for all or part of the face to reduce the spread of transmissible disease), with facial hair protruding under the N-95 mask. The SCR stated there was possible spread of Covid-19 infection while handing out the cigarettes to the residents if SCR was not wearing well fitted N95 and practicing social distancing. During an interview on 12/8/2022, at 11:14 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1), at the nursing station, LVN 1 stated wearing a well fitted N95 mask was important to protect the residents and staff from the spread of infection. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/8/2022, at 11:36 a.m., with Physical Therapist Assistant (PTA 1), in rehabilitation room, PTA 1 was observed to be wearing an N-95 mask and had facial hair protruding under and around the N-95. PTA 1 stated the last fit test was done on 5/2022 and was he did not have facial hair during that test. PTA 1 stated, wearing a well fitted mask was important and a clean shaved face to get a better seal around the mask. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/8/2022, at 11:49 a.m., with Minimum Data Set Coordinator nurse (MDSC), in rehabilitation room, MDSC was observed to be wearing an N95 mask and had facial hair protruding around the mask and was not wearing a face shield. MDSC stated he understood the importance of wearing a N95, being clean shaven for a tight seal but did not want to shave his facial hair. MDSC stated he has close contact with residents daily for assessments. The MDSC stated wearing proper PPE and a well fitted N95 mask could help prevent the spread of respiratory disease like Covid-19. During an interview on 12/8/2022, at 1:55 p.m., with Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated all staff should wear a well fitted N95 mask. The IP stated staff should only wear N95 mask that was tested and approved on them. The IP stated the staff who had direct contact with the residents should wear N95 mask, gown, glove, and face shield or goggles. The IP stated all staff should wear proper PPE and well fitted N95 mask to prevent spread of infection. During an interview on 12/8/2022, at 2:13 p.m., with Administrator (ADM), ADM stated, staff should wear proper PPE to prevent cross contamination. The ADM stated staff should wear well fitted mask to protect self and the residents. During a review of the facility's Respiratory Fit Test Records, dated from 5/2022 to 10/2022, the records indicated staff were all fit tested by the Respiratory Therapist (RT) and everyone passed the test for an approved N95 respirator (BYD manufacturer) and no other mask types were tested. During a review of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Standard 29 CFR 1910.134(g)(1)(i)(A), indicated, Respirators shall not be worn when facial hair comes between the sealing surface of the facepiece and the face or that interferes with valve function.
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 F0883 (Tag F0883)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the failed to offer the pneumonia (an infection of the lungs) vaccine to 2 of 6 sampled re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the failed to offer the pneumonia (an infection of the lungs) vaccine to 2 of 6 sampled residents (Residents 1 and 4). This deficient practice placed Residents 1 and 4 at a higher risk of acquiring and transmitting pneumonia to other residents in the facility. During a review of Resident 1's Facesheet (admission record), the facesheet indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (disease that affect blood sugar) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD], a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a comprehensive standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 9/22/2022, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had the mental capacity to make decisions. During a review of Resident 4's Facesheet, the facesheet indicated Resident 4 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (chemical imbalance that affects the brain), epilepsy (disorder in which brain activity becomes abnormal), anemia (low amount of red blood cells found in blood) and COPD. During a review of Resident 4's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 4 had the mental capacity to make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 and 2's facility records, the records indicated there were no documented evidence the residents had medical contraindications, unavailability or delayed administration of the pneumococcal vaccine planned for the residents. During a concurrent record review and interview on 12/8/2022 at 1:55 p.m., with the Infection Prevention Nurse (IP), Resident 1 and 2's Pneumococcal Immunization Informed Consent forms dated 9/10/22 and 9/27/22 respectively were reviewed. The IP stated the residents should have received their pneumococcal vaccines however was overlooked and not given by the facility. The IP stated it was important to administer the pneumococcal vaccine to the residents to help prevent pneumonia infection and transmission. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) titled, Immunization: Influenza, Pneumococcal Vaccinations during the Coronavirus (COVID-19) Pandemic revised on 11/2/2020, the P/P indicated that the resident's health record shall include documentation that indicates the resident either received the immunization or did not receive the immunization due to medical contraindication, unavailability, or a precaution that delayed the administration and a later date for administration has been planned or refusal. During a review of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) guidance titled, Pneumococcal Disease dated 1/27/2022, the guidance indicated older adults are at greatest risk of serious illness and death and recommend the pneumococcal vaccine for adults 65 years and older or have certain medical conditions and risk factors for protection.
Mar 2022 3 deficiencies
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement a care plan to monitor one of twelve sample...

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 a care plan to monitor one of twelve sampled residents (Resident 27), who removed her nasal cannula (medical device that provides supplemental oxygen). This deficient practice had the potential to decrease the amount of blood oxygen delivered to Residnet 27. Findings: During a review of Residents 27's admission record, the admission record indicated Resident 27 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis including respiratory failure and Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [(COPD) lung disease that makes it hard to breath] During a review of Resident 27's Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 11/15/2021, the MDS indicated Resident 27 usually had the ability to understand and be understood by others. The MDS indicated Resident 27 was on oxygen therapy. During a review of Resident 27's History and Physical (H/P) dated 1/20/2022, the H/P indicated Resident 27 was admitted to a general acute care hospital (GACH) due to hypoxia (Lower than normal oxygen in the blood). During a review of Resident 27's physician's order dated 2/28/2022, the order indicated oxygen at 1.5 L/minute via nasal cannula for hypoxia. During an observation on 3/11/2022 at 9:20 a.m., of Resident 27, Resident 27 was lying in bed, without a nasal canula, in her nostrils. Resident 27 was observed holding the nasal cannula in her right hand. During a concurrent observation and interview with Director of Nursing (DON), on 3/11/2022 at 9:32 a.m., in Resident 27's room, DON stated Resident 27's nasal canula was not on. DON stated Resident 27 was supposed to be on continuous oxygen at 1.5 L/min via nasal cannula for hypoxia. DON stated the facility did not know Resident 27 was removing her nasal cannula and that there was no care plan to address the resident removing her nasal canula. DON stated Resident 27 removing her nasal cannula could result in low oxygen levels, increased confusion, altered mental status and hospitalization. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Care Plans-Comprehensive revised 2020, the policy indicated, each resident's care plan was designed to incorporated risk factors associated with identified problems to prevent or reduce the resident's functional status.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure: 1. One out of one Registered Nurse (RN 1) prov...

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: 1. One out of one Registered Nurse (RN 1) providing direct residents' care did not wear artificial nails and kept her nails trimmed per the facility's policy. 2. One out of three sampled staff Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 wore the proper Personal Protective Equipment ([PPE] a specialized equipment worn to prevent the spread of infectious) in the yellow zone (designated area for residents suspected to have the corona virus ([Covid 19] an infectious disease that easily spreads from person to person). These deficient practices had the potential to spread Covid 19 infection and injury to the residents. Findings: 1. During an observation of medication administration on 3/9/22 at 8:30 a.m., RN 1 had fingernails that were approximately one inch long. RN 1 was observed instilling eye drops medication to Resident 1 During an interview on 3/9/22, at 12:05 p.m., RN 1 stated her nails were made of gel (a type of artificial material). RN 1 stated she was in the process of taking them down. RN 1 stated that having long nails in the resident care area could spread infection to the resident. During an interview on 3/9/22, at 12:30 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the staff could not have long or fake nails in the resident care areas. The DON stated long, fake nails could hide germs underneath the nail, spread to the residents, and cause them to become sick. During a review of the facility's policy titled Dress Code and Personal Hygiene, revised 5/2019, the policy indicated all employees will dress and groom in a manner that was appropriate to their working condition. The policy indicated employees must ensure their fingernails were clean, trimmed, and not sharp. During a review of the Center for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC) guidelines titled Healthcare Providers updated 1/8/2021, the indicated all healthcare providers (HCP) should not wear artificial fingernails. The CDC guidelines indicated HCP should keep the size of their natural nails less than one quarter inch long if they cared for patients at high risk of acquiring infections. The CDC guidelines indicated germs could live under artificial fingernails both before and after using an alcohol-based hand sanitizer and handwashing. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/10/22, at 1:26pm, with CNA 1, CNA 1 was in a yellow zone room, standing next to Resident 134, without a gown. CNA 1 stated she forgot to wear a gown. CNA 1 stated it was important to wear a gown in the yellow zone to prevent the spread of COVID-19. During an interview on 3/10/22, at 2:10p.m., with the Infection Preventionist nurse ([IPN] nurse in charge of infection prevention for the facility), the IPN stated staff was required to wear a gown inside rooms in the yellow zone. The IPN stated gowns prevented transmission of infection to the staff and the residents. During a review of Resident 134's facesheet, the facesheet indicated Resident 134 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The facesheet indicated Resident 134's diagnoses included Epilepsy (a disorder in which brain activity becomes abnormal, causing seizures, periods of unusual behavior, and sometimes loss of awareness), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). During a review of the facility's policy titled 2019 Novel Coronavirus (COVID 19), dated 3/2020, the policy indicated HCP should wear a gown upon entering a room, while a resident's COVID-19 status was unknown. During a review of the facility's policy titled Covid 19 Mitigation Plan dated 1/28/22, the policy indicated staff were supposed to wear a gown when residents were suspected to have COVID-19, to prevent the spread of infection.
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 meet the required 80 square feet for each resident in...

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 meet the required 80 square feet for each resident in multiple resident's rooms and 100 square feet for a single occupancy room for 11 out of 17 bedrooms (1,6,7,8,9,11, 12,14,15,16,17). This deficient practice had the potential to have reduced required space per each resident in resident bedroom [ROOM NUMBER],6-9,11-12, and 14-17, which had the potential for inadequate space during the resident care, and or the inability for the resident access, use of personal assistive devices, furniture, and enough space for the visitors. Findings: On 3/10/22, at 1:30 p.m., during a concurrent tour of the facility and interview, the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) stated that several of the resident's bedrooms measured less than the required square footage. During a review of the facilities Client Accommodations Analysis form, the form indicated the following resident bedrooms measured: Room square Feet Number of Beds Total Square Feet 1 2 125.28 6 2 138.88 7 2 156.75 8 2 156.75 9 2 141.36 11 4 290.67 12,14-17 4 295.32 The insufficient space could lead to inadequate nursing care to the residents. During a review of the waiver request for bedroom to measure at least 80 square feet letter dated 3/10/22, submitted by the Assistant Administrator (AADM) for 11 resident rooms, the waiver request letter indicated these rooms did not meet the 80 square foot requirement by federal regulation. The letter indicated that there was enough space to provide each resident's care without affecting their health and safety. The Department is recommending a waiver.
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
  • • 43% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 25 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $19,460 in fines. Above average for California. Some compliance problems on record.
  • • Grade C (56/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Mixed indicators with Trust Score of 56/100. Visit in person and ask pointed questions.

About This Facility

What is Lotus's CMS Rating?

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

How is Lotus Staffed?

CMS rates LOTUS CARE CENTER's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 43%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Lotus?

State health inspectors documented 25 deficiencies at LOTUS CARE CENTER during 2022 to 2024. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 21 with potential for harm, and 3 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Lotus?

LOTUS CARE CENTER is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 40 certified beds and approximately 34 residents (about 85% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LOS ANGELES, California.

How Does Lotus Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, LOTUS CARE CENTER's overall rating (4 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (43%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (3 stars) is at the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Lotus?

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 Lotus Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Lotus Stick Around?

LOTUS CARE CENTER has a staff turnover rate of 43%, which is about average for California nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was Lotus Ever Fined?

LOTUS CARE CENTER has been fined $19,460 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,273. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Lotus on Any Federal Watch List?

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