MID-WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CNTR

676 S. BONNIE BRAE STREET, LOS ANGELES, CA 90057 (213) 483-9921
For profit - Limited Liability company 80 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
13/100
#853 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: March 2025

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

Overview

Mid-Wilshire Health Care Center has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. They rank #853 out of 1155 facilities in California, placing them in the bottom half, and #211 out of 369 in Los Angeles County, meaning there are only a few local options that are better. The facility is improving, with the number of issues decreasing from 14 in 2024 to 11 in 2025, but they still reported a concerning $54,237 in fines, higher than 85% of California facilities. Staffing is average with a 3/5 rating and a turnover rate of 32%, which is below the state average. However, there are notable weaknesses, including serious incidents such as a resident with a history of falls being left unmonitored, resulting in a fracture, and another resident's dietary needs not being met properly, posing a choking risk. Overall, families should weigh the improvements against the significant issues when considering this facility.

Trust Score
F
13/100
In California
#853/1155
Bottom 27%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
14 → 11 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
32% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$54,237 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 32 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for California. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
44 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 14 issues
2025: 11 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (32%)

    16 points below California average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 32%

14pts below California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $54,237

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

The Ugly 44 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 3 actual harm
Aug 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to include the resident's next of kin (NOK) during the care plan confer...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to include the resident's next of kin (NOK) during the care plan conference for one of four sampled residents (Resident 2). For Resident 2, the facility failed to include Resident 2's NOK during the care plan meeting on 8/1/25.This deficient practice resulted in Resident 2 and Resident 2's 's NOK's not given their right to participate in the care planning for Resident 2.Findings:During a review of the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 2 on 12/24/18 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including heart failure (when the heart muscle doesn't pump blood as well as it should) and lack of coordination. During a review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, resident assessment tool) dated 7/16/25 indicated Resident 2 was cognitively intact. Resident 2 was dependent with staff on putting on/taking off footwear, substantial assistance (helper does more than half the effort) with lower body dressing, toileting hygiene, moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) with upper body dressing, personal hygiene and needed supervision with eating and oral hygiene. During a review of Resident 2's Care Plan initiated on 8/1/24 and revised on 2/19/25 indicated Resident 2 prefers family or significant other involved in her care. The Care Plan goal indicated facility will accommodate Resident 2's needs and preferences. The Care Plan intervention included to involve the family and significant others as needed to determine preferences. During a review of the Care Conference Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Meetings dated 8/1/25 at 10:15 a.m., indicated Resident 2 attended the care conference meeting. There was no documentation that indicated Resident 2's NOK was invited. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/6/25 at 8:34 a.m., Resident 2's Care Conference IDT dated 8/1/25 was reviewed with the director of staff development (DSD). DSD stated a care conference was held on 8/1/25 but there was no documentation that indicated Resident 2's NOK was notified or invited to the care conference. During an interview on 8/6/25 at 9:21 a.m., registered nurse (RN MDS) stated Resident 2's care conference was done on 8/1/25. RN stated Resident 2's NOK was invited but the NOK was busy at work and was unable to attend the care conference. RN stated she did not document that the NOK was invited and the reasons why Resident 2's NOK was unable to attend. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled Documentation Guidelines reviewed on 1/29/25, the P&P indicated promptly record as the events or observations occur complete, concise, descriptive, factual and accurately describe services provided to/for the resident. During a review of the facility's P&P titled Care Plan Conference reviewed on 1/29/25, the P&P indicated, it is the policy of the facility to provide each resident, resident's family, surrogate or representative a medium to hold a care conference to meet and discuss the progress, needs and goals of care. The same Policy indicated the facility will encourage residents, surrogates or representatives and families to participate in care planning to include their attendance at the care planning conference.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0559 (Tag F0559)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to notify the residents and/or their responsible party (RP) of room cha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to notify the residents and/or their responsible party (RP) of room change for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1). For Resident 1, the facility failed to:1.Notify Resident 1's RP before moving Resident 1 to another room on 2/7/25, 2/10/25, 3/4/25 and 3/26/25.2.Provide a written notice including the reason for room change before moving Resident 1 to another room. 3.Document in Resident 1's medical record the room change and the notification of Resident 1's RP. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 1 and Resident 1's RP not given their right to know before the room changes occur. During a review of the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 9/20/24 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities) and anxiety disorder. During a review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, resident assessment tool) dated 6/27/25 indicated Resident 1 had moderately impaired cognitive skills. Resident 1 needed maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) with shower/bath, moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) with toileting hygiene, upper/lower body dressing, putting/taking off footwear, personal hygiene and supervision with eating and oral hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's Census indicated Resident 1 was in Room A on 10/15/24. Resident 1's Census indicated Resident 1 was moved to another room on the following dates:2/7/25 - From Room A to Room B2/10/25 - From room B to Room C3/4/25 - From Room C to Room D3/26/25 - From Room D to Room E During an interview on 8/5/25 at 1:28 p.m., the director of staff development (DSD) stated before changing rooms, Resident 1's RP should be notified and obtain consent before moving Resident 1 to another room. DSD stated she was unable to find documentation that Resident 1's RP was notified before Resident 1 was moved to another room. During an interview on 8/5/25 at 1:55 p.m., the social worker (SW) stated Resident 1's RP was notified prior to moving Resident 1 to another room. SW stated she keeps a binder for the room changes. SW stated she did document the room changes in Resident 1's medical record. During a follow-up interview, the SW stated she does not provide written notice to Resident 1 or Resident 1's RP before the room changes. SW further added the notification was done through text messages. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled Room Change/Roommate Assignment reviewed on 1/29/25, the P&P indicated prior to changing a room or roommate assignment, all parties involved in the change/assignment (e.g. residents and their representatives (sponsors) will be given advance notice of such change. The same P&P indicated information regarding transfers will be documented in the resident's medical record.
Jul 2025 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 interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of eight sampled residents' (Resident 1) food consistenc...

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 eight sampled residents' (Resident 1) food consistency and texture brought in by Resident 1's son on 9/18/23 was allowed and in compliance with her mech soft, finely chopped diet being the food was fed to the resident, and that Resident 1 was assisted, supervised, and monitored for choking when eating. The facility failed to ensure: 1.There was a system in place to check/screen food brought into the facility from outside for consistency and texture to match that which the physician had ordered.2.The physician's order was followed to monitor choking signs and symptoms while feeding the resident.3. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) did not feed Resident 1 while resident is drowsy on 9/19/2023. Resident 1 who had a diagnosis of dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) oropharyngeal phase (second stage of swallowing when the food goes from the back of the mouth to into the esophagus [tube that connects the throat to the stomach]) and had a choking incident a day prior (9/18/2023).As a result of these failures, Resident 1 had a choking incident at dinner time on 9/18/2023, when the resident was being fed a noodle soup brought in from outside the facility. The second choking incident the next morning on 9/19/2023 during breakfast time which resulted in Resident 1 being found in his room by LVN (Licensed Vocational Nurse) 1 unresponsive (not reacting or moving at all) with no pulse (the number of times the heart beats) and not breathing with egg custard on her bib and inside her mouth. Resident 1 expired at the facility on 9/19/2023.On 7/25/2025 at 4:43 pm, the Department called an Immediate Jeopardy Situation (IJ, a situation in which the provider's non-compliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or likely to cause, serious injury, harm impairment, or death to a patient) in the presence of the facility's Administrator (ADM) and the Director of Nursing (DON) and the Director of Staff Development (DSD) related to the failures to ensure Resident 1 received care and services in accordance with Resident 1's physician's orders, care plan, and the facility's policies and procedures. The above failures resulted in Resident 1 being fed outside food on 9/18/2023 for dinner, which was not screened for consistency or texture resulting in a choking incident and not providing assistance with eating, as well as not monitoring for choking the next morning on 9/19/2023 during breakfast as per the physician's orders and care plan.On 7/26/2025 at 5:30 pm, the Department removed the IJ situation in the presence of the ADM, DON, and DSD, while onsite after the surveyors verified the facility's implementation of the IJ removal plan through observation, interview and record review, which included:1.On 9/19/2023 Resident 1 expired.2.On 7/25/2025 at 5:15 pm DON/designee (a person selected or designated to carry out a duty or role) audited the diets of 49 residents with ordered modified diets (eating plan designed to address specific nutritional needs or health conditions) for dinner service to determine any discrepancies in diet order and meal trays - none found.3.On 7/25/2025 at 7:30 pm and outside consultant provided an in-service (ongoing, job-related training provided to staff to enhance their knowledge and skills, ensuring they can deliver high-quality care to residents) to DON and ADM and later the consultant provided in-service training to licensed nurses and nursing assistants in the facility at 10 pm and 11 pm on:Understanding the importance of checking and inspecting food brought in from outside sources for residents. Verifying that outside food aligns with the resident's dietary orders and texture requirements. Identifying the risks of non-compliance with prescribed diets, including choking, aspiration, and medical complications. Communicating effectively with residents and families about dietary restrictions, food safety and associated risks. Providing education to family members who prepare to feed the resident, including proper feeding techniques and the risks associated with feeding. And recognizing and responding appropriately to suspicious or potentially unsafe food items. Also, understanding the importance of education family members about residents' special dietary needs. Identifying appropriate foods and feeding techniques for residents on various special diets (e.g., diabetic, low sodium, pureed and mechanical soft). Effectively communicating dietary restrictions, risks, and safe feeding practices to family members. Demonstrating how to train family members in proper feeding techniques that reduce risks such as choking and aspiration. Documenting education provided and family member understanding in resident records.4.On 7/25/2025 at 10 pm, ADM and DON created Log for Visitors who bring in food from the outside. The log included name of the resident, visitor/family member who is visiting, what food was brought/texture, Education training column if done, and/or modified and last column will have nurse initial to confirm and/or provide comment if necessary.5.On 7/26/2025 at 10:45 am, DSD created new sign was posted in English and Korean at front door and garage entrance for visitors with outside food to go to Nurses station when bringing in food. Attn: all family members & visitors. If you bring outside food or beverages for the residents, please do not provide them with until you have spoken with our licensed nurse and received permission. If any food/beverage brought in does not meet the resident's current diet, food will be denied and not allowed for safety concerns. Please head directly to the nursing station for screening. Thank you for your cooperation to ensure the safety of our residents.6.The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT - collaborative meeting where various healthcare professionals discuss and coordinate a resident's care plan), which involved Nurse Consultant, ADM, DON, Staff Developer (DSD), Social Worker, and Activities convened on 7/25/2025 at 7 pm to revise the food brought from home policy, includes education and training of family members on what food is appropriate and when feeding the resident.7.Starting 7/26/2025, all admissions, residents and families will be given a copy of this new policy and offered a handout on safe food handling practices.8.In-service training for staff license nurses started on 7/25/2025 at 10 pm on how to address food coming from outside and how nurses will check food brought in for patients. A total of 42 out of 67 nurses have been trained and will continue training until all staff nurses have attended by 7/28/2025. The four of the 67 nursing staff members who are on vacation or out on leave, will be in-serviced prior to them working on the floor.9.Ad hoc (for this purpose) Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI, data-driven approach to improving the quality of care and services in healthcare settings) Committee, which includes Medical Director, ADM, DON, DSD, Social Services, and Activities will be conducted on 7/26/2025, a root cause analysis (RCA) will be completed to determine key issues for food brought from home, including communication breakdowns, inconsistent documentation, and training gaps in high-risk monitoring protocols/interventions. During a review of Resident 1's Record of Admission (undated), indicated, Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body), lack of coordination, muscle weakness (generalized), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) oropharyngeal phase (second stage of swallowing when the food goes from the back of the mouth to into the esophagus [tube that connects the throat to the stomach]).During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 7/7/2023, indicated, Resident 1 had severe cognitive (ability to think, understand and make daily decisions) impairment. The same MDS further indicated Resident 1 required extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) with one-person physical assist when eating.During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 7/10/2023 indicated, Resident 1 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. The H&P further indicated the resident had left side weakness due to a cerebrovascular accident (stroke), and dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities). During a review of Speech Therapist (ST) notes titled, Recertification & Updated Plan of Treatment, Dysphagia Therapy, certification period 8/6/2023 - 9/4/2023, indicated objective progress/short-term goals' Patient will safely swallow mechanical soft and thin liquids, successive swallows using lingual sweeps/re-swallow, rate modification, bolus size modification, hard throat clear/re-swallow techniques/precautions with 80% of attempts and with 20% verbal cues in order to decrease s/s (signs and symptoms) of oral and/or pharyngeal dysphagia. The same ST notes indicated to please Resident 1 in an upright posture during meals and up to 30 minutes after meals. During a review of Resident 1's physician's orders dated 8/25/2023 indicated an order for mechanical soft finely chopped diet (foods that are modified in texture to be easier to chew and swallow, i.e., ground, chopped or mashed) with thin liquids.During a review of Resident 1's Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR, a communication tool used by healthcare workers when there is a change of condition among the residents) progress note dated 9/18/2023, indicated the resident had an incident of choking at dinner time (at 5:30 pm), requiring the Heimlich maneuver (a first-aid procedure used to treat choking by dislodging a foreign object from a person's airway) to be performed in addition to a finger sweep (a first aid technique used to remove a visible foreign object from a choking victim's mouth or throat) of mouth and suction of oropharynx (middle part of the throat, behind the mouth, soft palate [the back muscular part of the roof of the mouth], the side and back walls of the throat, the tonsils, and the back one-third of the tongue), to remove the food and clear the airway.During a review of Resident 1's physician's orders dated 9/18/2023 at 5:30 pm, indicated an order to have oral suction (procedure to remove mucus or saliva from a person's mouth when they are unable to clear it themselves through coughing or swallowing with a suction device) as needed and monitor every shift for signs and symptoms of choking.During a review of Resident 1's care plan for high risk for choking due to dysphagia and requiring assistance during meals but she wants to initiate eating by herself (undated), indicated an intervention of monitor for signs and symptoms of aspiration (the inhalation of food, liquid, or other material into the lungs, instead of the esophagus and stomach) such as coughing, trouble breathing, choking, wheezing, etc. and Restorative Nurse Assistant (RNA, a specialized certified nursing assistant, CNA, who is trained to help patients regain or maintain their physical abilities and independence) if needed. During a review of Resident 1's Nursing Assistant Activities of Daily Living (ADL, fundamental self-care tasks that individuals perform independently to maintain their well-being and independence such as eating and dressing) flow sheet for September 2023 indicated the resident needed supervision (oversight, encouragement, cueing) with one person physical assist for breakfast and lunch and was dependent (full staff performance) at dinner times., indicating a discrepancy in the amount of help the resident needed during the meal times. Further review of the same ADL flow sheet indicated no entries for breakfast on 9/19/2023, lunch and dinner were strike through and indicated expired 9/19/2023.During a review of Resident 1's Nursing Notes dated 9/19/2023 at 8:30 am, the note indicated CNA passed breakfast tray at 7:20 am. Helped the resident get up in bed in sitting position. resident had no SOB (shortness of breath) or respiratory distress (difficulty breathing, often involving rapid, shallow breaths or gasping), no cough, no complaint of pain, no facial grimacing during the passing the breakfast tray. When charge nurse went to give resident her morning medications around 7:35 am, the resident was found with yellow face, lips were not blue or purple in color, closed eyes, unresponsive to verbal and tactile (touching) stimuli, with soft egg pudding spilled on her bib. Charge nurse stated he didn't hear any coughing sounds or sounds of choking this morning.resident is unresponsive, no pulse, no breathing noted. removed about one tablespoon of visible soft egg pudding from mouth and provided oral suctioning nothing came out. started oxygen at 15 liters per minute via non-rebreather mask (an oxygen delivery system used during emergencies to deliver a high concentration of oxygen) and called 911 (universal emergency number) . paramedics called time of death at 7:59 am.During a review of Resident 1's autopsy report signed 4/2/2024, indicated date of death [DATE] and date of autopsy 9/21/2023, the report further indicated the cause of death asphyxia (a condition where the body is deprived of oxygen, leading to potential loss of consciousness and even death) resulting from obstruction of airway passages by food product, manner of death accidental.During an interview with CNA 1 on 7/24/2025 at 12:33 pm, she stated on that day (9/19/2023), she saw Resident 1 was sleeping so she put the tray to the side of the bed and went to her other residents to feed them. She stated when she returned to Resident 1's room, she tried to wake Resident 1 up and Resident 1 opened her eyes. CNA 1 stated she gave her (Resident 1) a spoonful of the egg (pudding), and then she (Resident 1) shut her eyes again. CNA 1 further stated she tried to wake Resident 1 again and then she called the charge nurse because Resident 1 was not swallowing. CNA 1 stated she didn't know of the choking incident a day before, if she knew she would not leave Resident 1 alone to eat. CNA 1 stated that she was present. However, there was no documentation to support her report nor was there any witness that confirmed that CNA was present in the room.During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 on 7/24/2025 at 12:47 pm, LVN 1 stated that at the beginning of the shift, huddle (a brief, structured meeting held by nurses and other healthcare professionals, usually at the start of a shift, to discuss patient care, safety concerns, and workload distribution) is completed between the oncoming and off-going shifts. After the huddle, LVN 1 then checks the communication notes (are the written or electronic records used by nurses and other healthcare professionals to document and share important information about a resident's condition, care, and progress) for events that may have occurred overnight and informs CNAs about safety instructions involving the residents they are assigned to, such as residents at high risk for falls and aspiration risks. LVN 1 stated that for residents who have a diagnosis of dysphagia or aspiration risk, nursing staff check the diet orders to ensure that they are receiving the appropriate diet and place a sign above their bed. If a resident has a history of choking, LVN 1 stated that the resident is monitored closely to ensure that they are swallowing ok because they are now at increased risk for choking and placed in a feeding program where the RNA assists or monitor them during meals. LVN 1 stated that the families of residents at risk of choking must be educated, and all food brought in carefully screened to ensure that it is compliant with the ordered diet, otherwise notify the supervisor and schedule an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT - collaborative meeting where various healthcare professionals discuss and coordinate a resident's care plan) meeting.During a follow up interview with LVN 1 on 7/24/2025 at 2:52 pm, LVN 1 stated that Resident 1, was not on the feeding program, even though she was an aspiration risk, but the facility staff monitored her because she slept most of the time and did not like to participate in activities. LVN 1 stated that on 9/19/2023 while reviewing the communication notes, they learned that Resident 1 had a choking incident which required staff to perform a Heimlich maneuver on her. LVN 1 finished reviewing the notes and started looking for CNA 1 (who was assigned to Resident 1) to inform her about the incident and to be extra cautious. LVN 1 stated that when he walked in Resident 1's room, Resident 1 was noted to be in bed and sitting upright and appeared to be yellowing. LVN 1 stated that Resident 1 was not responsive and was not breathing so he went to look for his supervisor to assist. LVN 1 stated that many staff came to the room to assist with Resident 1 and that one of the staff (does not recall whom) swept (a first aid technique used to clear an obstructed airway in an unconscious person by using a finger to remove a visible object from the mouth or throat) her mouth. LVN 1 stated that cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR, a medical procedure involving repeated compression of a patient's chest, performed in an attempt to restore the blood circulation and breathing of a person who has suffered cardia arrest) was not performed because Resident 1 was a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR, order is a medical order instructing healthcare professionals not to perform CPR if a person's heart stops or they stop breathing).During a concurrent telephone interview and record review of Resident 1's nursing notes with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 on 7/24/2025 at 3:57 pm, RN 1 stated that she recalled a staff member informing her that Resident 1 was unresponsive, so she rushed to the room and found that Resident 1 was unresponsive and was not breathing. The breakfast tray was in the room at the bedside of Resident 1. RN 1 stated that when she checked Resident 1's mouth, she (RN 1) found about two tablespoons of food residual which appeared to be a yellow egg pudding. RN 1 confirmed that leaving food in a resident's mouth or not supervising them could result in a resident choking. RN 1 stated that when a resident chokes, that food blocks their airway depriving them of oxygen and may result in death. RN 1 confirmed that Resident 1 had an order for aspiration monitoring which must be completed at every meal or anytime anything is placed in the mouth.During the same telephone interview RN 1 stated that she did not personally see the resident eat but found out from the CNA that she (CNA 1) had taken the tray to Resident 1 and fed Resident 1 a little because she appeared (Resident 1) to refuse the food. RN 1 stated she does not recall if the resident was an aspiration risk and was not aware that the resident had a choking incident the day before. RN 1 further stated staff need to make sure that they (facility staff) do not leave a resident with food in her mouth, resident could be at risk for aspiration which may result in a blocked airway and result in death.During an interview with the ST on 7/24/2025 at 4:58 pm, ST stated that dysphagia oral pharyngeal phase required a lot of queueing and cannot clear the mouth of residual. She stated that training included reminding the residents to sweep their mouth but if they are not at that point, then supervision is required.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/25/2025 at 11:23 am with DON (Director of Nursing), Resident 1's progress notes, physicians orders and care plans reviewed as above. The DON verified there was no documentation in the resident's records indicating the CNA stayed in the room to monitor the resident after passing the trays and positioning the resident to eat on 9/19/2023 at 7:20 am. DON stated resident should be fully awake, if the resident is drowsy staff should stop the feeding.During an interview with ADM on 7/25/2025 at 2:19 pm, he stated that the facility talked about the post incident of choking in 9/2023 but didn't know if the facility documented it. He also stated that there is no policy specific to the outside food being brought in for the residents that is on a specialized diet for screening the food to comply with the diet ordered.During an interview with DON on 7/25/2025 at 3:05 pm, she stated that there was no specific facility policy at this time (time of interview) to address the process when residents or family members bring in outside food. She stated that a system and a policy will be added to include IDT must be implemented, a care plan initiated, and an order placed if resident or family bringing outside food.During the same interview and record review of the facility policy for Resident Nutritional Services and Assistance with Meals dated 6/2025, were the exact same policies that were used and active at the facility in September 2023.During an interview with CNA 4 on 7/25/2025 at 4:14 pm, he stated family should not bring food from outside.During an interview with LVN 4 on 7/25/2025 at 4:17 pm, he stated that when a family brings food from home, they need to check the chart for the diet, check the food and inform the facility if they bring in a different diet. He stated that he was not aware about an order should be entered in the resident's chart about food brought from outside. He stated that he was not sure about making a care plan for food brought from home. He further stated that he would have to check with the supervisor because he was new to the facility. LVN 4 also stated he was not aware of the facility of having a policy of having an IDT and care planning when family will be bringing food.During an interview with the Medical Director (MD) for the facility on 7/26/2025 at 9:58 am, MD stated that residents diagnosed with dysphagia must have Speech Therapy (ST) consult for evaluation, treatments, and recommendation on the appropriate diet as bedside nursing is not enough. MD stated that food brought in by family from outside must adhere and be consistent with residents ordered diets. MD stated that residents on aspiration risk must be monitored by nursing not only during meals, but also at any point that a resident is consuming anything orally which includes snacks, candy, etc. the MD stated that it was really important to have a policy and procedure on dysphagia, aspiration precautions, and outside food to ensure resident safety.During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P), titled, Resident Nutritional Services, reviewed June 2024 and the active P&P during the time of the incident, the P&P indicated, Each resident shall receive the correct diet, with preferences accommodated as feasible and shall receive prompt meal service and appropriate feeding assistance.During a review of the facility's P&P, titled, Assistance with Meals, reviewed June 2024 and the active P&P during the time of the incident, the P&P indicated, The facility shall provide assistance for all patients with meals in a manner that meets the individual needs of each patient. Ensure that all patients are assisted with meals according to physician's orders and preferences. Nursing staff and/or Feeding Assistants will serve the patient trays and will help patients who require assistance with eating. Patients who cannot feed themselves will be fed with attention to safety, comfort and dignity.
Jun 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

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' abuse policy and procedures for two of nine sampled res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow its' abuse policy and procedures for two of nine sampled residents (Residents 2 and 3). This failure resulted in an employee-to-resident allegation of abuse incident not being reported to state licensing/certification office, police, and ombudsman, and the incident not investigated in a timely manner. Findings: During a review of Resident 2's admission Record, dated 6/11/25 indicated, Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hypertension (HTN—high blood pressure), insomnia (inability to sleep), hyperlipidemia (HLD - a condition characterized by elevated levels of lipids (fats) in the bloodstream), major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest) and abnormalities of gait and mobility. During a review of Resident 2 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 1/20/25 indicated, Resident 2 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS—a resident assessment tool), dated 3/25/25, indicated, Resident 2 had intact cognition (ability to think, understand and make daily decisions). The same MDS further indicated Resident 2 required setup or cleaning assistance to supervision from staff for eating, personal hygiene, toileting, bathing, dressing and bed mobility. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record, dated 6/11/25 indicated, Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD—a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breath), heart failure (a condition where the heart can't pump enough blood to meet the body's needs), chronic kidney disease (CKD—a condition where the kidneys are damaged and cannot filter blood as well as they should) muscle weakness, and lack of coordination. During a review of Resident 3 ' s H&P, dated 1/13/25 indicated, Resident 3 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated, Resident 3 had severe cognitive (ability to think, understand and make daily decisions) impairment. The same MDS further indicated Resident 3 required substantial/maximal to total dependance on staff for eating, personal hygiene, toileting, bathing, dressing and bed mobility. During a review of Resident 2 ' s grievance, undated, indicated Resident 2 filed the grievance on behalf of Resident 3 for an incident of alleged employee-to-resident abuse on 3/28/25 at 8:30 pm indicating Despite . refusal . CNA alleged proceeded forcefully . leading to the resident ' s . yelling and screaming in resistance. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/11/25 at 12:45 pm with Director of Nursing (DON) Resident 2 ' s grievance was reviewed. The DON stated there was no physical problem, so we did not report it, but as it is written it in the grievance – if there are allegations of abuse we have to report it. During an interview with Administrator (ADM) on 6/24/25 at 10:16 am, the ADM stated he was made aware the same or next day of the incident, but that it was not communicated to him with the words forcefully as written in the grievance, otherwise they would have reported it. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Abuse and Neglect Prohibition Policy, reviewed June 2024, the P&P indicated, It is the facility ' s policy to prohibit abuse, mistreatment, neglect, involuntary seclusion, and misappropriation of property for all residents through the following . Identification of possible incidents or allegation which need investigation . Reporting of incidents, investigations, and the facility ' s response to the results the results of their investigations . Reporting of incidents, investigations, and facility ' s response to the investigation . Upon receiving information concerning a report of suspected or alleged abuse, mistreatment, neglect, or exploitation the Administrator or designed will perform the following . All alleged violations – Immediately but not later than . 2 hours- if the alleged violation involves abuse . Report the incident to the local Ombudsman or the local law enforcement agency by telephone as soon as possible, and . The Licensing and Certification Program District Office.
Mar 2025 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0675 (Tag F0675)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a call light was within reach for one sampled resident (Resident 25). This deficient practice had the potential to result in a delay in meeting the resident's needs for hydration, toileting, and activities of daily living. Findings: A review of the admission record for Resident 25 indicated the resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Alzheimer's Disease (a disease characterized by a progressive decline in mental abilities), Parkinson's disease (a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremor, muscular rigidity, and slow, imprecise movements), lack of coordination, and polyoseoarthritis (a degenerative disease that involves more than five joints). A review of Resident 25's Annual Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 12/25/2024, indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment (decline in thinking, memory, and reasoning abilities, impacting daily functioning) and needed extensive assistance with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, bathing, and transfers. A review of the Side Rail Use Care Plan revised 3/3/2025 indicated Resident 25 was at risk for bedside rail entrapment related to the use of side rails and one of the interventions included to place the call light within reach. On 3/10/2025 at 10:19 AM, during the initial tour of the facility, Resident 25 was observed in her room, lying in bed asleep. Upon further observation, Resident 25's call light was hanging at the end of her bed. The certified nursing assistant (CNA 6) was in Resident 25's room and confirmed the call light was not within the resident's reach. CNA 6 stated she did not know why the call light was not next to Resident 25 and further stated it was important to have the call light within reach so the resident could call for help. During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 1:59 PM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 4) stated call lights should always be within reach of the resident. LVN 4 stated if a resident was not able to call for help using the call light, then the resident was at risk for falls and would have a delay in receiving care. During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 2:18 PM, the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated all resident's call lights should be placed within reach of the resident so they can call for help. When Resident 25's call light was not easily accessible, then the resident would not be able to get assistance in a timely manner. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Answering Call Lights, last revised 6/2024, indicated when a resident was in bed the call light would be placed within easy reach of the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed ensure one of 16 sampled residents (Resident 63) received treatment an...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed ensure one of 16 sampled residents (Resident 63) received treatment and care in accordance with professional standards of practice. Resident 63, who had a history of diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA - a serious, potentially life-threatening complication of diabetes that occurs when the body does not have enough insulin [a hormone that removes excess sugar from the blood, can be produced by the body or given artificially via medication], causing it to burn fat for energy instead of sugar, leading to a buildup of harmful acids called ketones in the blood) had abnormally high blood sugar readings, and did not have defined parameters for blood sugar readings to notify the doctor. This deficient practice caused an increased risk in Resident 63 having another episode of DKA. Findings: A review of Resident 63's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified acidosis (your body fluids have become too acidic, either because you're producing too much acid, not getting rid of enough, or both, leading to a potentially dangerous imbalance) and Type II diabetes (when the body cannot use insulin correctly and sugar builds up in the blood) with ketoacidosis. A review of the Diabetes Mellitus Care Plan, dated 1/28/2025, indicated the goal was for Resident 63 to be free of any signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar). The care plan intervention indicated facility staff would give diabetes medication as ordered and would monitor / document for side effects and effectiveness. The care plan intervention indicated the facility staff would monitor for signs of hypoglycemia / hyperglycemia such as weakness, dizziness, hunger, pallor (paleness or a loss of color from your normal skin tone), irritability, tremors (shaking or trembling), diaphoresis (excessive sweating), headache, increased thirst, blurred vision, dry skin, change level of consciousness & check finger stick blood sugar and give orange juice or medication as ordered and report to MD. A review of Resident 63's History and Physical (H&P), dated 1/30/2025, indicated the resident had gone to the emergency room with uncontrolled diabetes and was in the early stages of DKA. The H&P indicated Resident 63 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review Resident 63's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 2/1/2025, indicated the resident's primary language was Korean, had the ability to understand others and had the ability to make himself understood. A review of the Physician's Order Summary Report dated 2/27/2025, indicated Resident 63 was to receive Lantus Solo Star (a long-acting insulin) 100 units/milliliter (ml a unit of measurement used for medication dosage and/or amount) give 25 units subcutaneously (sq - under the skin) at bedtime for diabetes and hold for blood sugar less than 100. Resident 63 had an order for Novolog FlexPen (fast acting insulin) 100 unit/ml - if blood sugar was 0-299 do not give insulin and if blood sugar was 300 or greater give 6 units. The Novolog order also indicated it was to be given every 8 hours if Resident 63's blood sugar was greater than 300 and if his blood sugar was less than 70 to give him four to six ounces of Glucerna (a liquid designed for people with Type II diabetes) and to check the resident's blood sugar in 30 minutes. The Physician's Order Summary indicated Resident 63 to receive Novolog 50% d/w (a liquid injection to treat low blood sugar) intravenously (IV - through a needle or tube inserted into a vein) and to recheck the resident's blood sugar again in 30 minutes. The order did not indicate when the nursing staff should call Resident 63's doctor. A review of the Physician's Progress Note dated 3/3/2025 indicated Resident 63 had been admitted to the hospital on [DATE] with DKA and had a hemoglobin A1C (a blood test that shows your average blood sugar level over the past 2-3 month) of 16.6 (for people without diabetes, a normal HbA1c level is below 5.7%). The progress note also indicated Resident 63's hemoglobin A1C on 2/13/2025 was 14. A review of Resident 63's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 3/11/2025, indicated the resident had a blood sugar reading over 500 on the following days: 2/3 - 2/5/2025, 2/8, 2/10 - 2/13/2025, 2/16/2025, 2/18 - 2/21/2025, 2/23 - 2/28/2025, 3/1 - 3/6/2025, 3/9/2025, 3/10/2025. According to a review of the American Diabetes Association Website titled, Check Your Blood Glucose (sugar)| Diabetes Testing & Monitoring, dated 2025, the target range for A1C was less than 7 and a normal blood sugar reading before meals was between 80 and 130. A review of Resident 63's Progress Notes for February and March 2025, indicated the staff did not document they contacted Resident 63's physician regarding the high blood sugar reading until 3/11/2025. The progress note dated 3/11/2025 indicated the staff received new orders for insulin to treat Resident 63's high blood sugar and to contact Resident 63's doctor if the blood sugar was greater than 400. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 3/11/2025 at 9:25 AM with Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2), Resident 63's MAR, dated 3/11/2025 was reviewed. The MAR indicated Resident 63 had a blood sugar reading over 500 at least 19 times in February 2025 and at least 8 times in March 2025. LVN 2 stated Resident 63 had orders to give 6 units of fast acting insulin if Resident 63's blood sugar was above 500. LVN 2 verified there was no documentation the facility contacted Resident 63's physician to report the high blood sugar readings and verified the facility did not document a change in condition for Resident 63. LVN 2 stated the facility should have contacted Resident 63's physician regarding the high blood sugar readings. LVN 2 stated Resident 63 could have complications due to high blood sugar such as being very thirsty and being dizzy. LVN 2 stated Resident 63 could go into DKA if the facility did not control his blood sugars. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/11/2025 at 9:36 AM with Registered Nurse Supervisor 2 (RNS 2), Resident 63's MAR, dated 3/11/2025 was reviewed. Resident 63's MAR indicated the resident had 27 instances where the resident's blood sugar was over 500. The RNS 2 stated Resident 63's doctor was not notified regarding Resident 63's high blood sugar readings. The RNS 2 stated she would contact Resident 63's doctor right away. The RNS 2 stated Resident 63's current insulin regimen (treatment or therapy) was not effective in managing his blood sugars and he was at risk for going back into DKA. RNS 2 stated she could not explain why the facility's staff did not call Resident 63's doctor regarding his consistently high blood sugar readings. The RNS 2 verified the facility did not document a change in condition. During an interview on 3/11/2025 at 10:08 AM with the RNS 2, the RNS 2 stated that the facility's blood glucose machine could only read the blood sugar level up to 599 and not any higher. The RNS 2 stated that because the machine could not register the blood sugar higher than 599, Resident 63's blood sugar could have been higher than 599. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/11/2025 at 10:19 AM with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the facility's blood glucose machine's manufacturer's manual, dated 10/2023, was reviewed. The manufacturer's manual indicated if the reading on the blood glucose machine was more than 600 the blood glucose machine would register the reading as HI instead of displaying a number. The manufacturer manual indicated if the blood glucose machine reading was HI, a healthcare professional should be contacted immediately. The DSD accessed the blood glucose machine memory and verified on 3/9/2024 at 8:26 PM, on 3/10/2025 at 8:31 PM, and on 3/6/2025 at 10 PM the blood glucose machine reading was HI. The DSD stated LVN 3 documented the readings on 3/9/2024 at 8:26 PM, on 3/10/2025 at 8:31 PM, and on 3/6/2025 at 10 PM as a reading of 599 and not what the machine actually read as HI. During an interview on 3/11/2025 at 11:16 AM with Resident 63's representative (Family Member 1), FM 1 stated he was aware that Resident 63's blood sugars were running high. FM 1 stated he was not aware the facility had not been contacting Resident 63's doctor about the high readings and was concerned. During an interview on 3/11/2025 at 12:24 PM, LVN 3 stated she documented Resident 63's blood sugar at 599 when the reading on the blood glucose machine showed HI. LVN 3 stated the blood glucose machine did not read past 500. LVN 3 stated she reported the high blood sugar readings for February and March 2025 to the RNS 1. LVN 3 stated she did not document the times she reported Resident 63's high blood sugars to the RNS 1. LVN 3 stated it was important to document the times Resident 63 had high blood sugars so it would be in the resident's record. During an interview on 3/11/20205 at 2:37 PM with the facility's Medical Director (MD), the MD stated the facility nurses should have been communicating with Resident 63's attending physician (medical doctor who is responsible for the overall care of a patient) in regard to his high blood sugar and should have taken immediate action if his blood sugars were over 500. The MD stated the facility nurses should have documented calls to the attending physician and what they did to manage Resident 63's high blood sugars. The MD stated Resident 63 was at risk for DKA if his blood sugars were not under control and running above 500. The MD stated if the blood glucose machine was not reading Resident 63's actual blood sugar and reading HI, the staff should have gotten an order to get a lab draw to assess Resident 63's actual blood sugar. The MD stated he was thankful Resident 63's blood sugar control issues were brought to his attention so the facility could fix the issue moving forward. During an interview on 3/11/2025 at 3:31 PM, RNS 1 stated he could recall LVN 3 notifying him about Resident 63's high blood sugar on 3/5/2025 but the RNS 1 did not document the interaction. When asked about any other instances when nurses had reported Resident 63's high blood sugar, RNS 1 could not recall. The RNS 1 stated the facility did not document when they spoke with Resident 63's attending physician regarding the times Resident 63 had high blood sugars. RNS 1 stated the facility should have documented when they spoke with Resident 63's doctor about Resident 63's high blood sugars. During an interview on 3/12/2025 at 1:09 PM, the MD stated it would have been best for Resident 63's attending physician to indicate defined parameters for when the nurses should call the attending physician regarding Resident 63's high blood sugar readings in regard to the Novolog insulin order dated 1/28/2025. The MD stated even if these instructions to call for high blood sugar readings were missing in the order, the nursing staff should have followed the standard of practice and reported the high blood sugar readings to Resident 63's attending physician. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Diabetic Management, dated 6/2024, indicated the policy of this facility is to ensure that each resident's diabetes management is according to current American Diabetes Association's standard. The P&P indicated the purpose of the diabetic management program is to address resident's individual needs with respect to disease management and nutritional approaches and interventions and to monitor and evaluate resident outcome. The P&P indicated the definition of Hyperglycemia= High blood sugar [typically above 200 mg/dl (milligrams per deciliter, a unit used to measure the concentration of a substance, like blood sugar, in a specific volume of fluid such as blood)]. The P&P indicated the definition of ketoacidosis is an emergency condition that can lead to coma or death. It occurs-when there are dangerously high levels of acids (ketones). The P&P indicated staff should Call provider as soon as possible when: a) glucose values are > (greater than) 250 mg/dl (13.9 mmol/L [millimoles per liter - a standard of unit in chemistry that represents a specific number of particles in a liter of fluid]) within a 24-h (24 hour) period, b) glucose values are >300 mg/dl (16.7 mmol/L) over 2 consecutive (back-to-back) days, c) any reading is too high for the glucometer (blood glucose machine), or d) the patient is sick, with vomiting, symptomatic (signs of) hyperglycemia, or poor oral intake (eat or drink).
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 57) rece...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 57) received treatment and services to prevent complications of an enteral feeding tube (g tube, delivery of liquid nutrients through a tube directly into the gastrointestinal tract). Resident 57's enteral feeding tube bag was not changed every 24 hours per the facility's Enteral Feeding Via Pump Administration policy. This deficient practice had the potential to place Resident 57 at risk for infection and gastrointestinal (GI) complications. Findings: A review of the admission record indicated Resident 57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), aphasia (a disorder that makes it difficult to speak), dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), and Parkinson's disease (a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremor, muscular rigidity, and slow, imprecise movements). A review of Resident 57's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 1/15/2025, indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment (a significant decline in a person's ability to think, learn, and remember), could not make needs known, and needed maximum assistance with transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated the resident had a enteral feeding tube, had diagnoses of dysphagia, aphasia, dementia, and Parkinson's. A review of the Physician's Orders dated 1/28/2025 indicated for Resident 57 to receive Jevity 1.5 (a type of therapeutic nutrition) at 45 cc (cubic centimeter-a unit of volume used to measure liquids, such as medication) per hour for 20 hours via (by) pump via g-tube (gastrostomy -a surgical opening fitted with a device to allow feedings to be administered directly to the stomach common for people with swallowing problems) to be started at 2 PM until 10 AM. A review of Resident 57's g-tube care plan revised 2/5/2025, indicated the resident was at risk for complications of g-tube feeding such as GI distress (discomfort in the digestive system), blockage, leaking, and infection on the g-tube site. The care plan interventions included to monitor signs and symptoms of GI distress such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, abdominal pain, or bloating. The care plan goal was for the resident to be free of signs and symptoms of complications. During an observation of the initial tour of the facility on 3/10/2025 at 10:27 AM in Resident 57's room, a Jevity 1.5 tube feeding bag was observed hanging and connected to the resident. The tube feeding pump was noted to be turned off and the tube feeding bag was dated 3/8/2025 (two days prior). During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 1:59 PM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 4) stated he did not notice that the date on Resident 57's tube feeding was 3/8/2025. LVN 4 stated that there was an infection risk to the resident since the tube feeding bag and tubing was not changed daily. During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 2:18 PM, the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated tube feeding bags should be changed every 24 hours and Resident 57 would be at risk for infection and complications such as nausea and vomiting, since the tube feeding bag was not changed regularly. A review of the policy and procedure titled, Enteral Feeding Via Pump Administration, revised on 6/2024, indicated to change administration sets for enteral feedings every 24 hours.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one sampled resident (Resident 23) with prescribed Ativan (a...

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 sampled resident (Resident 23) with prescribed Ativan (anxiolytic, psychotropic medication) as needed (PRN) order had a documented clinical rationale to extend the medication beyond 14 days. This deficient practice caused an increased risk in Resident 23 experiencing adverse consequences. Findings: A review of Resident 23's admission record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnoses including anxiety disorder (excessive fear or worry that interferes with daily life), dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 23's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) dated 12/26/24, indicated the resident was not alert and oriented, and did not have good recall. The MDS indicated Resident 23 rarely felt lonely or isolated. A review of the Physician's Order dated 2/27/25 indicated Resident 23 was prescribed Ativan 0.5 mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for Anxiety for 30 days manifested by fidgeting, unable to sit still / lying down on bed, do not exceed 2 mg per day. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/11/25 at 1:03 PM with a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4, Resident 23's Informed Consent for Psychotherapeutic Drugs dated 1/4/25, was reviewed. The Informed Consent for Psychotherapeutic Drugs indicated the Psychotherapeutic Medication Ativan 0.5 mg one tablet by mouth every six hours as needed for 14 days. The reason for use of the Psychotropic Medication indicated for Anxiety manifested by fidgeting, unable to sit still / lying down in bed. The Informed Consent indicated several continuations for 14 days and one extension for 30 days. LVN 4 stated in Resident 23's electronic chart the informed consent was by telephone from Resident 23's Family Member on date 1/4/25 for the Ativan for 30 days, but no clinical rational indicated why the 14 days was insufficient. During an interview on 3/11/25 at 2:20 PM, the Pharmacy Consultant stated he, Believes the rational for Resident 23's Ativan order for 30 days is fidgeting and unable to sit still and lying. The Pharmacy Consultant stated the doctor put in a defined duration of 30 days and would reevaluate. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/12/25 at 8:39 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 23's Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Psychotropic Assessment Summary Reviews were reviewed. The DON stated Resident 23's Ativan for 14 days had several 14-day extensions. The DON could not find the clinical rational why the 14 days was not sufficient, and the 30 days was needed in the IDT Reviews. The DON stated Resident 23 should be assessed every 14 days and there was a risk to Resident 23 of not assessing her reactions to the Ativan. The DON stated there was enough evidence from the MAR to give the resident Ativan every 30 days. During an interview on 3/12/25 at 4:06 PM, the Pharmacy Consultant stated, As per patient chart, the patient has been needing Ativan almost daily which is why the Nurse Practitioner (NP) did a 30 day instead of 14 days and to reevaluate in 30 days. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Psychoactive Medication Management, dated 6/24, indicated as needed (PRN) orders for psychotropic drugs were limited to 14 days. Except if the attending physician or prescriber believed it was appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days, a documented rationale in the resident's medical record and duration for the PRN order must be indicated.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0730 (Tag F0730)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure five employees had annual performance evaluations. This failure had the potential to affect the quality of care for the residents. F...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure five employees had annual performance evaluations. This failure had the potential to affect the quality of care for the residents. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/12/25 at 10 AM with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), five facility employee files were reviewed. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, date of hire (DOH) 4/10/19, LVN 4 - DOH 9/1/22, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 - DOH - 4/30/24, CNA 4 / Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) - DOH - 4/17/18, and CNA 5 - DOH -8/16/23. The DSD stated these performance evaluations were not done. The DSD stated she did not get trained / updated on performance evaluations and was unaware of the requirement. The DSD stated she did not review the facility policy on performance evaluations and that without performance evaluations the risk could be a delay in care to the residents. During an interview on 3/12/25 at 11:38 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated employee files were required to have an annual performance evaluation. The DON stated she was filling in as Director of Staff Development and should have instructed the current DSD to perform performance evaluations. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Annual Performance Evaluation, dated 6/24, indicated each employee would receive an annual performance evaluation review and the documentation of said review would be filed in the employee's human resources file.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the standardized recipes and portion sizes for lunch menu was followed on 3/10/2025 when: -Facility failed to ensure s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the standardized recipes and portion sizes for lunch menu was followed on 3/10/2025 when: -Facility failed to ensure staff followed food production recipes for the pureed diet (food that is blended to a pudding consistency, no chewing required) during tray line observation. Twenty-three residents on puree diet did not receive the pureed soybean paste stew and fern salad, they received pureed meat, pureed rice and beans. -Twenty-three residents on the pureed diet received a pureed diet texture that was thin and soupy instead of pureed food that was homogenous, cohesive and had a pudding like consistency. -The menu did not include the therapeutic (diets per physician order for specific disease condition such as kidney disease or high blood sugar) and texture modified diets (these are diets that are altered in texture to accommodate resident chewing or swallowing problems). The menu did not indicate the standard portions and serving guide at each meal. These deficient practices had the potential to result in meal dissatisfaction, decreased nutritional intake and weight loss due to inconsistent portions and increased choking and aspiration risk in residents on pureed diet. Findings: According to the facility lunch menu on 3/10/2025, the following items would serve on regular diet: kimchi (Korean pickles), rice, soybean paste stew (tofu, zucchini and pork), fern salad (Korean dried vegetables) and Sweet Potato. During an observation in the kitchen on 3/10/2025 at 9:30 AM, [NAME] 1 was cutting vegetables and tofu for lunch. [NAME] 1 stated today's main entrée was a Korean stew made with pork, tofu and vegetables and served with rice and side salad. During a concurrent interview with [NAME] 1 and Dietary Supervisor (DS) on 3/10/2025 at 9:45 AM, [NAME] 1 stated Residents on pureed diet get something else. The DS stated it was difficult to prepare the Korean menu for the pureed diet, residents on pureed diet receive pureed seasoned meat, pureed mixed vegetables and pureed rice today. During the same interview, the DS stated the menu was updated with new recipes, but it did not incorporate therapeutic diets and texture modified diets in the menu. The DS stated, We don't have portion size and serving guide for the menu and for the pureed diet. We use portion sizes of similar food from the old menu. The DS stated the residents on pureed diet were not receiving pureed soybean paste stew (tofu, zucchini and pork), fern salad (Korean dried vegetables) today. During an observation of the tray line service for lunch on 3/10/2025 at 11:50 AM, residents who were on pureed texture diet were served pureed meat (soupy texture), pureed mixed vegetables (soupy texture) and pureed rice (soupy consistency) by [NAME] 1. During a concurrent observation and interview with [NAME] 1 and the DS, the DS stated the pureed food was prepared thin based on resident preference. During a telephone interview with Registered Dietitian on 3/11/2025 at 11 AM, the RD stated she was new in the facility and had not reviewed the menu. The RD stated residents who were on pureed diet should receive the same food as the regular menu. The RD stated the menu should include the therapeutic diets and texture modified diet and should include recipes and portion size and serving guide. The RD stated pureed food texture should be pudding like, pureed food should be cohesive and hold its shape, not too runny and not too dense. The RD stated if the pureed food was too thin it was a potential risk for chocking in residents who were on pureed and on thickened liquid. The RD stated she had not provided Inservice to staff regarding texture modified diets or the menu. During an interview with facility Administrator (ADM) on 3/11/2025 at 11:30 AM, the ADM stated the facility would revert back to the old menu which included recipes and portion size and serving guide for all diets to be in compliance. The ADM stated a new RD was in the process to review the new menu to include the therapeutic diets. During an observation of the tray line service for lunch on 3/11/2025 at 12:01 PM, residents who were on pureed diet were served pureed meat (thin texture), pureed corn (thin watery texture) and pureed rice (soupy) instead of Bibimbap (a Korean dish made with rice, beef, and garnished with several types of vegetables served in a bowl) by [NAME] 3. During a concurrent observation and interview, the DS stated residents on pureed diet were not receiving the pureed Bibimbap today. During a review of facility policy titled Menus (Revised 10/2022) indicated, Menus cycles will include standardized recipes, nutrient analysis to ensure that all client nutritional Needs are met. A review of facility policy titled, Menu Planning- Menu Pattern, dated 4/2020 indicated, Written menus will include the following diets-texture modifications: regular, mechanical soft, puree and therapeutic modifications. A review of facility policy titled, Menu Planning-Recipes, dated 4/2020 indicated standardized menu coordinated recipes are available and to be used in meal preparation. A review of facility policy titled, Portion Control, dated 4/2020 indicated, portion control aids in maintaining satisfactory food cost, uniformity of product, ease in food service and helps assure that residents receive a nutritionally adequate diet. Foods are to be served in the portion size designated on the menu.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food storage and preparation practices in the kitchen when: -Meat to be used for lunch preparation w...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food storage and preparation practices in the kitchen when: -Meat to be used for lunch preparation was thawing on the kitchen counter. -Ice machine was not maintained in a sanitary manner, the inside compartment of ice machine was dirty and the ice scoop was last cleaned 3/5/2025. -Two gallons of milk and nine individual cups of beverages stored in the reach in refrigerator with no open or use by date. One bag of sliced cheese not in original packaging stored in plastic bag and 14 Individual cups of kimchi stored with no label or date in the walk-in refrigerator. One large container of previously cooked rice stored in the walk-in refrigerator with no label or use by date and six cups of thickened milk beverage stored in the walk-in refrigerator with date of 3/6/2025 exceeding storage period for milk. These deficient practices had the potential to result in harmful bacteria growth and cross contamination (transfer of harmful bacteria from one place to another) that could lead to food borne illness in 63 or 65 residents who received food from the facility. Findings: a. During an observation in the kitchen on 3/10/2025 at 8:30 AM, there was one bag of frozen sliced pork with a date of 2/17/25 and another bag of frozen sliced pork with a date of 2/28/25 stored on the kitchen counter near the food preparation area. During the same observation [NAME] 1 was loading dirty dishes from breakfast service in the dishwashing machine. During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 8:45 AM, the Dietary Supervisor (DS) stated they were down to two staff members this morning and the DS and [NAME] 1 were washing the dishes. The DS stated [NAME] 1 was completing dishwashing task in addition to the cooking. During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 8:50 AM, [NAME] 1 stated thawing should be in the refrigerator for 24 -48 hours and not on the counter to keep the temperature safe. [NAME] 1 stated the meat should stay in the refrigerator until ready to be prepared. [NAME] 1 sated she made a mistake and left the pork on the counter. [NAME] 1 stated the dates on the bag indicated when food was received in the freezer. A review of the facility policy titled, Food: Preparation, revised 2/2023 indicated The Dining Services Director/Cooks will be responsible for food preparation techniques which minimize the amount of time that food items are exposed to temperatures greater than 41 F. The cook thaws frozen items that requires defrosting prior to preparation using one of the following methods: Thawing in the refrigerator, thawing the item in a microwave oven; Completely submerging the item under cold water that is running, cooking directly form frozen. b. During an observation of the facility ice machine on 3/10/2025 at 9 AM, located in the kitchen, a clean paper towel swipe of the ice storage bin ceiling and sides produced pink color residue. The residue was also on the baffle (plastic board that hold the ice from falling out of the ice storage bin). During a concurrent observation and interview with DS on 3/10/2025 at 9:10 AM, the DS stated that the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) cleaned the ice machine on monthly basis. The DS stated the last time the MS cleaned the ice machine was on 2/2/2025 and the ice machine was due for a cleaning. The DS stated the ice machine had pinkish color residue. The DS stated the ice machine scoop was cleaned by kitchen staff twice a week and the last cleaning was on 3/5/25. The DS stated the ice scoop was due for cleaning and the unsanitary scoop and ice bin can contaminate the ice. During an interview on 3/11/2025 at 9:45 AM, the MS stated he did not clean the ice machine on time. The MS stated he did not follow the policy for cleaning and forgot to use a sanitizer for cleaning. A review of ice machine cleaning log and policy indicated the ice machine should be cleaned with a sanitizer solution. A review of the facility policy for ice machine titled, Cleaning Ice Machine, undated, indicated, Mix the following solution in a clean bucket: 1 tablespoon of bleach, 1 gallon of water .use a clean cloth and the solution and wipe out the inside of the ice machine. A review of the 2022 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code titled, Equipment Food-Contact Surfaces and Utensils, Code# 4-602.11, indicated, Surfaces of utensils and equipment contacting food that is not time/temperature control for safety food such as iced tea dispensers, carbonated beverage dispenser nozzles, beverage dispensing circuits or lines, water vending equipment, coffee bean grinders, ice makers, and ice bins must be cleaned on a routine basis to prevent the development of slime, mold, or soil residues that may contribute to an accumulation of microorganisms. ac. During an observation in the kitchen on 3/10/2025 at 8:30 AM there were two open milk gallons in the reach in refrigerator with no open dates. During the same observation there were signs on the reach in refrigerator that indicated to always date the milk once open. Further observation indicated there were nine cups of milk and juice beverages stored in the reach in refrigerator with no date. During an interview on 3/10/2025 at 8:45 AM, the DS stated staff forgot to date the open gallons of milk. The DS stated when milk or beverage was poured in the cups, it should be labeled and dated. The DS stated she did not know when the milk was poured in cups and would discard the milk. The DS stated the milk in the cups was used in one day. During an observation in the walk-in refrigerator on 3/10/2025 at 9:30 AM, there was one large container of previously cooked rice with no date. One tray with 14 individual servings of Kimchi (Korean pickles) stored with no label or date and sliced cheese in a plastic bag with no date. During a concurrent observation and interview, the DS stated everything should be dated to know when to discard. The DS stated the left-over rice would be discarded since there was no date on it. The DS stated Cheese not in original packaging should be dated labeled and dated. A review of facility policy titled, Food: Preparation, revised 2/2023 indicated, All refrigerated, ready to eat CS prepared foods that are to be held for more than 24 hours at a temperature of 41 F or less will be labeled and dated with a prepared date (day 1) and a use by date) (day 7). A review of facility policy titled, Food Storage Principles, dated 2020 indicated, Label each package, box can, etc. with the expiration date, date of receipt, or when the items was stored after preparation. A. discard foods that have exceeded their expiration date. discard leftovers foods that have not been used within 48 hours or preparation. A review of the 2022 U.S. Food and Drug Administration Food Code titled, Ready to Eat, Time/Temperature control for safety food, Date Marking, Code#3-501.17, indicated Ready to eat, time temperature control for safety food prepared and packaged by food processing plant shall be clearly marked, at the time the original container is opened in a food establishment and if the food is held for more than 24 hours, to indicate the date or day by which the food shall be consumed, sold, or discarded.
Jun 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one sampled resident (Resident 1), who had diagnosis of dementia (loss of cognitive functioning - thinking, remembering, and reasoning - to such an extent that the loss interferes with a person's daily life and activities), had history of fall, and was assessed as high risk for falls, received the care and services necessary to prevent accidents and falls by failing to: -Develop a comprehensive care plan for Resident 1's fall prevention, per the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Person Centered Plan of Care. -Frequently monitor Resident 1 and anticipate resident's needs to ensure the resident's safety to prevent fall accidents. As a result, on 6/8/2024 (two days after admission), Resident 1 was found on the floor, complaining of pain, and was transferred to the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) where Resident 1 was diagnosed with a left femur fracture (broken thigh bone). The GACH recommended surgery. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 6/6/2024, with diagnoses including a history of falling, dementia, and osteoporosis (bone disease that develops when the structure and strength of the bone weakens). A review of Resident 1's admission assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident's Morse Fall Score (method of assessing a patient's likelihood of falling) was 75. A score of 45 or higher indicated Resident 1 was a high risk for falls. A review of the Activities of Daily Living Self Care Performance Deficit Care Plan dated 6/6/2024 indicated the resident had activity intolerance due to disease process of dementia. The care plan goal indicated Resident 1 would improve current level of function and the care plan interventions included the following: -Provide the resident with 1-2 staff for repositioning and turning in bed every two hours and as necessary. -Provide the resident with total assistance for eating. -To have a side rails 1/5 up per physician's order for safety during care provision, to assist with bed mobility, reposition every two hours and as necessary to avoid injury. -Provide the resident with two staff for transferring. A review of Resident 1's Nursing Progress Note dated 6/7/2024, indicated the resident was alert and oriented with periods of confusion and forgetfulness. The Nursing Progress Note indicated Resident 1 did not have any complaints of pain or discomfort. According to a review of the medical record, Resident 1 did not have a care plan for falls developed and there was no documentation regarding monitoring Resident 1 for 6/7/2024. A review of Resident 1's Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR) Communication Form dated 6/8/2024 at 7:21 AM, indicated Resident 1 was observed sitting on the floor. The SBAR indicated Resident 1 complained of pain but refused pain medicine. The SBAR indicated Resident 1's bed was in the lowest position and a floor mat was placed at bedside. The SBAR indicated the family and physician were notified of the incident. A review of Resident 1's Pain assessment dated [DATE] at 7:30 AM, indicated Resident 1's pain level was assessed as a three out of 10 for left knee pain, using the zero to 10 pain rating scale (zero equals no pain, and 10 equals the worst possible pain). The Pain Assessment indicated Resident 1's acceptable level of pain was a one. According to a review of the Nursing Progress Note dated 6/8/2024 at 12:53 PM, Resident 1 had mild left knee pain with facial grimacing but refused pain medication. The Nursing Progress Note indicated Resident 1 was alert with confusion and a floor mat was ordered for safety. A review of Resident 1's Nursing Progress Note dated 6/8/2024 at 10:33 PM, indicated Resident 1 continued to complain of pain on the left hip but stated the pain was tolerable and refused pain medication. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 6/9/2024, indicated Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment (problems with a person's ability to think, remember, and make decisions). The MDS indicated Resident 1 required substantial to maximal assistance of facility staff with toileting hygiene, rolling to the left and right side and sit to lying and lying to sitting on the side of the bed. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was dependent on facility staff for transfers and the fall history on admission was unable to be determined. A review of Resident 1's Laboratory and Radiology Patient Report dated 6/9/2024 at 1:49 AM, indicated Resident 1 had a left subcapital impaction fracture (type of intracapsular fracture in the proximal femur, where the fracture line runs through the junction of the head and neck of the femur) with minimal callus (thickening of or a hard thickened area on skin or bark, and mild displacement (change in position). The Report indicated the joint (part of the body where two or more bones meet to allow movement) showed no dislocation (separation of two bones where they meet at a joint). A review of Resident 1's SBAR dated 6/9/2024 at 6:55 AM, indicated Resident 1 had a left hip fracture and orders to transfer the resident to the GACH for further diagnosis and treatment was implemented. According to a review of the GACH History & Physical (H&P) dated 6/9/2024, Resident 1 was admitted for left hip pain and was noted to have a left hip fracture. The GACH H&P indicated Resident 1 was confused, disoriented, and complained of left hip pain. A review of Resident 1's GACH Computed Tomography (CT - diagnostic imaging procedure that uses a computer linked x-ray machine to create detailed images of the inside of the body) of the left hip, dated 6/10/2024, indicated Resident 1 had a subcapital fracture of the left femur (thigh bone) without significant displacement. A review of the GACH General Notes dated 6/10/2024, indicated Resident 1's legal guardian did not want the resident to have the recommended surgery. As a result, the surgery was canceled. A review of Resident 1's H&P dated 6/12/2024, indicated Resident 1 was unable to provide accurate history of medical issues and did not have medical decision-making capacity. During an observation on 6/24/2024 at 10:45 AM in Resident 1's room at the facility, Resident 1 was observed lying in bed, call light within reach, a mat to the right and left side of the bed, and the bed was in the lowest position. Resident 1 stated there was pain in the left hip but refused pain medication. During an interview on 6/24/2024 at 11:15 AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 stated Resident 1 was a high risk for falls and the facility should have been monitoring Resident 1 for the risk for falls more frequently, because the resident was confused. On 6/24/2024 at 2:19 PM, during a concurrent interview and record review with LVN 1, Resident 1's care plans were reviewed. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 did not have a care plan for a history of falls developed or implemented since admission on [DATE] (over two weeks). LVN 1 stated there should have been a care plan developed and implemented so the facility could anticipate and plan accordingly to accommodate the residents needs to prevent falls. LVN 1 stated because there was a history of falls, that was a repeated issue and should have been assessed further to prevent harm to Resident 1. LVN 1 stated this incident could have been prevented. During a concurrent interview and record review on 6/24/2024 at 2:44 PM with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 1's care plans were reviewed. The DON stated because the resident had a history of falls, a care plan should have been developed and implemented upon admission to the facility, to prevent Resident 1 from another fall or injury. The DON stated the fall could have been prevented if a Fall care plan was developed with interventions such as frequent monitoring to prevent injury. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Person Centered Plan of Care, dated June 2023, indicated the person-centered care plan must describe services that were provided to the resident to attain and maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being that would accommodate resident needs, request, and refusal to treatment. The P&P indicated the person-centered care plan would include interventions to attempt to manage risk factors and be periodically reviewed and revised by the Interdisciplinary Team as changes in the resident's care and treatment occur. The P&P indicated to re-evaluate and modify care plans as necessary to reflect changes in care, service, and treatment, quarterly, and with significant change in status assessment. Care plan evaluation must occur in response to changes in the resident's physical, emotional, functional, psychosocial, or communicative status as they occur. A review of the facility's P&P titled, Post Fall Management Program, dated June 2023, indicated the plan of care for each resident would be accelerated post fall, as indicated, to enhance the standard and medium to high preventative measures and decrease the risk of further falls in a manner that meets the individual needs of the resident. The P&P indicated to consider updating the plan to prevent repeat fall.
Apr 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

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 two sampled residents (Resident 1), who had dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), a history of multiple falls, and was a high risk for falls, received the care and services necessary to prevent accidents and falls by failing to: 1. Implement facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Fall Prevention Program, to identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling. 2. Evaluate interventions for effectiveness and implement new interventions to prevent repeated fall incidents after Resident 1 fell on [DATE], 3/20/2024, and 4/17/2024. 3. Monitor the resident for the behavior of trying to get out of bed without assistance as per physician's order dated 11/10/2023. As a result, Resident 1 had repeated fall incidents and on 4/17/2024 was found on the floor with a laceration (a deep cut or tear in the skin) to the right eyebrow requiring transfer to the General Acute Care Hospital 1 (GACH 1). Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 9/11/2023, with diagnoses including history of falling, dementia, lack of coordination and Alzheimer's disease (a brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills and, eventually, the ability to carry out the simplest tasks). A review of Resident 1's admission Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident had a very high risk for potential for falls. The assessment indicated the resident had not had any falls 90 days to the assessment date. The assessment indicated the resident had adequate vision, was confined to bed (unable to get up from bed without assistance), did not use the call light (a device with a button or touch pads a resident uses to set off an alarm that flashes/rings to alert the facility staff the resident needs assistance) or the bathroom call cord reliably (in a way that can be trusted). A review of Resident 1's admission Risk for Falls Care Plan initiated on 9/11/2023, indicated Resident 1 had a history of falls prior to admission to the facility and the resident had dementia and Alzheimer's disease. The care plan goal for the resident was to have reduced occurrence of injury from falls for three months. The care plan interventions (specific care and services facility staff need to provide a resident to promote healing and prevent a worsening of a condition) to prevent falls were to monitor the resident`s whereabouts daily, help with transfers and ambulation, provide proper fitting shoes, provide safe and clutter free environment, and to keep the call light and personal items within the resident's reach. A review of Resident 1's History and Physical dated 9/14/2023, indicated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions due to dementia. A review of Resident 1`s Physician orders dated 11/10/2023, indicated facility staff was to monitor the resident for the behavior of trying to get out of bed without assistance every shift. A review of Resident 1's Situation, background, assessment, and recommendation (SBAR: a form that is a documentation of a complete assessment in response to a change in condition) Communication Form dated 12/7/2023, indicated the charge nurse found Resident 1 on the floor next to the bathroom door. The SBAR form indicated Resident 1 stated she went to the bathroom (on 12/7/2023) to void (urinate) and when she was returning to the bed, lost balance and fell on the floor. A review of Resident 1's Post Fall assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 1 was forgetful and confused, had impaired hearing, impaired judgment skills (the ability to make effective decisions), and impaired safety awareness. The post fall assessment indicated Resident 1 exhibited declined (lessening) cognitive skills, and loss of coordination due to Alzheimer's disease and dementia and was not using ambulation aid (walker, wheelchair) or appropriate footwear. A review of Resident 1's Fall Scene Investigation Report dated 12/7/2023, indicated Resident 1 lost her balance and was found on the floor in her room. The investigation report indicated Resident 1 refused help and tried to go to the bed from bathroom after voiding. A review of Resident 1's Interdisciplinary Team Summary and Recommendation (IDT, a team of health care professions, which include the facility's medical director, Director of Nursing [DON], social worker, registered nurse, and other staff as needed who work together to establish plans of care for residents) dated 12/7/2023, indicated the IDT team recommended the following: to instruct the resident not to get out of bed without assistance, monitor the residents behavior of trying to get out of bed without assistance every shift, apply floor mats (a small piece of strong material that covers and protects part of a floor and is designed to absorb impact and reduce the risk of injury) at bedside, place the resident on Falling Star Program (a fall prevention program, that focuses on promoting a safe environment and anticipating the patient's needs to prevent a fall) for three months, and offer toileting program (helping a resident ambulate to the toilet, scheduling regular bathroom trips to avoid accidents, or changing adult diapers). A review of Resident 1's Risk for Falls Care Plan revised on 12/11/2023, indicated Resident 1 was found on the floor in front of the bathroom on 12/7/2023. The care plan indicated Resident 1 complained of pain to the left hip area. The care plan indicated the X-Ray (digital image of part of the body) results indicated no fracture. The care plan interventions indicated the resident was to be placed on the Falling Star program for three months, staff was to perform visual checks every hour for four (4) weeks, apply floor mats to the bedside, monitor for the behavior of trying to get out of bed, instruct the resident not to try to get out of bed without assistance, use the call light, keep the bed in the lowest position, and to start the resident on toileting program. The care plan intervention indicated Resident 1 refused toileting program on 12/13/2023. A review of Resident 1's Physical Therapy (PT- certain exercises, massages, and treatments that relieve pain and help you move better) Evaluation and Plan of Treatment dated 12/12/2023, indicated the resident was referred to PT due to falling. The evaluation form indicated Resident 1 presented with generalized weakness, incoordination (lack of coordination), and impaired balance resulting in overall decline with functional mobility skills. The evaluation form indicated Resident 1 required extensive assistance with task performance and was at risk for falls and immobility (unable to move). A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of January 2024, indicated the resident did not demonstrate the behavior of trying to get out of bed during any shift in January 2024. A review of Resident 1's Occupational Therapy (OT-therapy that focuses on helping people do all the things that they want and need to do in their daily lives) Evaluation and Plan of Treatment dated 2/22/2024, indicated the resident demonstrated decreased safety and dynamic sitting/standing balance which placed the resident at risk for falling. A review of Resident 1's MAR for the month of February 2024, indicated the resident did not demonstrate behavior of trying to get out of bed during any shift in February 2024. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- standardized data collection tool used to assess cognitive status [brain's ability to think, read, learn, remember, reason, express thoughts, and make decisions], functional status, and care needs) dated 3/7/2024, indicated the resident had severely impaired cognition. The MDS indicated the resident was dependent on facility staff for showering. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required maximum facility staff assistance with toileting hygiene, personal hygiene, lower body dressing, sit to stand (the ability to come to standing position from sitting in a chair, wheelchair and or on the side of the bed), and chair/bed to chair transfer (the ability to transfer to and from a bed to chair or wheelchair). The MDS indicated Resident 1 required partial/moderate assistance from facility staff with oral hygiene, upper body dressing, toilet transfer (the ability to get on and off a toilet or commode) and sit to lying (the ability to move from sitting on side of the bed to lying flat on the bed). A review of Resident 1's Quarterly Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident was at a very high risk for potential falls. The fall risk assessment form indicated Resident 1 had 1-2 falls within the last 90 days prior to the assessment date (3/7/2024), displayed behaviors which placed the resident at risk for falls, had impaired safety awareness, had adequate vision, was incontinent (not able to control the flow of urine from the bladder or the escape of stool from the rectum), did not use call light or bathroom call cord reliably, and did not have adequate safety awareness to wait for help. A review of Resident 1's Incident Report dated 3/20/2024, indicated Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA- unnamed) reported she heard sounds (on 3/20/2024) coming from Resident 1's room. Upon entering, CNA (unnamed) found Resident 1 on the floor next to her bed. A review of Resident 1's SBAR Communication Forms for 3/20/2024, indicated no SBAR communication form was documented by licensed staff after Resident 1 fell on 3/20/2024. A review of Resident 1's Fall Morse assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident had fallen previously, had impaired gait, and overestimated (think they are stronger than they really are) or forgot her limits. The fall assessment did not indicate whether Resident 1 was considered a high risk for fall or not. A review of Resident 1's Post Fall assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 1 was forgetful and confused, exhibited loss of coordination due to Alzheimer's disease and dementia, had impaired safety awareness and hearing, and was not using ambulation aid (walker, wheelchair) and appropriate footwear. A review of Resident 1's Fall Scene Investigation Report dated 3/20/2024, indicated Resident 1 lost her balance and strength and was found on the floor in her room. The investigation report further indicated Resident 1 stated she was trying to go to bathroom. A review of Resident 1's IDT Summary and Recommendation dated 3/20/2024, indicated the following recommendations: remind resident to use the call light when assistance needed, instruct the resident not to get out of bed without assistance, monitor behavior of trying to get out of bed without assistance every shift, apply floor mats at bedside, keep the resident`s bed in the lowest position, answer the call light in timely manner, provide frequent visual checks, and to offer toileting program. A review of Resident 1's Actual Fall Care Plan initiated on 3/25/2024, indicated on 3/20/2024 at 7:35 PM, Resident 1 was observed on the floor at the bedside. The care plan indicated the resident stated she lost her balance and fell on the floor while trying to go to the restroom by herself. The care plan indicated a goal for the resident was to minimize episodes of falls or injury within the next 30 days. The care plan interventions were to anticipate and meet the resident`s needs, place the call light within his reach, encourage the resident to use the call light for assistance as needed, educate and remind the resident to request assistance prior to transfer/ambulation, conduct frequent visual checks, keep her bed in a low position, monitor her behavior of trying to get out bed without assistance, and to provide non-skid (designed to prevent sliding), proper fitting socks/shoes as indicated. A review of Resident 1's SBAR Form dated 4/17/2024, indicated the resident had a fall on 4/17/2024 with a laceration to the right eyebrow with moderate bleeding and pain. The SBAR communication form indicated Resident 1`s physician ordered to transfer the resident to GACH 1. A review of Resident 1's Fall Morse assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident had fallen previously, had weak gait, and overestimated or forgot her limits. The fall assessment did not indicate whether Resident 1 was considered a high risk for fall or not. A review of Resident 1's Post Fall assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 1 had diagnoses of dementia and Alzheimer's, and incontinence, was forgetful and confused, exhibited declined cognitive skills and a loss of coordination due to Alzheimer's disease and dementia, had impaired safety awareness, judgment skills and hearing. A review of Resident 1's IDT Summary and Recommendation dated 4/17/2024, indicated the following recommendation: Rehabilitation services as needed, continue to monitor behavior of trying to get out of bed without assistance, remind the resident to use the call light when assistance needed, visual checks every hour for three months, and to instruct the resident not to get out of bed without assistance. A review of Resident 1's GACH 1 Emergency Department (ED) Summary of Care dated 4/18/2024 at 4:23 AM, indicated the resident was sent to ED for head injury and laceration to right eyebrow which was treated in the ED. A review of Resident 1' MAR for the month of April 2024, indicated the resident did not display the behavior of trying to get out of bed during any shift in April 2024. During a concurrent observation and interview on 4/22/2024 at 9:10AM, inside Resident 1's room, observed Resident 1 laying in her bed. Resident 1 had a dressing over her right eyebrow. The Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA1) present at Resident 1's bedside stated Resident 1 was confused and was trying to get out of bed. During an interview on 4/22/2024 at 9:30AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN1) stated Resident 1 was forgetful and confused. LVN1 stated Resident 1 was not able to walk independently and required assistance with walking. LVN1 stated She [Resident 1] tried to get up on her own. Today [4/22/2024] she did not get up without assistance and she was calm. She [Resident 1] said, 'I want to go outside, or I want to go see my son or go to the restroom'. She cannot walk on her own. LVN1 stated Resident 1 was at high risk for falling. LVN1 stated [Resident 1] fell 2-3 times in the facility. We were monitoring her every two hours and sometimes every hour. However, there were times that charge nurses and CNAs were busy and could not check the residents often. LVN1 stated there is no bed alarm (pressure-sensitive alarms go off when a resident gets up) on Resident 1's bed. We did not try to put the alarm. Some residents do not like the alarm. During an interview on 4/22/2024 at 10:05AM, the Registered Nurse Supervisor 1 (RN1) stated Resident 1 was not alert, was confused, and sometimes what the resident said did not make sense. RN1 stated Resident 1 fell on 4/17/2024, suffered an injury to the right forehead, and was sent to ER. RN1 stated She [Resident 1] got out of bed on her own. RN1 stated [Resident 1] tries to get out of bed. Sometimes she sits on the edge of her bed. She does not use the call light. She does not call for help. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/22/2024 at 10:15 AM with RN1, Resident 1's Fall incidents care plans and SBAR Communication forms for fall incidents were reviewed. RN1 stated RN1 stated Resident 1 was non-compliant (not doing what someone asks you to do) with seeking assistance and did not use the call light. RN1 stated licensed staff did not initiate a care plan with person-centered interventions for Resident 1's non-compliance with calling for help. RN1 stated [Resident 1's] care plan for fall interventions were not revised properly after each fall and it appears that the same interventions are implemented for the resident over and over after each fall. It seems like these interventions are not effective because Resident 1 fell and had an injury on 4/17/2024. Resident 1 needs different care plan interventions for fall to prevent her from falling. We could have placed an alarm on her bed to notify the staff when she tried to get out of her bed. RN1 stated The DON said bed alarm is considered a restraint (controlling the actions or behavior of someone by force). During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 1's MAR for January, February, and April 2024 on 4/22/2024 at 10:35AM, RN1 reviewed the MARs and stated the licensed staff documented there were no incidents of Resident 1 trying to get out of bed for the months of January, February, and April 2024. RN1 stated the documentations were not accurate because Resident 1 did in fact attempt to get out of bed on numerous occasions. RN1 stated the staff did not document correctly and did not indicate the number of times Resident 1 tried to get out of bed. RN1 stated Resident 1 got out of bed and had a fall on 4/17/2024, However the documentation did not reflect the attempt to get out of bed which led to the fall on 4/17/2024. During an interview on 4/22/2024 at 12:56 PM, the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated, On 4/17/2024 around 7:30 PM, I was at the nursing station when we heard a scream. We went inside [Resident 1's] room and found her on her floor laying on her right side. We noticed a laceration to [Resident 1`s] right eyebrow which was bleeding. We could not stop the bleeding and perform treatment to her right eyebrow ourselves, so we called the physician and received an order to transfer her to the hospital. The DSD stated Resident 1 was transferred to GACH 1 on 4/17/2024 at 9 PM and returned to the facility on 4/18/2024 at around 6 AM. The DSD stated on 3/20/2024 Resident 1 had another episode of fall. The DSD stated I have seen Korean nurses communicating with [Resident 1]. However, she is unable to retain any information and she has episodes of confusion. I don't know if she would be able to remember educations about using the call light or asking the staff to assist her when she wants to go to the bathroom or get out of bed. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/22/2024 at 1:15 PM with DSD, Resident 1's fall incidents care plans were reviewed. The DSD stated, [Resident 1`s] fall care plan interventions are the same for all fall incidents. The intervention to instruct the resident to call for assistance is not effective for [Resident 1] because she is forgetful. The DSD stated Resident 1 was non-compliment in using the call light to ask for help. The DSD stated educating Resident 1 to use a call light for help was not an effective intervention because the resident was confused and forgetful. The DSD stated licensed staff did not develop any care plan for Resident 1's non-compliance with asking for assistance. The DSD stated licensed staff were required to develop person centered care plans with resident specific interventions. The DSD stated Resident 1`s fall care plan interventions were not person-centered, and the potential outcome was recurrent falls and injures. The DSD stated bed alarm could be an intervention for [Resident 1]. During an interview on 4/22/2024 at 2 PM, RN2 stated Resident 1 tried to get out of bed and had history of several falls in the facility. RN2 stated Resident who has a behavior of trying to get out of bed, we require CNAs to stay in front of the resident`s room. We asked them to watch the resident frequently. RN2 stated staff were conducting frequent visual checks for Resident 1. However, it seemed like frequent visual monitoring did not work for Resident 1. RN2 stated Resident 1 was unable to remember facility staff instructions to call for assistance. RN2 stated [Resident 1] did not have a bed alarm. Previously, we had an intervention to assign a sitter for high risk for fall residents. It might be an appropriate intervention to prevent [Resident 1] from falling. During a concurrent interview and record review on 4/22/2024 at 2:10 PM, RN2 reviewed Resident 1's fall incidents care plans. RN2 stated licensed staff did not evaluate the effectiveness of the care plan interventions to prevent falls for Resident 1. RN2 stated care plan interventions were not revised and updated effectively for Resident 1 after each fall. RN2 stated licensed nurses were required to revise and update care plan interventions for each resident after each fall. RN2 stated licensed nurses were required to evaluate the effectiveness of care plan interventions and change the interventions if ineffective. RN2 stated the potential outcome of not developing person-centered fall care plan interventions were the risk of recurrent falls and injuries. A review of the facility`s policy and procedure titled Fall Prevention Program, reviewed June 2023, indicated the facility will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling. If the resident is at risk for falls, it will be identified on the care plan. All precautions will be implemented to protect the resident according to the fall prevention and reduction program. Care plan interventions should include the treatment prescribed by the physician and interdisciplinary recommendations, if any. A resident's condition and the effectiveness of the plan of care interventions will be evaluated if revisions are necessary to justify for continuing the existing plan based upon the outcome and/or effects of goals and interventions. A review of the facility`s policy and procedures (P&P) titled Fall Prevention Interventions, dated December 2016, indicated residents who were scored high risk on Morse Fall Scale were required to be reassessed after each episode of fall and their current care plan interventions were required to be evaluated for effectiveness and revised if ineffective. The P&P indicated the significant decline in the use of mechanical and chemical restrains to prevent high risk residents' falls had stimulated the proliferation (rapid growth/development) of bed alarm systems which were designed to warn nursing staff if a resident was attempting to leave the bed unassisted. A review of the facility's P&P titled Falling Star Program revised 12/16/2020, indicated identify residents for potential repeated falls with fall risk assessment. Fall risk assessment is initiated upon admission, quarterly, when significant changes occur and when fall incidents occur.
Mar 2024 2 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide protection from sexual (non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident, including sexual harassment, sexua...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide protection from sexual (non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident, including sexual harassment, sexual coercion, or sexual assault) by facility staff, for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). Resident 1 alleged sexual abuse by Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1, when CNA 1 touched the resident ' s private parts and held Resident 1's hand on his (the CNA's) private part. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 having psychological distress (a state of emotional suffering), was crying and reported feeling afraid, ashamed, anxious and guilty. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 3/15/2024 with the diagnoses including the lack of coordination (impaired balance) and abnormalities of gait (walking pattern) and mobility. A review of Resident 1's History and Physical dated 3/18/2024, indicated the resident was transferred to the facility for physical therapy (care that helps people with physical and functional limitations caused by injury or disease) after suffering a fall on 3/12/2024. The History and Physical further indicated Resident 1 had medical decision-making capacity. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 3/20/2024, indicated the resident was cognitively intact (able to think, understand, and reason). A review of the Nurse Staffing Assignment dated 3/23/2024, indicated CNA 1 was assigned to take care of Resident 1 during the 7 AM to 3 PM shift. According to a review of the Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation (SBAR, a structured communication framework that can help teams share information about the condition of a patient) Communication Form and Progress Note dated 3/25/2024 at 2 PM, the resident was not feeling good and felt weird. The note indicated Resident 1 called Caregiver (CG) 1 around 2 PM on 3/23/2024 and informed CG 1 the assigned CNA touched Resident 1's private parts and held the resident's hand on his (the CNA's) private part. The note indicated Resident 1's family and physician were notified. A review of Resident 1's Social Services Note dated 3/25/2024 at 5:40 PM, indicated staff were informed Resident 1 wanted to report something that happened on 3/23/2024. The note indicated Resident 1 stated that her CNA improperly touched her private area. The note indicated CNA 1 was no longer at the facility and a psychologist (a mental health professional who uses psychological evaluations and talk therapy to help people learn to better cope with life and relationship issues and mental health conditions) consultation (a meeting with an expert or professional, such as a medical doctor, to seek advice) was scheduled for 5 PM that day. The note indicated Resident 1's emotions and behavior would be continuously monitored for any changes, and indicated support would be provided as needed. A review of Resident 1's Psychotherapy Note dated 3/25/2024, indicated the therapist inquired about the resident' recent sexual abuse allegation. The note indicated the therapist addressed Resident 1's feelings of guilt and shame. The note indicated Resident 1 initially presented as generally calm with a congruent affect (when a mood matches a person ' s behavior) but later became tearful at various points during the session. The note indicated Resident 1 reported sleep disturbance due to frequent urination and distressing dreams. The note indicated Resident 1 was able to revisit the event, fully described related details, and processed associated thoughts and feelings that included guilt, shame, humiliation, anxiety, fear, confusion, butterflies in the stomach, some anxiousness due to intrusive thoughts since the event, and fear of CNA 1. During an interview on 3/27/2024 at 8:53 AM, Resident 1 stated the incident happened on Saturday 3/23/2024 around 1 PM to 2 PM. Resident 1 stated she had to have her incontinent brief changed and called her CNA who was male. Resident 1 stated CNA 1 told her to lie back down and then started to touch her vagina and move his hand in circles. Resident 1 stated she was frightened. Resident 1 stated CNA 1 then took her hand and put it over his private area and she felt CNA 1's private area getting bigger. Resident 1 stated she tried to move her hand, but CNA 1 grabbed it and placed it back on his private area. Resident 1 stated she said 'no' three times. Resident 1 stated afterwards CNA 1 started massaging her shoulders. Resident 1 stated she was scared because the CNA's usually just change her incontinent brief and leave; but this CNA stayed a while. Resident 1 stated she did not know who to talk to and remembered she had a previous caregiver at home. Resident 1 stated she called the caregiver and told them what happened. Resident 1 stated the caregiver came to the facility on Monday 3/25/2024. Resident 1 stated she did not remember the CNA's name, but indicated the CNA was tall, wearing black scrubs, and had a little darker skin. Resident 1 stated she saw CNA 1 again on Monday, which made her scared. Resident 1 was observed crying and tearful. Resident 1 stated she was afraid and indicated she was worried she would get moved from the facility and not get taken to activities, because she told someone what happened. During an interview on 3/27/2024 at 11:50 AM, the Social Services Director (SSD) stated she heard of what happened on 3/25/2024 at 2 PM, that Resident 1 was crying, and was afraid and ashamed that she could not talk about the incident the day it happened. The SSD stated Resident 1's caregiver from home encouraged her to tell the facility about what happened. The SSD stated she along with the Administrator, Director of Staff Development (DSD), and Activities gathered in Resident 1's room. The SSD stated Resident 1 indicated the incident happened on Saturday 3/23/2024 during the 7 AM to 3 PM shift. The SSD stated Resident 1 could not remember the exact time but remembered the CNA was on the morning shift, because he left after 3 PM. The SSD stated Resident 1 indicated CNA 1 came to the resident's room to change her incontinent brief; and once he opened the incontinent brief the CNA put his finger on the resident ' s private area. The CNA then took the resident ' s hand and put it on his private area. The CNA stated Resident 1 indicated she said 'no' three times, but he kept rubbing the resident ' s private area. The SSD stated Resident 1 was crying and was afraid her son might get upset if he found out. The SSD stated Resident 1 stated she never had any similar experiences in the past. The SSD stated Resident 1 felt ashamed. During an observation on 3/27/2024 at 1:09 PM, the facility's surveillance video was viewed. The video revealed on 3/23/2024 at 2:05 PM, CNA 1 entered Resident 1's room and put on gloves. At 2:06 PM CNA 1 was observed pulling the curtain around Resident 1's bed. At 2:07 PM, CNA 1 was observed coming out from behind the curtain of Resident 1's bed and exiting the resident's room. At 2:16 PM, CNA 1 was observed re-entering Resident 1's room. At 2:19 PM, CNA 1 was observed pulling the curtain around Resident 1's bed. At 2:20 PM CNA 1 was observed coming out from behind the curtain of Resident 1's bed not wearing gloves. At 2:25 PM CNA 1 was observed entering Resident 1's bathroom by himself, was observed in the bathroom for a few minutes, and then observed leaving Resident 1's room. On 3/27/2024 at 3:30 PM, during a telephone interview, CNA 1 stated he did not touch Resident 1's vagina. CNA 1 stated he did not make Resident 1 touch his private area. CNA 1 stated he was only doing his job to clean Resident 1. During a telephone interview on 3/28/2024 at 11:39 AM, CG 1 stated she knew Resident 1 for over two years and knew the resident before she was transferred to the facility. CG 1 stated Resident 1 called her on Saturday 3/23/2024 and informed her that a CNA touched the resident ' s private area when he was changing the resident ' s incontinent brief. CG 1 further stated Resident 1 informed her the CNA also made the resident touch his private area. CG 1 stated she went to the facility on Monday 3/25/2024 and Resident 1 got sacred when she saw CNA 1. CG 1 stated Resident 1 felt very uncomfortable and that was when she informed the facility staff about what had happened between Resident 1 and CNA 1. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 12:02 PM, the DSD stated CNA 1 was from the registry and after the allegation, CNA 1 was asked to leave the facility. The DSD stated CNA 1 would not be returning to the facility. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 2:58 PM, the Administrator stated Resident 1 explained that CNA 1 came into her room and touched her vagina area. The Administrator stated CNA 1 was asked to make a statement and leave the facility. The Administrator stated CNA 1 would not be allowed back in the facility and that Resident 1 was cognitively intact. The Administrator stated Resident 1's story never changed when she told it to the facility staff and to the police officers. A review of the facility's Follow-Up Investigation Report dated 3/29/2024, indicated on Monday 3/25/2024 around 2:15 PM, indicated the Administrator asked the SSD to ensure Resident 1 was safe with frequent visits for the next few days. The report indicated CNA 1 was moved away from Resident 1, was asked to make a statement, and was asked to leave the facility. The report indicated the psychologist came to meet with Resident 1 the same day. The report indicated the police came to the facility at 5:30 PM and took a statement from Resident 1. The report indicated Resident 1 told the police officers the same story. The report further indicated Resident 1 told the psychologist the same story. The report indicated the facility could not disregard Resident 1's allegations and safety concerns because the resident was alert and oriented. The report indicated the facility would continue to provide room visits with Resident 1 to reinforce safety. The report further indicated CNA 1 was no longer allowed in the facility. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Abuse and Neglect Prohibition Policy, reviewed 6/2023, indicated it was the facility's policy to prohibit abuse, mistreatment, neglect, involuntary seclusion of all residents. The purpose of the policy was to ensure facility staff were doing all that was within their control to prevent occurrences of abuse, mistreatment, neglect, involuntary seclusion, injuries of unknown origin, and misappropriation of property for all residents. Abuse was defined as the willful infliction of physical pain, injury, or mental anguish, or the willful deprivation by a caretaker of services which were necessary to maintain physical or mental health including the following. Sexual abuse was non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident, including sexual harassment, sexual coercion, or sexual assault.
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 F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure competent staff and provide abuse training, per facility policy, to Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, who was accused of sexually...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure competent staff and provide abuse training, per facility policy, to Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, who was accused of sexually abusing Resident 1. CNA 1 did not receive Abuse Training while employed at the facility for several months. This deficient practice caused an increased risk of sexual abuse to Resident 1 and other facility residents. Findings: A review of the facility's in-services dated 2/3/2023, titled, Elder Abuse: Mandated Reporter, at 2 PM, did not indicate CNA 1 attended the in-service. A review of the facility's in-services titled, Abuse: Signs of Suspected Abuse/Unknown Injuries, dated 4/15/2023 at 2 PM, did not indicate CNA 1 attended the in-service. A review of the facility's in-services titled, Abuse: Mandated Reporting-Reporters, dated 5/2/2023, did not indicate CNA 1 attended the in-service. A review of the facility's in-service titled, Elder Abuse dated 11/15/2023, did not indicate CNA 1 attended the in-service. A review of the facility's in-service titled, Reporting Unusual Occurrences dated 3/1/2024, did not indicate CNA 1 attended the in-service. On 3/27/2024 during the employee file review, the facility did not have an employee file for CNA 1 to indicate date of hire or appropriate competencies or skill sets. A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 3/15/2024 with diagnoses including lack of coordination (impaired balance) and abnormalities of gait (walking pattern) and mobility. A review of Resident 1's History and Physical dated 3/18/2024, indicated 1 had medical decision-making capacity. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 3/20/2024, indicated the resident was cognitively intact (able to think, understand, and reason). A review of the facility's Nurse Staffing Assignment dated 3/23/2024, indicated CNA 1 was assigned to take care of Resident 1 during the 7 AM to 3 PM shift. According to a review of the Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation (SBAR, a structured communication framework that can help teams share information about the condition of a patient) Communication Form and Progress Note dated 3/25/2024 at 2 PM, Resident 1 was not feeling good and felt weird. The note indicated Resident 1 called Caregiver (CG) 1 around 2 PM on 3/23/2024 and informed CG 1 the assigned CNA touched Resident 1's private parts and held the resident's hand on his (the CNA ' s) private part. The note indicated Resident 1's family and physician were notified. During an interview on 3/27/2024 at 8:53 AM, Resident 1 stated the incident happened on Saturday 3/23/2024 around 1 PM to 2 PM. Resident 1 stated she had to have her incontinent brief changed and called her CNA who was male. Resident 1 stated CNA 1 told her to lie back down and then started to touch her vagina and move his hand in circles. Resident 1 stated she was frightened. Resident 1 stated CNA 1 then took her hand and put it over his private area and she felt CNA 1's private area getting bigger. Resident 1 stated she tried to move her hand, but CNA 1 grabbed it and placed it back on his private area. Resident 1 stated she said 'no' three times. Resident 1 stated she was scared because the CNA's usually just change her incontinent brief and leave; but this CNA stayed a while. Resident 1 stated she did not know who to talk to and remembered she had a previous caregiver at home. Resident 1 stated she called the caregiver and told them what happened. Resident 1 stated she did not remember the CNA's name, but indicated the CNA was tall, wearing black scrubs, and had a little darker skin. Resident 1 was observed crying and tearful. During an observation on 3/27/2024 at 1:09 PM, the facility's surveillance video was viewed. The video showed on 3/23/2024 at 2:05 PM, CNA 1 entered Resident 1's room and put on gloves. At 2:06 PM CNA 1 was observed pulling the curtain around Resident 1's bed. At 2:07 PM CNA 1 was observed coming out from behind the curtain of Resident 1's bed and exiting the resident's room. At 2:16 PM CNA 1 was observed re-entering Resident 1's room. At 2:19 PM CNA 1 was observed pulling the curtain around Resident 1's bed. At 2:20 PM CNA was observed coming out from behind the curtain of Resident 1's bed not wearing gloves. At 2:25 PM CNA 1 was observed entering Resident 1's bathroom by himself, was observed in the bathroom for a few minutes, and then observed leaving Resident 1's room. On 3/27/2024 at 3:30 PM, during a telephone interview, CNA 1 stated he did not touch Resident 1's vagina. CNA 1 stated he did not make Resident 1 touch his private area. CNA 1 stated he was only doing his job to clean Resident 1 and that his registry agency did not provide him with abuse training. CNA 1 stated he had been coming to the facility to work for months. CNA 1 stated the facility did not provide him with abuse training during his orientation. CNA 1 stated sometimes the facility would give information on abuse prevention and reporting but could not specify when his last abuse training was. During an interview a concurrent interview and record review on 3/28/2024 at 12:02 PM, the DSD confirmed CNA 1 was from registry and had been coming to the facility for months. The DSD confirmed CNA 1 did not have an employee file. The DSD confirmed CNA 1 did not attend the abuse in-services dated 2/3/2023, 4/15/2023, 5/2/2023, 11/15/2023, and 3/1/2024. During an interview and concurrent record review on 3/28/2024 at 2:25 PM, the DSD stated registry staff were not provided with formal abuse training when they come to the facility because they were not employees on the facility's payroll. The DSD stated the registry staff were usually provided abuse training by their agency. The DSD reviewed the facility's policy and procedure titled, Abuse and Neglect Prohibition Policy, dated 6/2023 and the Master Staffing Agreement dated 10/25/2018. The DSD then stated the Master Staffing Agreement indicated it was the facility's responsibility for compliance with health regulations. The DSD stated the Abuse and Neglect Prohibition Policy indicated all employees should be provided with abuse prevention training. The DSD confirmed CNA 1 was not provided with formal abuse training during orientation to the facility. The DSD stated there was a potential for staff to abuse residents if they were not provided with abuse training. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 2:36 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated CNA 1 was from registry and indicated he had been coming to the facility for several months. The DON stated the DSD handled abuse training for the staff. During an interview on 3/28/2024 at 2:58 PM, the Administrator stated he was the abuse coordinator and that CNA 1 did not attend the facility's abuse in-services, as all staff should be trained on abuse. The Administrator stated there could be a potential for abuse to occur if staff were not provided with abuse training. A review of the Master Staffing Agreement between the facility and Registry Agency 1 dated 10/25/2018, indicated because the client controls the facility(ies) in which personnel will perform work, client shall be responsible for compliance with Occupational Safety and Health Act and comparable state and local occupational safety and health regulations and standards and shall provide Personnel with a workplace free from occupational hazards. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Abuse and Neglect Prohibition Policy, reviewed 6/2023, indicated the facility would prohibit abuse, mistreatment, neglect, involuntary seclusion, for all residents. The purpose of the policy was to ensure facility staff were doing all that was within their control to prevent occurrences of abuse, mistreatment, neglect, involuntary seclusion, injuries of unknown origin, for all residents. Abuse was defined as the willful infliction of physical pain, injury, or mental anguish, or the willful deprivation by a caretaker of services which were necessary to maintain physical or mental health. Sexual abuse was non-consensual sexual contact of any type with a resident including sexual harassment, sexual coercion, or sexual assault. The policy indicated the Nurse Aid was any individual providing nursing or nursing-related services to residents in a facility. This term may also include an individual who provides these services through an agency or under a contract with the facility but was not a licensed health professional or someone who volunteers to provide such services without pay. The facility's abuse and neglect training program would be provided to all employees through orientation and on-going sessions related to abuse prohibition practices at a minimum of annually, and would include review of abuse and neglect policy; appropriate interventions to deal with aggressive and/or catastrophic reactions of resident; how staff should report their knowledge related to allegations without fear of reprisal, how to recognize signs of burnout, frustration, and stress that may lead to abuse and what constitutes abuse, neglect, facility prohibition and preventing retaliation program for reporting abuse and crimes.
Feb 2024 7 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a current copy of the resident's advance directive and/or ad...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a current copy of the resident's advance directive and/or advance directive acknowledgement form (a written statement of a person's wishes regarding medical treatment, made to ensure those wishes are carried out should the person be unable to communicate them to a doctor) was complete and in the resident's medical chart for one of one sampled resident (Resident 1) medical records. This deficient practice had the potential for the facility to not honor the resident's medical decisions regarding end-of-life treatment. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 11/3/2022 and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including vascular dementia (decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily functioning/life), Type II diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar [glucose]), and major depressive disorder (mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive assessment and care screening tool), dated 1/24/2024, indicated Resident 1 was cognitively moderately impaired (decisions poor; cues/supervision required). The MDS indicated resident required supervision or touching assistance for eating, oral hygiene, and toileting hygiene. A review of Resident 1's Advance Directive Acknowledgement form, dated 11/10/2022, was not in the resident's active medical chart, but in the old medical chart. The active medical chart had a copy of a blank Advance Directive Acknowledgment Form. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/26/2024 at 9:23 AM, with Social Services Director (SSD), Resident 1's active medical chart was reviewed. SSD stated the Advance Directive Acknowledgment Form for Resident 1 in the active medical chart was not completed. She stated the previous Advance Directive Acknowledgment Form dated 11/10/2022 was not in the resident's active medical chart but in the old medical chart. She stated the facility policy is to maintain the Advance Directive and the Advance Directive Acknowledgment Form in the active medical chart. During an interview on 2/29/2024 at 2:50 PM, the Administrator (Admin) stated Resident 1's advance directive acknowledgement form dated 11/22/2022, was kept in resident's old medical chart and not in the active medical chart. He stated the Advance Directive Acknowledgment Form in Resident 1's active medical chart was blank and not filled out. The Admin stated if the Advance Directive and the Advance Directive Acknowledgment Form was not maintained in the medical chart there was a potential the resident's end of life wishes may not be honored. A review of the facility's policy titled, Advance Directives, reviewed 6/2023, indicated upon admission the facility will provide the resident or the resident's representative with written information regarding the facility's policies on advance directives and a copy of this policy. If a resident has not executed an advance directive and the resident has the capacity to make health care decisions, the social services department should contact the resident to determine whether the resident wishes to make an advance directive. A review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Record Content/Title 22 and Federal Regulation, reviewed 6/2023, indicated a health record will be maintained for each resident admitted to the nursing facility. The health record will be accurate, timely, and authenticated to include at least the following content data elements, presented in alphabetical listing of documentation requirements: admission Record/Face Sheet, Advance Directive / Acknowledgment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

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 report unusual occurrences to the state survey agency...

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 report unusual occurrences to the state survey agency (SSA) within 2 hours for two of two sampled residents (Resident 6 and Resident 58). The facility failed to report: -Resident 58 sustained a right 10th rib fracture (broken bone) after a fall on 9/21/2023. -Resident 6 sustained a temporal subdural hematoma and right frontal hematoma on 12/21/2023. These deficient practices resulted in a delay of State Survey Agency from investigating the circumstances of the injuries and potentially placed Resident 6 and 58 at further risk for injury. Findings: a.A review of Resident 58's admission record indicated the facility admitted resident on 3/17/2023, with diagnosis including dementia (loss of memory, language, problem solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), lack of coordination, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. A review of Resident 58's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive assessment and care screening tool), dated 12/18/2023, indicated the resident was cognitively moderately impaired (decisions poor; cues/supervision required). The MDS indicated resident required partial/moderate assistance for toileting hygiene, toilet transfer, and walking 10 feet. A review of Resident 58's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE], indicated the resident had a score of 5 which indicated she was at risk for fall. A review of Resident 58's care plan, Resident is at risk for fall and spontaneous/pathological fracture, initiated 3/17/2023, indicated the goal was resident will be reduced occurrence of injury from fall daily. The interventions included to provide assistance with transfer and ambulation as needed. A review of Resident 58's Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation (SBAR - a technique that can be used to facilitate prompt and appropriate communication between the different disciplines caring for the resident) Communication form, dated 9/21/2023, indicated Resident 58 was found sitting on the floor, next to her bed, in front of the doorway to her room. A review of Resident 58's Interdisciplinary Team (IDT - a group of health care professionals from different fields who coordinate resident care) notes, dated 9/22/2023, indicated Resident 58 was found on the floor in front of room door, in sitting position. The resident stated she went to the bathroom by herself and on the way back from the bathroom she lost balance and fell down with sitting position. A review of Resident 58's Physician's Orders, dated 9/21/2023, indicated x-ray on right ribs due to pain. A review of Resident 58's X-ray report, dated 9/21/2023, indicated acute nondisplaced (type of fracture when a bone breaks into two or more pieces but the pieces do not separate, and the fragments remain in place) right lateral 10th rib fracture. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 1:33 PM, Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) stated Resident 58 was a fall risk and the resident was found sitting on the floor in her room on 9/21/2023. LVN 1 stated he went to the room and observed resident on the floor at the foot of her bed. He stated resident indicated she had pain on her right side of the chest around a score of 3. LVN 1 stated he followed the facility fall protocol. He stated the physician was notified with order for monitoring and x-ray. LVN 1 stated the x-ray dated 9/21/2023 indicated a fracture of the 10th rib fracture. He stated resident was able to inform him that when she was returning to the bed from the restroom, she lost her balance and hit her right side of body on the bed frame. LVN 1 stated the resident was supposed to go to the restroom with assistance. He stated resident was provided education about calling for assistance when going to the restroom. LVN 1 stated resident did not call for help to go to the restroom. He stated any accidents such as falls with major injuries need to be reported to ombudsman and local department of health. LVN 1 stated fractures are considered major injuries. During an interview on 2/28/2023 at 1:51 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 58 had a fall on 9/21/2023 with a right 10th rib fracture. She stated the Resident 58 stated she went to the bathroom without asking for help, and she lost balance while going back to the bed from the bathroom and hit her right side of the chest on the bedframe. The DON stated the facility was required to report falls and accidents with major injuries to the ombudsman and local department of public health within 2 or 24 hours, depending on the type of injury. She stated the facility did not notify the ombudsman and department of public health of Resident 58 fall with 10th rib fracture on 9/21/2023. She stated the failure to report accidents with major injuries may potentially delay an investigation of the incident by the department of public health. b. A review of Resident 6's admission record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 7/16/2023 with a readmission date of 1/5/2024, with diagnoses including diabetes Type II (a long-term medical condition in which the body does not use insulin [a hormone that lowers the level of sugar in the blood] properly), dementia (loss of memory, language, problem solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life), and difficulty walking. A review of Resident 6's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 6 was severely cognitively impaired (a very hard time remembering things, making decisions, concentrating, or learning). The MDS also indicated that the resident required moderate/maximal assistance for eating, oral and toileting hygiene, and dressing, and was able to walk 50 feet with supervision. A review of Resident 6's Final Licensed Nurses Progress Note indicated that on 12/21/2023 the resident had a fall, which result head injury: deep laceration (a skin wound) measuring 1 centimeter (cm-unit of measurement) by 3.5 cm and by 0.3 cm. A review of Resident 6's Physician's Order, dated 12/21/2023, indicated to transfer Resident 6 to General Acute Care Hospital 1 (GACH 1) via 911 due to fall injury to her head. A review of Resident 6's Emergency Department Physician's Notes, dated 12/21/2023, indicated the resident arrived at the trauma room with pulsating bleeding from her occipital scalp and 5 staples were immediately placed to get control of the bleeding. A review of Resident 6's Computed Tomography (CT-computerized x-ray imaging) of the head indicated that the resident had a right temporal subdural hematoma measuring 4.3 millimeters (mm- unit of measurement) and a right frontal hematoma measuring 2 mm. During an interview with CNA 4 on 2/28/2024 at 12:26 PM, CNA 4 stated that she was passing Resident 6's room when she noticed Resident 6 on the floor, bleeding from her head. CNA 4 stated that she called for help immediately. CNA 4 also stated Resident 6 needed assistance with walking, but the resident had not called for help. Resident 6's roommate was in the room but was not able to explain what happened. During an interview on 2/27/2024 at 3:35 PM, the Infection Prevention Nurse (IP) stated Resident 6 was at risk for bleeding because she was taking anticoagulants (a medication that used to prevent and treat clots in blood vessels and the heart ). IP stated that on 12/21/2023 at around 9:45 PM, Certified Nurse Assistant 4 (CNA 4) found Resident 6 laying on the floor in her room, bleeding from her head. IP stated that the physician was notified, and they received an order to transfer Resident 6 to the GACH 1. IP stated that she called 911 and the resident was transferred to the GACH 1. IP stated that the CT, dated 12/21/2023, indicated that Resident 6 had a subdural hematoma. IP stated that any accidents such as falls with major injuries need to be reported to the ombudsman and the local department of health. IP stated that subdural hematoma's are considered major injuries. During an interview on 2/28/2023 at 1:51 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 6 had a fall on 12/21/2023 which resulted in a subdural hematoma. She stated that Resident 6 got out of the bed without asking for help, lost her balance while walking in the room. The DON stated that the facility is required to report falls and accidents with major injuries to the ombudsman and the local department of public health within 2 or 24 hours, depending on the type of injury. She stated that the facility did not notify the ombudsman and the department of public health of Resident 6's fall on 12/21/2023. The DON stated that the failure to report accidents with major injuries could potentially delay an investigation of the incident by the department of public health. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure titled, Reporting Guidance and Timelines for Abuse and injury of unknown Origin, dated June 2022 and revised June 2023, indicated : It is the policy of the facility to comply with the reporting requirements and timelines for suspicions of abuse and injury of unknown origin. The facility is responsible for reporting .injuries of unknown source.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident was provided a communication device o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident was provided a communication device or board with the language that the resident was able to understand for one of one sampled resident (Resident 33). This deficient practice prevented the resident from communicating with the staff and had a potential to delay receiving care/treatment the resident needed. Findings: A review of Resident 33's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 1/14/2017, and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including dementia (decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily functioning/life), Parkinson's disease (degenerative disorder affecting the motor system with symptoms that included shaking, rigidity, slowness of movement and difficulty with walking and gait), and epilepsy (a broad term used for a brain disorder that causes seizures [may cause loss of consciousness, falls, or massive muscle spasms]). A review of Resident 33's Minimum Data Set (MDS- standardized assessment and care planning tool) dated 1/4/2024, indicated resident was cognitively severely impaired (never/rarely made decisions). The MDS indicated Resident 33's preferred language was Korean, ability to hear, minimal difficulty, makes self-understood, sometimes understood, ability is limited to making concrete requests, ability to understand others, sometimes understands (responds adequately to simple, direct communications only). The MDS further indicated resident was dependent for eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 33's care plan for resident has impaired communication due to Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions) or other dementia, hearing minimal difficulty, mode of expression Korean speaking, initiated 11/15/2023, indicated as an intervention to use communication board if needed. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/26/2024 at 11:10 AM, with Social Services Director (SSD), in Resident 33's room, SSD stated Resident 33 has some difficulty speaking. She stated there is no communication device or board in Resident 33's room. SSD stated Resident 33 is supposed to have a communication board to help her communicate with others. During an interview on 2/29/2024 at 12:22 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated Resident 33 has some difficulty speaking and uses a communication board according to her care plan for impaired communication due to Alzheimer's disease or other dementia. She stated if Resident 33 was not provided a communication device or board, there is a potential resident would have difficulty communicating accurately with staff. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Communication with Limited English Proficient Persons, reviewed 6/2023, indicated to ensure that person with limited English proficiency are identified and that the facility is capable of communicating information to such person efficiently. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Quality of Life-Accommodation of Needs, reviewed 6/2023, indicated staff shall interact with the residents in a way that accommodates the physical and sensory limitations of the residents, promotes communication, and maintains dignity.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections for one of one sampled resident (Resident 12)...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement the appropriate care and services to prevent urinary tract infections for one of one sampled resident (Resident 12) by failing to ensure that urinary bag tubing was not kinked. This deficient practice had the potential to result in catheter-associated urinary tract infection for Resident 12. Findings: A review of Resident 12's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 10/17/2021 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (a brain disorder that slowly destroys the memory and thinking skills and eventually, the ability to carry out the simplest tasks), pressure injuries (areas of skin that are damaged after being compressed for too long), metabolic encephalic (a problem in the brain caused by a chemical imbalance in the blood), and a history of falling. A review of Resident 12's History and Physical dated 3/14/2023, indicated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 12's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment and care screening tool) dated 12/14/2023, indicated that the resident had mildly impaired cognition (a slight decline in mental abilities, memory and completing complex tasks) and required maximal assistance with bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on and off the unit, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 12's Physician's Orders, dated 12/5/2023, indicated to monitor every shift for kinking of the Foley catheter (a device that drains urine from the urinary bladder into a collection bag outside of the body) and drainage tubing. A review of Resident 12's Care Plan initiated on 3/1/2022 indicated the resident was at risk for urinary tract infection due to his Foley catheter. During a concurrent observation and interview with Resident 12 and Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 (LVN 3) on 2/26/2024 at 8:36 AM, Resident 12 was observed in his bed with his urinary bag on the left side of the bed with kinked tubing. LVN 3 stated that the urinary tubing always had to be straightened. LVN 3 further stated that kinked drainage tubing may block the urine flow and cause a catheter-associated urinary tract infection. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/29/2024 at 10:56 AM, the DON stated urinary tubing had to be placed straight to prevent catheter-associated urinary tract infections. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Indwelling Catheter Care, last reviewed in February 2017, indicated : Be sure tubing is not kinked, twisted, obstructed or caught on side rails.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a call light (a device used by a patient to si...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a call light (a device used by a patient to signal his or her need for assistance from a professional staff) was within reach for two of 18 sampled residents (Resident 12 and Resident 48) investigated for the call lights care area. This deficient practice had the potential to result in the residents not being able to call for facility staff assistance and increase their risk for injury or fall. Findings: a. A review of Resident 12's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 10/17/2021 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (a brain disorders the slowly destroys memory and thinking skills and eventually, the ability to carry out the simplest tasks), pressure injuries (areas of skin that are damaged after being compressed for too long), and history of falling, and metabolic encephalic (a problem in the brain caused by a chemical imbalance in the blood). A review of Resident 12's History and Physical dated 03/14/2023, indicated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 12's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment and care screening tool) dated 12/14/2023, indicated the resident had mildly impaired cognition (a slight decline in mental abilities, memory and completing complex tasks), and required maximal assistance on bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on and off the unit, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/26/2024 at 8:36 AM, LVN 3 verified that Resident 12's call light was below the resident's heels, at the lower part of the bed and not within resident's easy reach. LVN 3 stated the call light should be within reach at all the times so the resident would be able to call for assistance if needed. b. A review of Resident 48's admission record indicated the resident was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (loss of memory, thinking and reasoning), gait (the way one walks) and mobility abnormalities and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of the risk for fall care plan, initiated 1/3/2024 indicated Resident 48 was at risk for fall and spontaneous pathological fracture due to dementia, unsteady gait/difficulty in walking. The interventions included to keep call light within easy reach. A review of the Physician's Progress Note dated, 1/4/2024, indicated Resident 48 did not have medical decision-making capacity. A review of Resident 48's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident had severely impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS also indicated Resident 48 required total to maximal assistance with oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, dressing and personal hygiene. The MDS further indicated Resident 48 required a walker for mobility and the resident's ability to walk 10 feet was not assessed due to medical condition or safety concerns. During an observation on 2/26/2024 at 8:49 AM, Resident 48 was observed sitting on the side of her bed. The bed was in a low position and there was no call light observed within the resident's reach. During an observation on 2/26/2024 at 9:34 AM, Resident 48 was observed lying in bed. There was an adaptive flat call light on the floor behind the resident's bed. During an interview and observation on observation on 2/26/2024 at 9:42 AM, Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1) stated Resident 48's call bell was on the floor behind the bed. RN 1 picked up the call light and placed it next to the resident in bed. RN 1 stated the call light should be within reach so the resident can call for help if needed. It was safety issue. During an interview on 2/29/2024 at 10:56 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated call lights should always be within resident's easy reach for staff to be able to responds to residents' needs and requests. A review of another facility's policy and procedure and titled, Answering Call Lights, reviewed 6/2023, indicated when the resident was in bed and confined to a chair, the call light will be placed within easy reach of the residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to properly set the low air loss mattress (LALM) settings...

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 properly set the low air loss mattress (LALM) settings for two of two sampled residents (Resident 12 and Resident 19). This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm to Resident 12 and Resident 19 by not providing services to promote the prevention pressure ulcer development. Findings: a. A review of Resident 12's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 10/17/2021 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease (a brain disorders the slowly destroys memory and thinking skills and eventually, the ability to carry out the simplest tasks), pressure injuries (areas of skin that are damaged after being compressed for too long), and history of falling, and metabolic encephalic (a problem in the brain caused by a chemical imbalance in the blood). A review of Resident 12's History and Physical dated 3/14/2023, indicated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 12's Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment and care screening tool) dated 12/14/2023, indicated the resident had mildly impaired cognition (a slight decline in mental abilities, memory and completing complex tasks), and required maximal assistance on bed mobility, transfer, locomotion on and off the unit, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 12's Physician's Orders dated 6/13/2023 indicated to monitor for function and setting of LALM every shift. A review of Resident's Care Plan initiated 3/21/2022 indicated resident was high risk for skin breakdown due to multiple pressure injuries. The intervention of care plan indicated that Resident 12 would have LALM to protect her skin. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/26/2024 at 8:36 AM, with LVN 3, in Resident 12's room, the resident's LALM was observed set at 50 pounds (lbs.- unit of measurement of weight). LVN 3 stated that the mattress is not at the correct setting and has to be set at 80 pounds per Resident 12's weight. LVN 3 stated the low air loss mattress was used to prevent pressure injuries. During a concurrent treatment observation and interview on 2/28/2024 at 10:03 AM, Treatment Nurse 1 (TN 1) stated that it was important to keep the LALM on the correct setting to maintain the residents' skin integrity. During an interview on 2/29/2024 at 10:56 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated it was important to follow the physician's order for the correct setting of LALM for each resident. She stated if the LALM was not set at the correct setting then it would not be effective and there was a potential the resident may develop further skin injuries. b. A review of Resident 19's Face Sheet (admission record) indicated the facility admitted the resident on 1/13/2024 with diagnoses that include right femur fracture (broken thigh bone), Alzheimer's Disease and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 19's MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident's cognition was severely impaired. It also indicated Resident 19 required substantial assistance to total dependence with oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, dressing and personal hygiene. The MDS further indicated Resident 19 had two unstageable (the base of the wound is unable to be seen) pressure injuries presenting as a deep tissue injury (DTI - discolored intact skin due to damage to the underlying soft tissue from pressure and/or shear). A review of the Physician's Orders dated 1/13/2024 indicated the facility to provide the resident with a low air loss mattress (LALM) for wound management and to monitor the LALM functioning and setting every shift. A review of Resident 19's Weekly Weights Monitoring log indicated Resident 19 weighed 75 pounds (lbs) on 2/5/2024, 2/12/2024 and 2/19/2024. A review of Resident 19's Wound/Skin Healing Record, dated 2/23/2024, indicated the resident had a DTI to her mid back. It indicated the surrounding skin was pink and the wound measured 0.5 centimeters (cm) by 0.4 cm. A review of the Physician's Order dated 2/23/2024 indicated to continue the DTI treatment on Resident 19's medial back to cleanse with normal saline, pat dry and cover with a silicone foam dressing for 14 days. A review of Resident 19's Stage 1 care plan, initiated 1/13/2024, indicated the resident was at high risk for skin discoloration/skin tear/breakdown due to having fragile skin, incontinence, and healed pressure ulcers, especially stage 3 or 4 which are more likely to have recurrent breakdown. The goal included the resident's skin discoloration, skin tear or breakdown will not develop or be decreased. A further review of the care plan indicated the interventions included to apply a LALM for skin management/wound management as needed, monitor every shift for function/setting of LALM as ordered and to check body weight if use of LALM. During an observation on 2/26/2024 at 8:49, Resident 19 was observed laying in bed. The resident's LALM was set to 120 pounds. There was a piece of tape with a note to set between 106 and 112 lbs. During an observation on 2/28/2024 at 10:04 AM, Resident 19's LALM was set to 120 lbs. During an interview on 2/28/2024 at 1:57 PM, TN 1 stated Resident 19 was admitted to the facility with a DTI. TN 1 stated she has an LALM to help protect the resident's skin from further injury. During a concurrent observation at Resident 19's bedside, TN 1 stated her LALM was currently set around 112 pounds. After reviewing her weight log, TN 1 stated Resident 19's LALM setting should be lower to match her weight and he would change the settings now. During an interview on 2/29/2024 at 9:39 AM, the DON stated LALMs were provided to prevent wounds from getting worse. The DON stated the LALM setting was dependent upon the resident weight and the wrong setting could lead to the resident's wound worsening. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Pressure Reducing Mattress, reviewed 6/2023, indicated a specialty mattress will be obtained for pressure relief of residents that have pressure injury or at risk for pressure injury. It also indicated the purpose of the policy was to maintain skin integrity and to promote healing of existing pressure injuries, flaps, and grafts and equipment needed was a low air loss mattress. It also indicated for setting the pressure reducing mattress according to the resident's height and weight.
CONCERN (E)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care services for two of eighteen sampled resident (Resident 27 and Resident 61) by failing to: a. Change Resident 27's nasal cannula (device used to deliver supplemental oxygen placed directly on a resident's nostrils) and humidification bottle every 7 days. b. Ensure Resident 61 had a date on the nasal cannula to ensure prompt weekly changing of the nasal cannula. These deficient practices had the potential to cause complications associated with oxygen therapy, including infection or respiratory distress. Findings: a. A review of Resident 27's admission record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 7/8/2022 with diagnoses including Alzheimer's disease ( a brain disorder that gets worse over time, usually affects memory, thinking and behavior) and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 27's risk for respiratory distress care plan, initiated 7/8/2022, indicated the resident had a history of pneumonia (a respiratory infection). The interventions included to provide oxygen as ordered, to monitor for shortness of breath (SOB), congestion and for any changes in breathing pattern. A review of Resident 27's Physician Orders indicated on 7/18/2022, the physician ordered the facility to administer Resident 27 oxygen at two liters per minute (lpm) via nasal cannula continuously for SOB and congestion. A review of Resident 27's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 2/5/2024 indicated the resident's cognition was moderately impaired (decisions poor; cues/supervision required) and required maximal to total assistance with bathing, dressing, toileting, personal hygiene and transferring. The MDS also indicated the resident received oxygen therapy. During an observation on 2/26/2024 at 8:59 AM, Resident 27 was observed lying in bed with oxygen infusing at 2 lpm through a nasal cannula. The nasal cannula and humidifier bottle connected to the oxygen concentrator were dated 2/15/2024. During a concurrent interview and observation on 2/26/2024 at 9 AM at Resident 27's bedside, Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1) stated Resident 27's humidifier bottle and nasal cannula were dated 2/15/2024. RN 1 stated the nasal cannula and humidifier are to be changed every seven days and Resident 27's humidifier and nasal cannula should have been changed on 2/22/2024. RNS stated not the tubing and humidifier are changed for infection control. During an interview on 2/29/2024 at 9:37 AM, Director of Nursing (DON) stated oxygen tubing is changed once a week generally by night shift on Wednesdays. DON stated there was the potential for developing an infection when the tubing is not changed weekly. b. A review of Resident 61's admission Record indicated the facility re-admitted the resident on 4/6/2023 , and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis that affects only one side of the body), lack of coordination, and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of the MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 61 was cognitively mildly impaired cognition (a slight decline in mental abilities, memory and completing complex tasks), and was dependent on staff for oral hygiene, toileting, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 61's History and Physical, dated 8/9/2023, indicated that Resident 61 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of the Care plan meeting dated 1/26/2024 indicated Resident 61 needed oxygen at two lpm via nasal cannula continuous for shortness of breath. A review of the Physician's Order dated 2/18/2024 indicated Resident 61 to receive oxygen at 2 lpm via nasal cannula continuous for shortness of breath. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/26/2024 at 10:30 AM, with the Director of Staff Development (LVN 2), in Resident 61's room, Resident 61's nasal cannula was observed without a date that it was changed. The LVN stated the oxygen tubing was to be changed weekly, and as needed. He stated Resident 61 was using oxygen via nasal cannula at two liters per minute. The LVN2 stated the oxygen tubing for Resident 61 did not have a date it was changed and that without a date it was difficult to know when the nasal cannula was last changed. During an interview on 2/29/2024 at 10:56 AM, the DON stated facility staff were required to label oxygen tubing including nasal cannula with date of set up. DON stated the facility protocol was to change the oxygen tubing once weekly . The DON stated staff would verify the humidifiers and oxygen tubing was changed and the staff should write down the date the tubing and humidifier was changed. The DON stated if the oxygen tubing was not dated, the facility staff failed to properly document nasal cannula start date and there was a potential the resident would be at increased risk for infection. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Oxygen Administration, Delivery Device reviewed 6/2023, indicated :Set oxygen flow rate as ordered . Label the delivery device tubing at the point that it attached to humidifier or nipple adapter with the date.
Jan 2024 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0624 (Tag F0624)

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 resident was properly arranged and prepared for safety disch...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure resident was properly arranged and prepared for safety discharge to home for one of one sampled resident (Resident 1). This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 ' s delayed discharge due to the arrangement of the delivery of their durable medical equipment (DME). Findings: A review of Resident 1 ' s Record of admission indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including malignant neoplasm of colon (a cancer of the large intestine located at the end of the digestive tract), malignant neoplasm of brain (tumors that occurs in the brain due to an abnormal growth or division of cells), and difficulty on walking. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive assessment and care screening tool) dated 10/20/2023, indicated Resident 1 ' s cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decisions was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 3 required moderate assistance from staffs for activities of daily living (ADLs – oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, upper body and lower body dressing and putting on and putting off footwear). A review of Resident 1 ' s Physician Orders dated 10/13/2023, the Physician orders indicated, oxygen (O2) inhalation at 2 liters per minute l/min via nasal canula (NC) continuous for shortness of breath (SOB). A review of Resident 1 ' s Care Plan meeting dated 10/30/2023, the Care Plan meeting indicated, Resident 1 was not considering hospice care at this time. A review of Resident 1 ' s Discharge summary dated [DATE], the Discharge summary indicated Resident 1 was discharged to home with Hospice care. During an interview with Social Services Director (SSD) on 1/11/2024 at 1:11 p.m., SSD indicated, Resident 1 was discharged to home with hospice care on 12/5/2023. SSD stated, they received a request from Resident 1 ' s family member to discharge Resident 1 from the day before (12/4/2023). SSD stated, Resident 1 required oxygen supplement continuously and they need to make sure that oxygen is ready for Resident 1 before discharging to home. SSD stated, on the day of discharge, hospice care agency delivered the oxygen machine at Resident 1 ' s home but it should have been delivered at the facility. SSD stated, there was a delay on Resident 1 ' s discharge process due to not having DME ' s such as the oxygen machine ready while Resident 1 is being transported to home. During an interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/11/2024 at 2:13 p.m., DON stated, Resident 1 was not under hospice care while during the whole admission. DON stated, Resident 1 ' s discharge process was delayed due to the oxygen machine was delivered in Resident 1 ' s home, but it should have been delivered in the facility. DON stated, they need to assess and check the oxygen machine and educate Resident 1 ' s family regarding the use of the oxygen. DON further stated, they had to wait for the oxygen machine to be sent to the facility so that Resident 1 ' s could be transported to home as she (Resident 1) required oxygen supplement continuously. During an interview with the Administrator (ADM) on 1/11/2024 at 2:30 p.m., ADM stated, when they received Resident 1 ' s discharge request, he did not think it was a safe discharge as they weren ' t able to properly prepare and make sure that Resident 1 will be safe at home under hospice care. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Resident ' s Rights – Transfer and Discharge, revised 8/2022, the P&P indicated, facility must provide and document sufficient preparation and orientation to residents to ensure safe and orderly transfer or discharge from the facility. This orientation must be provided in a form and manner that the resident can understand.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received appropriate treatment and s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident received appropriate treatment and services to prevent urinary tract infections (UTI-an infection in any part of your urinary system your kidneys, ureters, bladder and urethra) for one of one sampled resident (Resident 2) by failing to assess Resident 2 who had an indwelling urinary catheter (foley catheter - a hollow tube left implanted in a body canal or organ, especially the bladder, to promote drainage) and document mucus and sediments (visible particles in the urine that can be made up of a variety of substances, including sloughing of tissue [debris]). The most common cause of sediment in the urine is a UTI. As a result, Resident 2 was placed at risk for a delay in necessary care and services to treat a possible UTI. Findings: A review of the Record of admission indicated Resident 2 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including Alzheimer ' s disease (a progressing brain disorder that destroys memory and other important mental function), multiple pressure ulcers (pressure sores or bed sores - are areas of damage to the skin and the tissue underneath), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing food or liquid). A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive assessment and care screening tool) dated 12/14/2023, indicated Resident 2 ' s cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decisions was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 5 required total dependence from staffs for activities of daily living (ADLs – toileting hygiene, shower/bathing, lower body dressing, chair to bed transfer). A review of Resident 2's physician order report, dated 11/13/2023, the Physician Orders indicated, foley catheter to bed side drainage bag for wound management. The Physician Orders also indicated, change foley catheter and drainage bag as needed for leakage, dislodged or blocked and monitor every shift for signs and symptoms of UTI such as hematuria (blood in urine), increased temperature . A review of Resident 2 ' s Care Plan initiated on 3/1/2023 indicated, Resident 2 is at risk for urinary tract infection with approach plan including, monitor for any signs and symptoms of UTI . foley catheter change as needed. During an observation with Resident 2 on 1/11/2023 at 10:32 a.m., Resident 2 was observed with a foley catheter and drainage bag touching the floor. Resident 2 ' s foley catheter drainage bag has an orange/dark yellow urine with mucus and sediment observed in the drainage bag and in the foley catheter tubing. During a concurrent observation and interview with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1) on 1/11/2023 at 10:35 a.m., RN 1 observed Resident 1 ' s foley catheter drainage bag and tubing. RN 1 then stated and confirmed, Resident 2 ' s foley catheter drainage bag was touching the floor and the urine appears dark yellow with mucus. RN 1 further stated, it could be a sign of UTI and infection and they need to notify the physician. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Preventing Catheter Related Urinary Tract Infection (UTI), reviewed on 6/2023, the P&P indicated, it is the policy of this facility to ensure appropriate interventions are used for prevention of catheter related UTI. The same P&P also indicated, do not rest the bag on the floor . it is suggested to change catheters and drainage bags based on clinical indications such as infection, obstruction, or when the closed system is compromised. A review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Indwelling Catheter Care, reviewed on 6/2023, the P&P indicated, keep drainage bag off the floor . change catheter and drainage as needed for any signs of infection and obstructions.
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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care services for one out of one sampled resident (Resident 3) by failing to ensure Resident 3 ' s nasal cannula (NC -a connector attached to oxygen) tubing was changed per facility ' s policy. This deficient practice had the potential for the residents to develop respiratory infection. Findings: A review of Resident 3 ' s Record of admission indicated Resident 3 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia and hemiparesis (loss of the ability to move in one side of the body), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing food or liquid), and muscle weakness. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive assessment and care screening tool) dated 11/30/2023, indicated Resident 3 ' s cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills for daily decisions was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 3 required total dependence from staffs for activities of daily living (ADLs – oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe, chair to bed transfer). A review of Resident 3 ' s Physician ' s order dated 1/1/2024, the Physician orders indicated, oxygen 2 liters per minute (lpm) via nasal canula (NC) continuously to keep oxygen saturation (spo2) > 92 percent (%). A review of Resident 3 ' s Care Plan dated 1/1/2024, the Care plan indicated Resident 3 is at risk for respiratory distress due to shortness of breath and low oxygen saturation (o2 sat) with approach including, oxygen (o2) 2 (lpm) via NC continuously to keep spo2 > than 92%. During an observation with Resident 3 on 1/11/2024 at 10:10 a.m., Resident 3 was observed with an oxygen concentrator machine at the bedside. Observed Resident 3 ' s NC tubing with no label of date. During a concurrent observation and interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) on 1/10/2024 at 10:23 a.m., LVN 1 observed Resident 3 ' s NC then stated and confirmed, Resident 3 is on oxygen and the NC tubing did not have a label of date written in the NC. LVN 1 stated, if the NC is not dated therefore, they don ' t know when it was last changed. LVN 1 stated, the NC should be changed weekly and as needed to prevent risk of infection. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Oxygen Administration – Nasal Cannula, reviewed on 6/2023, the P&P indicated, it is the policy of this facility to provide oxygen support when indicated via appropriate delivery to achieve or maintain adequate oxygenation to the respiratory compromised resident. A review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Oxygen Humidifiers, reviewed on 6/2023, the P&P indicated, the intact system shall be used for seven days and change as needed or as ordered by the physician, label the container and oxygen tubing with date change.
Sept 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control practices as evidenced by: -Certified Nursing Assistant 2 ( CNA 2) was observed not wearing the appr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow infection control practices as evidenced by: -Certified Nursing Assistant 2 ( CNA 2) was observed not wearing the appropriate N95 respirator mask (a respiratory protective device designed to achieve a very close facial fit and very efficient filtration of airborne particles) that was fit tested (a test protocol conducted to verify that a respirator is both comfortable and provides the wearer with the expected protection) for her. -CNA 1, CNA 3, and the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care screening tool) Coordinator were not N95 respirator mask fit tested. These deficient practices had the potential to expose residents, staff, and the community to Coronavirus (COVID-19, a virus that spreads from person to person causing respiratory illness). Findings: a. During an observation on 8/31/2023 at 10 AM, CNA 2 was observed wearing a Honeywell model N95 mask in the COVID-19 positive isolation area. CNA 2 stated she was not fit tested for the N95 respirator mask she was wearing. CNA 2 further stated that she was fit tested for a different N95 respirator mask and she preferred to wear Honeywell model N95 mask because it did not feel tight on her face. CNA 2 stated she was assigned to four COVID-19 positive residents. b. During a concurrent observation and interview on 8/31/2023 at 10:15 AM, CNA 1 was observed sitting in the COVID-19 positive isolation area. CNA 1 was wearing Honeywell model N95 mask. CNA 1 stated he was from the registry (staffing company) and was working two to three days a week in the facility. CNA 1 stated he was not fit tested for the N95 respirator mask he was wearing. CNA 1 stated he took the N95 mask from the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) card because the facility supplied him with this mask. CNA 1 was not aware he was required to be fit tested. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 8/31/2023 at 10:28 AM, CNA 3 was observed wearing a Honeywell model N95 respirator mask in the hallway. During an interview, CNA 3 stated she was not fit tested for the N95 respirator mask she was currently wearing. She stated she was tested for the green N95 respirator mask. CNA 3 stated, My N95 mask fits very tight on my face, but I was told it is required to wear N95 mask in the facility because COVID-19 is back. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 8/31/2023 at 10:40 AM, the MDS Coordinator was observed wearing a Honeywell model N95 respirator mask in her office. She stated she was not fit tested for this N95 respirator mask. The MDS Coordinator stated she did not remember when she was last fit tested for N95 mask. The MDS Coordinator stated she tested herself because when she wears this type of N95 mask, she cannot smell anything from outside. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 8/31/2023 at 10:56 AM with the facility's Infection Preventionist Nurse (IP), Respirator Fit Test Record dated 6/5/2023 reviewed. The IP stated not all staff in the facility were fit tested and We used to use BYD model N95 respirator masks, but we had some issues with that type of mask, and we stop using them. This year we started utilizing Honeywell model N95 respirator masks in the facility. The IP stated only 16 staff members in the facility were fit tested for Honeywell N95 mask. The IP confirmed that CNA 1 and CNA 2 who worked in the COVID-19 positive isolation area were not fit tested for Honeywell model N95 mask. The IP further stated all staff, including registry were required to be fit tested for the N95 respirator mask before starting work to prevent the spread of infection and COVID-19. The IP stated staff should wear the N95 mask they were fit tested for. The IP stated the potential outcome of the staff not wearing a fit tested N95 mask was the spread of infection. During an interview on 9/1/2023 at 11:10 AM, the facility's Administrator (ADM) stated all staff should be fit tested upon hire, annually and as needed. The ADM stated staff should be wearing the N95 mask they were fit tested for, to ensure the mask was properly fitted and secured to help prevent the spread of infection and COVID 19. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Respirator Fit Testing, revised 6/16/2023, indicated it was the policy of this facility to conduct fit testing of respirator upon hire and yearly thereafter to ensure that respirators were properly fitted for use. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Coronavirus Disease-Using Personal Protective Equipment, revised September 2022, indicated if community transmission was high, staff will use NIOSH- approved particular respirators with N95 filters or higher. When caring for resident with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection personnel who enter the room of a resident adhere to standard precautions and use a NIOSH-approved N95 or equivalent or higher-level respirator, gown, gloves, and eye protection.
May 2023 17 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

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 have an identification wrist band for two of two samp...

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 have an identification wrist band for two of two sampled residents (Resident 19 and Resident 33). This deficient practice had the potential for staff to be unable to properly identify the resident and affect residents' self-worth. Findings: a. A review of the admission Record indicated Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including urinary tract infection (UTI), retention of urine, and chronic kidney disease (a disease or condition impairs kidney function causing kidney damage). A review of Resident 33's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 4/25/2023, indicated Resident 33 was severely impaired with cognitive (processes of thinking and reasoning) skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 33 required extensive two-person physical assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight bearing support) with bed mobility, transfer, one-person physical assist with locomotion on unit, locomotion off unit, dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. During an observation on 5/16/2023 at 9:08 AM, Resident 33 had no identification wrist band. During a concurrent interview, Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) verified the resident's wrist band was missing and stated the wrist band was important to identify the resident when nurses gave care and to prevent the risk for errors. b. A review of the admission Record indicated Resident 19 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including history of fall, diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), and cataract (a clouding of the normally clear lens of the eye). A review of Resident 19's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 19 was moderately impaired with cognitive skills for daily decision making. The MDS further indicated Resident 19 required extensive two-person physical assistance with bed mobility, transfer, toilet use, one-person physical assist on locomotion on unit, locomotion off unit, dressing, and personal hygiene. During an interview on 5/16/2023 at 8:41 AM, the RNS stated Resident 19 did not have an identification wrist band. The RNS stated the wrist band was important to identify the resident when the staff provided care, and stated that if there was no wrist band, there was an increased risk for errors during care provision. During an interview on 5/19/2023 at 12:20 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated identification wrist bands were important to identify who the resident was to prevent staff from making a mistake while giving medication, or provision of other care. The DON stated calling the resident by the wrong name could also make the resident feel bad. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Identification of Residents, revised 8/2009, indicated all residents admitted to long term care facility were properly identified at all times. The policy further indicated that identification wrist bands were made by admission coordinator, were worn by each resident at all times, and includes complete name of the resident, name of physician, room number, address and telephone number of facility.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that call lights were within reach for three o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that call lights were within reach for three of three sampled residents (Resident 22, 26, and 40). This deficiency had the potential for avoidable harm as the three residents would not be able to use their call light to request assistance if needed, or alert staff of an emergency. Findings: a. A review of Resident 22's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease (progressive disease of the nervous system that includes slow, involuntary, and quivering movements and muscle rigidity), unspecified dementia (progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning with memory impairment), pulmonary obstructive pulmonary disease (chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), and dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort in swallowing). A review of Resident 22's care plan dated 1/4/2023, indicated Resident 22 was at risk for falls and broken bones due to physical limitations. The care plan interventions included keeping the call light within easy reach of the resident. A review of Resident 22's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care-screening/care-planning tool), dated 4/3/2023, indicated Resident 22 had severe cognitive impairment (loss of intellectual functions, such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning). Further review of Resident 22's MDS indicated she required either extensive physical assistance from staff, or was fully dependent on staff, for various activities of daily living (movement in bed, transferring between surfaces, and performing personal hygiene). During an observation in Resident 22's room on 5/16/2023 at 9:10 AM, Resident 22 was observed with her call light clipped to her blanket at the foot of the bed, and not within the resident's reach. During an interview at Resident 22's bedside on 5/16/2023 at 9:16 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 stated she worked with Resident 22 often and was very familiar with the resident. CNA 1 stated the purpose of the call light was to ensure residents can call for help if needed, and CNA 1 verified that based on the current placement of the call light, the call light was not within Resident 22's reach. CNA 1 stated that if residents were unable to access the call light, staff would not be aware of the residents' needs or know the residents needed assistance. b. A review of Resident 26's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE] with admitting diagnoses including dementia (progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning with memory impairment) and chronic pain syndrome (pain that carries on for longer than 12 weeks despite medication or treatment). A review of Resident 26's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 26 had severe cognitive impairment, and required either extensive physical assistance from staff, or was fully dependent on staff, for various activities of daily living (e.g., movement in bed, transferring between surfaces, and performing personal hygiene). A review of Resident 26's care plan, dated 5/5/2023, indicated Resident 26 was at risk for falls due to her impaired cognition and history of falls. The care plan interventions included keeping the call light within easy reach of the resident. During an observation in Resident 26's room on 5/16/2023 at 9:19 AM, Resident 26 was observed sitting in bed, with the foot of the bed placed against the wall. There was no call light visualized within Resident 26's reach. During an interview at Resident 26's bedside on 5/16/2023 at 9:23 AM, CNA 1 stated she worked with Resident 26 often and was very familiar with the resident. CNA 1 then verified Resident 26's call light was placed between the wall and the foot of the bed and verified the call light was not within Resident 26's reach. CNA 1 stated that if the resident was unable to access the call light, staff could not meet their needs. c. A review of Resident 40's admission Record indicated resident was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), hemiparesis (paralysis of one side of the body), and aphasia (loss of the ability to express speech). A review of Resident 40's MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition (decisions poor; cues/supervision required). During an observation on 5/16/2023 at 9:08 AM, Resident 40 was observed lying in bed with the call light on the floor and not within the resident's reach. During an interview on 5/16/2023 at 9:10 AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 stated Resident 40's call light was not within reach. LVN 2 stated proper placement of the call light should be on Resident 40's bed for the resident to reach. During an interview on 5/18/2023 at 8:36 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the purpose of the call light was to allow the resident to call for help. During an interview on 5/19/2023 at 9:48 AM, the DON stated the call light should be placed within reach of the resident and if a resident cannot reach the call light, they might not be able to call for help and might not be able to have their needs met. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Call Lights and Use of the Call Cord, dated 8/2009, indicated it was the policy of the facility to ensure that residents will receive assistance promptly. The policy further indicated that staff were to assure the call light was within the residents reach when in their room or on the toilet.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that two of three sampled residents (Residents 45 and 46) we...

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 that two of three sampled residents (Residents 45 and 46) were appropriately notified regarding changes in their Medicare coverage through provision of Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) forms and Skilled Nursing Facility Advance Beneficiary Notice of Non-Coverage (SNFABN) forms. This deficient practice had the potential to result in the responsible parties not being able to exercise their right to file an appeal and unknowingly paying for non-covered care expenses. Findings: a. A review of Resident 45's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Type II diabetes mellitus (a problem in the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel) and dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities). A review of Resident 45's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care-screening/care-planning tool), dated 4/18/2023, indicated Resident 45 had memory problems, with moderate cognitive impairment (loss of intellectual functions, such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning) and required extensive three-person staff assistance for movement while in bed. The MDS indicated she was fully dependent on staff for transferring between surfaces, dressing, eating, toileting, and performing personal hygiene. A review of the undated facility document titled, Medicare Status Notice, indicated 12/22/2022 was the first day of Resident 45's non-coverage. b. A review of Resident 46's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with admitting diagnoses including Alzheimer's dementia (a progressive type of dementia that affects memory, thinking and behavior), dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort in swallowing), polyosteoarthritis (a bone disease that affects five or more of your joints), and abnormalities of gait and mobility. A review of Resident 46's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 46 had severe cognitive impairment and required extensive, one-person physical assistance from staff for various activities of daily living (e.g., dressing, eating, and performing personal hygiene). A review of the undated facility document titled, Medicare Status Notice, indicated 12/17/2022 was the first day of Resident 46's non-coverage. During an interview on 5/18/2023 at 2:52 PM, the Business Office Manager (BOM) stated she was responsible for providing the SNF ABN form to residents and that the MDS Registered Nurse (MDS RN) was responsible for providing the NOMNC form. The BOM stated the form was mailed or provided to the resident (or their responsible party) three to five days before their last covered Medicare Part A day. The BOM then confirmed and stated the SNFABN forms had not been sent to Resident 45 or Resident 46. During an interview on 5/18/2023 at 3:14 PM, the MDS RN stated she was part of the Prospective Payment System (PPS) meetings where Medicare Part A coverage dates were discussed. The MDS RN then stated that if a resident was approaching their Medicare Part A discharge date , she notified the resident (or their responsible party) by phone but did not complete a NOMNC form. When the MDS RN was showed what a NOMNC form looked like, the MDS RN stated she had never completed the form for any residents. The MDS RN then stated the facility's process was that the BOM was responsible for completing, providing, and maintaining signed copies of the SNFABN and NOMNC forms. During an interview on 5/18/2023 at 4:03 PM, the BOM confirmed and stated she had never provided a NOMNC form to any residents (or their responsible parties), including Resident 45 and 46, and stated she had seen the form in the past but was not very familiar with it. The BOM stated a risk was posed to the residents by not providing the form, including the residents not being able to appeal their coverage and their resident rights not being honored. A review of facility policy and procedure titled, Pay Source Conversion, dated 12/2018, indicated the purpose was to ensure proper steps are taken when there is a conversion from one primary pay source to another. The policy further indicated that when a resident's coverage transitions from Medicare Part A to another source of coverage, contact should be made with the responsible party using the NOMNC or SNFABN form, and the facility is supposed to use the SNF ABN form for any change of conversion.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a bed hold (holding or reserving a resident's bed while the resident was absent from the facility for therapeutic leave or hospital...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a bed hold (holding or reserving a resident's bed while the resident was absent from the facility for therapeutic leave or hospitalization) notification at the time of transfer to the hospital for one of 16 sampled Residents (Resident 28). This deficient practice denied Resident 28 of information regarding the facility's bed hold policy, and the opportunity to hold or reserve her bed while absent from the facility. Findings: A review of Resident 28's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 10/14/19, and re-admitted the resident on 2/27/23 with diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's dementia (long term and often gradual decrease in the ability to think and remember severe enough to affect a person's daily functioning), hypertension (HTN, elevated blood pressure), and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). A review of Resident 28's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and screening tool) dated 3/3/23, indicated the resident was cognitively moderately impaired (decisions poor; cues/supervision required) and required extensive, one-person assistance for dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A review of a Physician's Order dated 2/23/23 indicated Resident 28 was to be transferred to the hospital due to vomiting, fever (high temperature), tachycardia (fast heart rate), and tremor (involuntary shaking or movement). The order further indicated a bed hold for seven days. A review of the bed hold informed consent dated 10/14/19 indicated a bed hold informed consent was not completed or provided to Resident 28 on 2/23/23 upon transfer to the hospital. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/19/23 at 8:15 AM, with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS), Resident 28's bed hold informed consent was reviewed. She stated the bed hold informed consent was not filled out and provided at the time the resident was transferred to the hospital on 2/23/23. The RNS stated the form was required to be provided and completed by the nursing staff at the time of transfer. She stated all documents for a resident's medical record must be complete and accurate. The RNS stated the facility failed to provide and complete the resident bed hold notification at the time of Resident 28's transfer. During an interview on 5/19/23 at 10:45 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated resident medical records must be accurate and complete. She stated the bed hold notification was required to be provided at the time of transfer for Resident 28 on 2/23/23. The DON stated by not providing a bed hold notification to residents upon transfer, the residents would not be informed of their rights to return the facility to the same room and bed. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled, Bed-Hold Policy and Re-admission, dated 3/11/08, indicated it was the facility policy to provide to the resident and the responsible party or legal representative, a written notice of the seven-day bed hold policy, at the time of transfer of a resident or a therapeutic leave.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide activities that reflected the choices of the resident, including group activities and outdoor activities, for one of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide activities that reflected the choices of the resident, including group activities and outdoor activities, for one of 16 sampled residents (Resident 14). This deficient practice had the potential for residents to feel isolated in their rooms, a decrease in physical, cognitive, and emotional health, and a decreased sense of belonging. Findings: A review of Resident 14's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 3/31/23, with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, lung disease marked by permanent damage to tissues in the lungs which makes breathing difficult), hypertension (HTN, elevated blood pressure), and asthma (a respiratory condition marked by spasms in the airways of the lungs causing difficulty in breathing). A review of Resident 14's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a comprehensive assessment and care planning tool), dated 4/11/23, indicated Resident 14 was cognitively mildly impaired (some difficulty in new situations only) and required extensive, two-person assistance for bed mobility, transfer, and toilet use. A review of Resident 14's alteration in activity care plan, initiated on 3/31/23, indicated to provide activity of choice which the resident liked to participate such as church services. During an interview on 5/16/23 at 9:08 AM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated Resident 14 did not have an oxygen tank holder on his wheelchair, which would make it difficult for Resident 14 to go to the activity room and go around the facility halls. She stated the resident should have oxygen tank available in his wheelchair for him to leave his room and go to activity room. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/16/23 at 10:50 AM in Resident 14's room, Resident 14 was observed alone in the room while sitting in his wheelchair. Resident 14 stated he would like to attend morning church services but could not because he could not go out of his room without his oxygen. During an interview on 5/17/23 at 3:45 PM, the Activity Director (AD) stated Resident 14 attended church services before, but he needed to go back to his room when his oxygen was low. She stated Resident 14 had not been to church services recently because he did not have an oxygen tank on his wheelchair for him to use. The AD stated Resident 14 should be given the opportunity to attend the activity he wants. The AD stated that if Resident 14 wanted to go to church services, the facility should provide the necessary equipment, like an oxygen tank, for the resident to use on his wheelchair to attend the church service activity. During an interview on 5/18/23 at 11:25 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 14 was not provided an oxygen tank holder in his wheelchair for resident to go to church services. She stated the facility should have provided the equipment needed for the resident to attend the activity of his choice. A review of the facility's policy titled, Exercise of Resident Rights, reviewed 5/2023, indicated the facility protects and promotes the rights of each resident. It further indicated the resident had a right to choose activities consistent with his or her interests, assessments, plan of care, and other applicable provision of this part.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 16 sampled residents (Resident 58) received care for the prevention of pressure ulcers (injuries to skin and un...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 16 sampled residents (Resident 58) received care for the prevention of pressure ulcers (injuries to skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure on the skin). The low air loss mattress (LALM, a mattress designed to prevent and treat pressure wounds) settings for Resident 58 was not maintained at correct setting which caused an increase risk in skin injury. Findings: A review of Resident 58's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 3/25/23 with diagnoses including abnormalities of gait and mobility, Stage III (full-thickness tissue loss) pressure ulcer of the right hip, Stage III pressure ulcer of the left ankle, Stage II (partial-thickness skin loss) pressure ulcer of other site, Stage II pressure ulcer of the sacral region, Stage II pressure ulcer of the right ankle, unstageable (injures to the skin in which the stage of the injury is not clear due to the wound being covered by a layer of dead tissue) pressure ulcer of the left ankle, and Stage II pressure ulcer of the back. A review of Resident 58's Physician's Order dated 3/25/23, indicated to apply a LALM for wound management and to monitor every shift for function of the LALM. A review of Resident 58's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 4/5/23, indicated the resident had severely impaired cognition (never/rarely made decisions) and required extensive assistance two-person physical assistance for bed mobility and transferring. The MDS indicated the resident required extensive assistance and one-person physical assistance for walking in the room and corridor, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. The MDS further indicated Resident 58 had one Stage II pressure ulcer, two Stage III pressure ulcers, and was on a pressure reducing device for a bed. A review of Resident 58's Braden Scale (standardized assessment tool used to predict pressure ulcer risk) dated 4/15/23, indicated the resident was at moderate risk of developing pressure ulcers. A review of Resident 58's Vital Sign Flow sheet indicated the resident weighed 100 pounds (lbs.) on 5/4/23. A review of Resident 58's Short Term Skin Care Plan dated 5/6/23, indicated Resident 58 had a Stage II pressure ulcer on the right lateral knee. The care plan's goal indicated the Stage II pressure ulcer would be resolved without complication, and approaches included treatment as per doctor's orders. During an observation on 5/16/23 at 8:44 AM, Resident 58 was observed laying in bed on a LALM. The LALM was observed on and functioning with settings at 330 lbs. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/16/23 at 8:49 AM, with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS), Resident 58 was observed laying in bed. The RNS stated Resident 58 was laying on at LALM with settings at 330 lbs. The RNS stated Resident 58 was not 330 lbs., and that the settings should be based on the resident's weight. The RNS stated she was unsure what the settings should be at but would check Resident 58's physician's order. During an interview on 5/16/23 at 9:04 AM the RNS stated Resident 58 was 100 lbs and the settings of the LALM should have been set at 100 lbs. not 330 lbs. During an interview on 5/16/23 at 9:16 AM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated, LALM settings should be determined by the resident's weight. During an interview on 5/19/23 at 9:48 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, LALM settings were determined by the resident's weight and the purpose of using a LALM was to help prevent pressure ulcers. The DON indicated that improper settings of the LALM could lead to possible worsening of pressure ulcers. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Pressure Reducing Mattress, released April 2022, indicated a specialty mattress would be obtained for pressure relief of residents that have pressure injury or at risk for pressure injury. The purpose was to maintain skin integrity and to promote healing of existing pressure injuries, flaps, and grafts. The policy and procedure indicated to set the pressure reducing mattress according to resident's height and weight, and further indicated to consider referring to the manufacturer's guidance. A review of the undated DynaRest Airfloat 100 Air Mattress with Pump user manual indicated the adjust pressure adjust knob was adjustable by the patient's weight, turn the pressure adjust to set a comfortable pressure level by using the weight scale as a guide.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure fall mats were placed at the resident's bedsid...

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 fall mats were placed at the resident's bedside for one of two sampled residents (Resident 43). This deficiency had the potential for avoidable harm as Resident 43 would be at increased risk for injury related to a fall without a fall mat in place at the bedside. Findings: A review of the admission Record indicated Resident 43 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was re-admitted on [DATE]. The admitting diagnoses included lack of coordination and unspecified dementia (progressive or persistent loss of intellectual functioning, with impairment of memory and abstract thinking). A review of Resident 43's History and Physical, dated 2/16/23, indicated Resident 43 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 43's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care-screening/care-planning tool), dated 2/20/23, indicated Resident 43 had severe cognitive impairment (loss of intellectual functions, such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning) and required extensive physical assistance from staff for movement in bed, dressing, and performing personal hygiene. Further review of the MDS indicated Resident 43 was fully dependent on staff for movement between locations within her room and when toileting. A review of the care plan dated 2/16/23, indicated Resident 43 was at risk for falls and broken bones due to physical limitations, muscle weakness, and dementia. The care plan interventions included placing floor mats at the bedside. A review of the care plan dated 2/25/23, indicated Resident 43 experienced a fall, and the care plan interventions included applying floor mats at the bedside. During an observation in Resident 43's room on 5/17/23 at 8:21 AM, Resident 43 was observed asleep in bed with no fall mats placed to either side of the bed. During an interview at Resident 43's bedside on 5/18/23 at 8:09 AM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 stated she was unaware if Resident 43 had experienced a fall in the past and CNA 2 confirmed that Resident 43 did not have any fall mats placed at the bedside. During an interview at Resident 43's bedside on 5/18/23 at 8:14 AM, the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) stated the purpose of placing floor mats at a resident's bedside following a fall was to prevent injury and for patient safety. The RNS confirmed that Resident 43 had experienced a fall in the past, and that the care plan indicated fall mats were supposed to be placed at the bedside. The RNS stated and confirmed there were no fall mats at Resident 43's bedside and stated there was a potential for injury if Resident 43 were to fall and there was no mat. During an interview on 5/19/23 at 9:04 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 43 had experienced a fall and that the resident's care plan indicated fall mats were supposed to be placed at the bedside. The DON stated the purpose of the fall mats was to prevent injury to the resident following a fall, and that if not present, the resident could experience avoidable injuries. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Fall Management, dated 10/1/04, indicated the purpose was to ensure staff were assessing and instituting safeguards and that all interventions will be documented and care planned.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the indwelling Foley catheter (a flexible plas...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the indwelling Foley catheter (a flexible plastic tube inserted into the bladder to provide continuous urinary drainage) drainage tubing was patent and not kinked (tightly twisted or curled, caused by a doubling or winding of something upon itself) for one sampled resident (Resident 33). This failure had the potential to result in the recurrence of a urinary tract infection (UTI, an infection involving any part of the urinary system) that could develop into urosepsis (a potentially life-threatening complication of urinary tract infection). Findings: A review of the admission Record indicated Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including UTI, retention of urine, and chronic kidney disease (a disease or condition impairs kidney function causing kidney damage). A review of the Physician's Order, dated 3/6/23, indicated Resident 33 received the indwellig Foley catheter for urinary retention (holding in urine). A review of the Physician's Order dated 3/12/23 indicated Resident 33 received Bactrim DS (an antibiotic that treats infection) for five days due to UTI and urinary retention. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 4/25/23, indicated Resident 33 was severely impaired with cognitive (processes of thinking and reasoning) skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 33 required extensive two-person physical assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight bearing support) with bed mobility, transfer, one-person physical assist on locomotion on unit, locomotion off unit, dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 5/16/23 9:03 AM in Resident 33's room, with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS), the indwelling Foley catheter tubing was observed kinked, clogged with sediments, and the urine was not draining. The urine collection bag was not dated or timed. The RNS stated Resident 33 was at risk for infection because the indwelling Foley catheter tubing was kinked and the urine needed to flow well. During an interview, on 5/19/23 at 12:10 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated it was important to assess the catheter tubing to prevent infection, and the assessment should be done every shift by the Charge Nurse. The DON stated the catheter tubing should not be kinked. A review of facility policy and procedure titled, Urinary Catheter Care, revised 9/2009, indicated urinary catheter care was given to prevent urinary tract infection, and indicated staff were supposed to keep the catheter and tubing free of kinks. The policy further indicated the bag must be held lower than the bladder at all times to prevent the urine in the drainage bag from flowing back to the urinary bladder.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dialysis services consistent with professional standards of practice for one of three sampled residents (Resident 18)....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure dialysis services consistent with professional standards of practice for one of three sampled residents (Resident 18). There was no dialysis Emergency Kit (E-kit) available at Resident 18's bedside and failed to place signage for staff knowledge of Resident 18's arteriovenous fistula (AVF, a connection that's made between an artery and a vein for dialysis access) at the bedside, per the care plan. This failure had the potential to result in staff's inability to manage bleeding from Resident 18's AVF in the event of uncontrolled bleeding, as well as complications to the AVF resulting from staff unknowingly performing blood pressure checks or insertion of medical devices on Resident 18's left arm. Findings: A review of the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 18 on 7/13/22 with diagnoses including urinary tract infection (UTI, an infection involving any part of the urinary system, including urethra, bladder, ureters, and kidney), anemia, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. A review of Resident 18's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 4/14/23, indicated Resident 18 was moderately impaired with cognitive (processes of thinking and reasoning) skills for daily decision making. The MDS further indicated Resident 18 required extensive (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight bearing support) one-person physical assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A review of the care plan, revised 4/24/23, indicated Resident 18 had a concern or problem with AV shunt on left forearm and was at risk for adverse effects of dialysis treatment. The care plan indicated the approach or plan was to place alert signage at Resident 18's bedside to ensure staff were aware of no intramuscular (in the muscle), no IV or blood pressure measurement, and no blood draws to Resident 18's left arm access site. During an observation on 5/16/23 at 8:28 AM in Resident 18's room, there was no dialysis E-Kit or dialysis alert signage at Resident 18's bedside. During observation and concurrent interview on 5/16/23 at 9:42, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 stated Resident 18 had a left arm arteriovenous fistula (AVF - an irregular connection between an artery and a vein, blood flow avoids tiny blood vessels [capillaries] and moves directly from an artery into a vein) and verified there was no dialysis E-Kit in Resident 18's room, and no signage to alert staff that Resident 18 had an AVF in their left arm. LVN 1, who was assigned to Resident 18, stated she was not sure what the purpose of an E-kit was and stated she would call and ask the supervisor. During an interview, on 5/16/23 at 9:53 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated there was no dialysis E-Kit in Resident 18's room. On 5/17/23 at 9:53 AM, during an interview, LVN 1 stated the dialysis E-Kit consisted of gauze, tape, and a tourniquet (a device for stopping the flow of blood through a vein or artery) and the E-Kit needed to be at Resident 18's bedside in case of emergency bleeding. During an interview, on 5/19/23 at 8:23 AM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated the alert signage was supposed to be visible to all who took care of Resident 18 to ensure no mistakes would be made. The IP stated the signage was to protect the patency of the AVF. During an interview, on 5/19/23 at 11:56 AM, the DON stated the dialysis E-Kit consisted of a tourniquet, gauze, and tape, and that it was important for Resident 18 to have it in her room, visible and accessible to staff who took care of her. The DON stated the E-Kit was used to control bleeding in case of an emergency. The DON stated the signage was important to communicate with the nurses and laboratory that they could not perform blood draws, insert intravenous (IV, in the veins) access devices (used to access the bloodstream through the vein), or check vital signs, on Resident 18's left arm. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Hemodialysis, Care of Residents, dated August 2017, indicated the fundamental information was to not take blood pressure on arm with dialysis shunt (fistula). The policy indicated under admission and general care, to place a colored armband on the resident's wrist that indicated 'No BP on this Arm,' that has the shunt. The policy did not indicate the importance of having a dialysis Emergency Kit or signage at the resident's bedside.
CONCERN (D)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the current nurse staffing information in a prominent place, readily accessible to residents and visitors, and on a daily basis. This de...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to post the current nurse staffing information in a prominent place, readily accessible to residents and visitors, and on a daily basis. This deficient practice had the potential for residents and visitors to be unaware of the current census and staffing of the facility. Findings: During an observation of the facility on 5/16/23 at 8:20 AM, there was no nurse staffing information posted in a prominent place in the facility. During an interview 5/19/23 at 9:22 AM, the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated she had not posted the nurse staffing information daily. The DSD stated the nurse staffing information was supposed to be kept in a binder at the nurses' station and posted for family members and visitors to see. During an interview on 5/19/23 at 9:48 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the nurse staffing information should be posted so visitors and staff know if there was enough staff present in the facility. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Staffing Sufficiency Requirements, released 2/2017 indicated, it was the policy of the facility that residents, prospective resident, employees, visitors, and job applicants were provided the information about staffing daily for direct patient care according to State and Federal guidelines. The policy further indicated that to implement this policy, the postings will be visible and available for review for public information, and the posting should be prominently displayed and accessible for patient, visitor, and staff viewing.
CONCERN (D)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to follow the facility's menu for two of three sampled residents (Resident 32 and 39). Residents 32 and 39, who were on a fortified diets, did...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations and interviews, the facility failed to follow the facility's menu for two of three sampled residents (Resident 32 and 39). Residents 32 and 39, who were on a fortified diets, did not receive the additional soup on their lunch tray. This deficient practice placed residents on fortified diets at risk for unplanned weight loss. Findings: A review of facility document titled, Daily Menu Guide, undated, indicated the following items would be served on a soft mechanical fortified diet: - 12 oz Hot noodle soup with finely cut meat - ½ cup Kimchi - ½ cup Bap (Rice) - ½ cup finely cut eggplant salad - 2' square fruit gelatin with 1 oz whipped cream - 4 oz. milk During an observation of the tray line (area used to arrange the residents' food ), on 5/16/23 at 12:16 PM, two trays identified as requiring soft mechanical fortified diets contained hot noodle soup with finely cut meat, kimchi, rice, finely cut eggplant salad, gelatin with whipped cream, and milk. There was no additional soup identified. During a concurrent interview on 5/16/23 at 12:17 PM, with Food Service Worker 1 (FSW 1), stated, The difference between regular diet and fortified diet is an additional protein. The Dietary Supervisor (DS) stated they put an additional fortified soup on top of the regular items that the residents will receive when on the fortified diets. The DS stated, We follow a policy on what to put on the tray for fortified diets. The DS verified that the lunch trays for Resident 32 and Resident 39, who were on a fortified diet, were missing a fortified soup and proceeded to supply the missing soup on the tray. The DS also sent extra fortified soup on the floor for the fortified trays that were missing items. A review of facility policy titled, Fortified Diet Policy and Procedure, undated, indicated it was the policy of this facility to 'Fortify' diets to increase caloric density and provide additional protein to patients who are unable to meet these needs with a regular diet or with supplemental feedings. Patients who identified at nutritional risk such as weight loss, weight for height and variable meal intake are candidates for fortified diets. The policy further indicated: Procedure: Dietary will send the diet as specified. Fortified diet will include: Lunch: Add 4 oz cream soup made with whole milk. Fortified adds additional approximately 500 calories and 8 grams protein to the diet. During an interview on 5/17/23 at 9 AM, with the DS and Infection Preventionist (IP), the DS stated, Nursing checks the final tray accuracy before giving the trays to the residents. The IP stated, The process for checking trays are as follows: [Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN)] on the floor compares diet list and meal cards for each resident. They open the lid to make sure residents are getting proper consistency of the meal food preferences, food allergies and missing condiments. When asked if there was any way the LVNs would know if there are missing items on the tray, the IP stated No, they [would] not know that. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Meal Distribution, dated 9/2017, indicated meals are transported to the dinning locations in a manner that ensures proper temperature maintenance, protects against contamination, and are delivered in a timely and accurate manner. Procedure: (1) All meals will be assembled in accordance with the individualized diet order, plan of care, and preferences.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0887 (Tag F0887)

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 the facility's Coronavirus (COVID-19, a virus that causes re...

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 the facility's Coronavirus (COVID-19, a virus that causes respiratory illness that can spread from person to person) Vaccination of Residents policy and procedure for two of five sampled residents (Resident 14 and Resident 30) by failing to: -Educate and offer COVID-19 immunization to Resident 14. -Obtain informed consent from the resident or resident's responsible party (RP) before administering COVID-19 booster (an extra dose of vaccine after the original dose) for Resident 30. These deficient practices had the potential for Resident 14 to contract COVID-19 in the facility and violated Resident 30's right to be fully informed of the benefits, risks, and the potential side effects prior to receiving the COVID-19 vaccine and or booster. Findings: a. A review of the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 14 on 4/24/23 with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (a condition that happens when the blood sugar is too high) and lack of coordination. A review of Resident 14's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and screening tool) dated 4/30/23, indicated the resident had severely impaired cognition (never/rarely made decisions) and required limited one-person physical assistance for bed mobility, transfers, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 14's Vaccine Administration Record indicated Resident 14 received the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine on 4/26/21. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/18/23 at 8:57 AM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated that upon Resident 14's admission on [DATE], Resident 14's family requested for the facility to administer the second dose of the COVID-19. The IP then confirmed there was no documentation regarding this matter in Resident 14's medical chart. The IP stated, I texted Resident 14's physician using the facility's phone and I informed him that Resident 14's family reported that the resident became very sick after receiving the first dose of vaccine. The IP then stated Resident 14's physician instructed her to follow up with him again in one week regarding COVID-19 vaccine administration, and stated, I forgot to follow up with the physician. The IP stated there was no documentation regarding offering COVID-19 vaccine to Resident 14 or the RP upon admission. The IP further stated she did not educate Resident 14 or the RP about the benefits, risks, and potential side effects of the COVID-19 vaccine. The IP stated the facility was required to offer COVID-19 vaccine to eligible residents upon admission to the facility, and stated residents had the right to accept or refuse the vaccine. The IP stated the potential outcome of not receiving the vaccine was that the resident was at higher risk to contract the COVID-19 virus and would potentially suffer more severe symptoms. During an interview on 5/19/23 at 11:20 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated licensed staff were required to offer COVID-19 vaccination to residents or their RP upon admission. The DON further stated that before COVID-19 vaccine was offered to residents, staff were required to educate residents or their RPs regarding the benefits, risks, and potential side effects of the vaccine. The DON confirmed that the second dose of COVID-19 vaccine and necessary education was not offered to Resident 14 upon admission. The DON stated the potential outcome was contracting COVID-19 virus and becoming sick. On 5/19/23 at 12:25 PM,during an interview, the Administrator (ADM) stated licensed staff were required to educate and offer COVID-19 vaccination to residents or their RPs upon admission. The ADM stated the communication must be in writing. The ADM stated the potential outcome was contracting COVID-19 virus and becoming sick. b. A review of the admission Record indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 30 on 1/29/22 with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty or discomfort swallowing) and lack of coordination. A review of Resident 30's COVID-19 Booster Vaccination Record dated 11/23/22, indicated the physician ordered the administration of the COVID-19 Bivalent booster (protects against two strains of COVID-19) 0.5 milligrams, intramuscularly (a technique to deliver a medication deep into a muscle). A review of Resident 30's Vaccination Record indicated Resident 30 received a COVID-19 Bivalent booster on 11/23/22 at 10:25 PM. A review of Resident 30's History and Physical dated 3/2/23 indicated Resident 30 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 30's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 30 had severely impaired cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 30 was totally dependent on staff for toilet use, transfers, and required extensive one-person physical assistance for dressing, bed mobility, and personal hygiene. During an interview on 5/18/23 at 9:11 AM, the IP stated that she administered the bivalent booster to Resident 30 without obtaining their informed consent. The IP stated it was required to obtain informed consent from residents or residents' responsible parties before administering any kind of vaccine. The IP further stated this conduct was inconsistent with the facility's policy and procedure to obtain informed consent from either the resident or their representatives prior to administering the COVID-19 vaccine. During an interview on 5/19/23 at 11:25 AM, the DON stated the licensed staff were required to obtain informed consent and permission from residents or their responsible parties before administering any vaccines. The DON stated the potential outcome of administering vaccine without informed consent was a violation of the resident's rights. During an interview on 5/19/23 at 12:10 PM, the ADM stated staff were required to obtain informed consent from residents or their responsible parties before administering COVID-19 vaccine or boosters. The ADM stated administering the COVID-19 booster without a consent was a deficient practice. The ADM further stated the potential outcome was not honoring a resident's rights. A review of facility policy and procedure titled, Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) - Vaccination of Residents, revised 6/2022, indicated: -Residents who were eligible to receive COVID-19 vaccine were strongly encouraged to do so. -Residents must sign a consent prior receiving the vaccine. -The resident or resident representative had the opportunity to accept or refuse the COVID-19 vaccine, and to change his/her decision. -COVID-19 vaccine education, documentation and reporting are overseen by the Infection Preventionist. Before the COVID-19 vaccine is offered, the resident is provided with education regarding the benefits, risks and potential side effects associated with the vaccine. Information is provided to the resident in a language and format that is understood by the resident or representative. A review of facility policy titled, Vaccination of Residents, revised 10/2019, indicated all new residents shall be assessed for current vaccination status upon admission.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0925 (Tag F0925)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the food services department when flies were observed in the kitchen landing on kitchen sur...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions in the food services department when flies were observed in the kitchen landing on kitchen surfaces, utensils, and dishes. This deficient practice had the potential to cause 61 of the 61 residents who received food from the kitchen to acquire food borne illnesses (illness caused by consuming contaminated foods or beverages) by consuming potentially contaminated food. Findings: During an observation of the facility's kitchen on 5/16/23, at 8:02 AM, two flies were observed on the countertop by the dishmachine, and one fly was observed flying around the food preparation area near the walk-in refrigerator. During an observation of the facility's kitchen on 5/16/23, at 12:16 PM, two flies were observed flying in the kitchen over the meal preparation area. During a concurrent interview with the Regional Manager (RM) on the RM observed one fly flying over the preparation area and stated, Yes, that is a fly. On 5/16/23, at 3:13 PM, during an interview with the Dietary Supervisor (DS) and a Maintenance Staff (MS) in the hallway outside the facility's kitchen, the MS stated, We have fly traps, but the one near the kitchen door is broken. During an interview on 5/17/23, at 10:45 AM with the RM and the DS, the RM stated, The facility never had an issue with flies in the kitchen before. A review of facility's Policy and Procedure titled, Pest Control, dated 4/2018, indicated it is the policy of the facility to maintain an ongoing pest control program to ensure the building premises and its grounds are kept free of insects, rodents, and other pests and further indicated the purpose was to ensure the facility is free of insects, rodents and other pest that could compromise the health, safety and comfort of residents, staff, and visitors.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food storage and food preparation practices in the kitchen when the following occurred: -Cook 1 was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe and sanitary food storage and food preparation practices in the kitchen when the following occurred: -Cook 1 was wearing nail polish (a shiny liquid substance applied to fingernails) and long fingernails. -Dishwasher (DW) 1 washed dirty dishes then put away the clean dishes without washing their hands. -DW 2 washed hands in the 2-compartment sink (stainless steel sink for washing and rinsing dishes) instead of the handwashing sink. -Failure to maintain cleanliness of the pots and pans storage by the tray line area. -Failure to safely store Resident 8's food from home by not monitoring refrigerator temperatures. These failures had the potential to result in harmful bacteria growth and cross - contamination (transfer of harmful bacteria from one place to another) that could lead to foodborne illness in 61 out of 61 medically compromised residents who received food and ice from the kitchen. Findings: a. During an observation of [NAME] 1 on 5/16/23 at 8:18 AM by the handwashing area, [NAME] 1 was washing hands and wearing nail polish with long fingernails. During an interview with [NAME] 1 on 5/16/23 at 8:51 AM, [NAME] 1 stated, We are not allowed to wear nail polish. I was on vacation, and I could not remove it. I know that the nail polish can fall in the food for contamination. On 5/16/23 at 9:41 AM during an observation, near the handwashing sink area, the Dietary Supervisor (DS) was observed wearing light purple color nail polish while washing hands. During an interview on 5/16/23 at 9:44 AM, the DS stated, We are not allowed to wear nail polish but only gel. b. During an observation on 5/16/23 at 8:58 AM in the dishwashing area by the two-compartment sinks, DW 1 washed dishes and cups, and put away the clean dishes from the dishwasher, without washing hands when going back and forth between the clean and dirty dishes. During an interview on 5/16/23 at 9:04 AM, DW 1 stated, My process is to go to the dirty area then put away the dishes in the clean area. Today, I was missing a step of washing my hands and changing my gloves when working from dirty to clean area to avoid cross-contamination. I did not wash my hands. On 5/16/23 at 9:51 AM, during an interview, near the dishwashing area, the DS stated, If I only have one DW, [the] DW needed to wash hands and change gloves when going from dirty to clean area. c. During an observation on 5/16/23 at 10:53 AM, DW 2 washed hands in the 2-compartment sink after washing the dishes. During an interview on 5/16/23 at 10:53 AM, the DS stated, Washing hands in the 2-compartment sink is not an acceptable practice because there is no handwashing soap there and it will not clean the hands. I will talk to [DW 2]. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/16/23 at 11:28 AM, DW 2 washed hands in the 2-compartment sink a second time. DW 2 stated, I washed hands in the 2-compartment sink, but I am not supposed to as there is no soap and paper towel there. d. During an observation on 5/16/23 at 10:21 AM at the tray line area, the built-in racks underneath the tray line, where pots, pans, baking sheets, and clear containers were stored, had visible dust and dirt residue. On 5/16/23 at 11:01 AM, during an observation and concurrent interview, the DS looked at the built-in rack surfaces and stated, The surface is dirty, and this is not an acceptable practice. This area is detailed clean once a week and if there is a spill the cook should be cleaning and wiping it. e. During an interview on 5/17/23 at 9:21 AM, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 3 stated, Once a relative brought food from home for the residents, we let the supervisor know for Korean language translation. The Activity Director (AD) is the one in-charge for the food from home for the residents. During an observation on 5/17/23 at 9:38 AM in the activity room, the refrigerator had Resident 8's food in a plastic container that was labeled with their name and did not have a date. In addition, there were four plastic containers of staff food. There was no thermometer inside the refrigerator and there was no log for the refrigerator temperature. During a concurrent interview on 5/17/23 at 9:38 AM, the AD stated residents' food and staff food were both stored in the activity room refrigerator. The AD stated, I don't know who monitors the refrigerator's temperature, but I checked for expired food. The AD was unable to verbalize the process for when a resident brings in food from home and how the food was stored. The AD wrote a date of 5/14/2023 on Resident 8's plastic food container. On 5/17/23 at 9:55 AM, during an interview, the DS stated the AD checked the activity room refrigerator. The DS stated that the process for food brought in from home was it was received by nursing to make sure it was based on the resident's diet. The DS further stated the AD monitored the activity room refrigerator temperature and ensured the food was labeled with a room number, received date, and expiry date. During an interview on 5/17/23 at 10:45, the Regional Manager (RM) stated, There is no policy for the activity room refrigerator and there should not be any resident's food in it. The DS stated, I wanted to clarify the food from home policy. We don't keep the resident's food in the facility. We encourage residents to finish the food and throw any leftovers on the day it was brought to the facility. A review of facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Staff Attire, revised 2017, indicated all employees wear approved attire for the performance of their duties. Procedures: (6) Fingernails will be kept clean and neat. Nail polish and/or acrylic nails are not permitted. A review of Food Code 2022 indicated: - 2-301.14 When to wash hands. Food employees shall clean their hands and exposed portions of their arms immediately before engaging in food preparation including work with exposed food, clean equipment and (I) after engaging in other activities that contaminate hands - 4-501.16 (A) A ware washing sink may not be used for handwashing. A review of the facility policy titled, HCSG Policy 016, undated, indicated all staff will practice proper hand washing techniques and glove use. All utensils, food contact equipment, and food contact surfaces will be cleaned and sanitized after every use. A review of facility policy and procedure titled, Food Storage: Cold Foods, dated 4/2018, indicated: -All time/temperature control for safety (TCS) foods, frozen, refrigerated, will be appropriately stored in accordance with guidelines of the FDA Food Code. -(4) An accurate thermometer will be kept in each refrigerator and freezer. A written record of daily temperatures will be recorded. -(5)All foods will be stored, wrapped or in covered containers, labeled and dated, and arranged in a manner to prevent cross contamination. A review of facility policy titled, Meals from Families, dated 6/15/22, indicated to make sure that any leftover foods are in a container or thrown away.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide meeting minutes and evidence of sufficient governing oversight to demonstrate the maintenance of an effective Quality Assurance and...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide meeting minutes and evidence of sufficient governing oversight to demonstrate the maintenance of an effective Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program. This failure had the potential for harm to residents as the facility had two repeat deficiencies in the areas of infection control and nursing services, which were both cited during the previous recertification survey of 2019. Findings: A review of document titled, Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction, dated 4/4/19, indicated the facility had deficiencies related to infection control and nursing services. During an interview on 5/19/23 at 8:20 AM, the facility Administrator (ADM) stated the QAPI Committee (QAPIC) had not been documenting any QAPIC meeting minutes and that he was unable to furnish any meeting minutes for any QAPIC meetings. During an interview on 5/19/23 at 11:12 AM with three members of the QAPIC (the ADM, Director of Nursing [DON], and Infection Preventionist [IP]/Director of Staff Development [DSD]), the QAPIC members were provided with a copy of the document titled Statement of Deficiencies and Plan of Correction,dated 4/4/19, and were asked to provide evidence of QAPI Program efforts to correct the previously identified deficiencies and prevent repeat deficiencies, including any meeting minutes. The QAPIC members stated they could not provide any evidence or documentation. A review of facility document titled, QAPI Process, dated 1/30/17 and revised on 2/13/17, indicated that responsibilities of the QAPIC are to: -Develop and implement an effective QAPI program -[Track] progress and [discuss] success/barriers for all Improvement Activities -Record minutes of all meetings., Further review of the facility document titled QAPI Process, dated 1/30/17 and revised on 2/13/17, indicated QAPI activities were supposed to be documented and filed, and documentation must include meeting minutes. A review of the undated facility policy and procedure titled, Quality Assurance and Assessment Program, indicated the purpose was to have a systemic and ongoing self-evaluation process to identify and resolve problems and to improve programs and services that support [and] provide resident care. The policy further indicated that responsibilities of the QAPIC include maintaining minutes of each meeting that included review of current data, discussion of recommendations, and actions to be taken.
CONCERN (E)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide evidence of a data collection or monitoring system for assessing the effectiveness of their Quality Assurance and Performance Impro...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide evidence of a data collection or monitoring system for assessing the effectiveness of their Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Program's efforts to address issues related to quality of care. This failure had the potential to affect the quality of care the facility's residents were receiving. Findings: During an interview on 5/19/23 at 10:14 AM with three members of the QAPI Committee (the ADM, Director of Nursing [DON], and Infection Preventionist [IP]/Director of Staff Development [DSD]), the QAPIC members stated the purpose of the QAPI program was to identify areas for improvement and implement interventions to improve the quality of the care being provided. The QAPIC members stated there was no current system in place for monitoring the effectiveness of implemented interventions, or regular collection of data for identified quality issues. The QAPIC was also unable to provide evidence of a system that demonstrated analysis of trends or identification of the successes or barriers to their improvement activities. The QAPIC members stated their current QAPI program could use improvement and was not currently effective. A review of facility document titled, QAPI Process, dated 1/30/17 and revised on 2/13/17, indicated the QAPI program was ongoing, integrated, data driven, and comprehensive and responsibilities of the QAPIC are to: -Develop and implement an effective QAPI program -Assess, evaluate, and identify potential improvement opportunities based on: state/federal surveys -Review, analyze trends, and identify potential improvement opportunities -[Track] progress and [discuss] success/barriers for all Improvement Activities A review of undated facility policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Quality Assurance & Assessment Program, indicated the purpose of the policy was to improve programs and services that support and provide resident care and to enhance the environment in which care is delivered and the resident resides. The P&P further indicated that responsibilities included development and implementation of plans of action to correct identified quality deficiencies and monitor for compliance to resolved problems.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement and/or maintain infection control measures as evidenced by: - Failing to ensure oxygen tubing was changed every seven days and as needed (PRN) for Resident 14. - Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 not conducting hand hygiene prior to dispensing medication. -Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 not conducting hand hygiene and doffing (removing) / changing personal protective equipment (PPE, equipment that is used to precent or minimize exposure to hazards such as gloves, gown, and face mask) when providing care to a resident in contact isolation. -LVN 1 not performing hand hygiene while administering medication to Resident 5. This deficient practice had the potential to result in the spread of infections that could lead to serious harm and/or death to all residents and staff. Findings: a. During an interview on 5/16/23 at 9:05 AM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated oxygen tubing is changed weekly, every Wednesday night. She stated the oxygen tubing for Resident 14 didn't have a date to indicate when it was changed and stated she didn't know when the oxygen tubing was last changed. The IP further stated the humidifier was dated 5/10/23 and should have been changed on 5/10/23. During an interview on 5/18/23 at 11:25 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated there was no date on the nasal cannula for Resident 14. The DON stated the oxygen tubing was changed once per week or when needed when dirty or contaminated. The DON then stated she was not sure when the oxygen tubing for Resident 14 was changed and stated it should have a date when changed. The DON also stated the purpose of changing the oxygen tubing was for infection control and stated the potential outcome of not practicing infection control for the oxygen tubing was the resident would be at risk for infection. b. During a concurrent observation and interview on 5/18/23 at 8:28 AM, LVN 2 was observed not conducting hand hygiene before dispensing medication. LVN 2 stated he did not conduct hand hygiene prior to dispensing medication and stated he was required to conduct hand hygiene for infection control. LVN 2 then stated the potential outcome of not conducting hand hygiene was the spread of infection to the residents. c. During an observation on 5/18/23 at 10:55 AM, in contact isolation room [ROOM NUMBER]C, CNA 3 was observed wearing PPE and assisting the resident in bed C with care. CNA 3 was then observed shaking hands and caring for the resident in bed B without doffing PPE and/or changing PPE. On 5/18/23 at 10:57 AM, during an interview, CNA 3 stated the resident in 221 bed C was on contact isolation for a history of Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA - bacteria that causes infection that is difficult to treat because of resistance to some antibiotics) in a wound. CNA 3 stated he helped and shook hands with the resident in 221 bed B without doffing PPE and performing hand hygiene after helping the resident in bed C. CNA 3 stated when moving from one resident to another, hand hygiene should be performed, and PPE should be changed to prevent infection. During an interview on 5/19/23 at 9:48 AM, the DON stated when coming from a resident who was on contact isolation, staff should completely doff PPE and perform hand hygiene before working with a resident who was not on contact isolation to prevent infection. d. A review of Resident 5's admission Record indicated Resident 5 was admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses including urinary tract infection (UTI), muscle weakness, and abnormalities of gait and mobility. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 4/18/23, indicated Resident 5 was severely impaired with cognitive skills (processes of thinking and reasoning) for daily decision making. The MDS further indicated Resident 5 required extensive two-person physical assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight bearing support) with bed mobility, toilet use, one-person physical assist on locomotion on unit, locomotion off unit, dressing, and personal hygiene. During a medication pass observation on 5/18/23 at 8:01 AM, LVN 1 introduced themself to Resident 5, checked Resident 5's ID band, placed six medications onto a plastic medication cap, and handed the cap to Resident 5. Resident 5 then took all the medications with water. LVN 1 did not perform hand hygeine before or after medication administration. During an interview on 5/19/23 at 8:41 AM, the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated hand washing / hand hygeine was very important to prevent spread of infection. The IP stated staff needed to do handwashing before and after taking care of residents and when hands were visibly soiled. During an interview, on 5/19/23 at 12:26 PM, the DON stated hand washing was very important and it was standard precaution for infection control. The DON stated staff should wash hands between residents, when touching soiled objects, or when visibly dirty, before and after entering room. The DON stated handwashing was also important during medication pass to prevent spread of infection. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, revised 10/2018, indicated important facets of infection prevention include following established general and disease-specific guidelines such as those of the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). A review of a CDC documented titled, Implementation of PPE in Nursing Homes to Precent Spread of MDROs (Multi-drug resistant organism), updated 7/12/22, indicated for contact precautions don (put on) required PPE before room entry, doff (take off) before room exit; change before caring for another resident). A review of facility policy titled, Hand washing/ Hand hygiene, revised 8/2019, indicated the facility considered hand hygiene the primary means to prevent spread of infections, and all personnel should be trained in declaring in service on the importance of hand hygiene in preventing the transmission of healthcare associated infections. A review of facility policy titled, Oxygen Use, revised 11/2019, indicated oxygen equipment will be maintained in the following manner: Oxygen tubing will be changed every seven days and prn.
May 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that certified nursing assistant staff have the specific competency and skills set necessary to care for residents' needs, as identif...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure that certified nursing assistant staff have the specific competency and skills set necessary to care for residents' needs, as identified through residents' assessments and plan of care, for two of two sampled Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs 1 and 2) reviewed for competency skills check or performance evaluations. This deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for not receiving necessary care and services and the potential for injury. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission record indicated the facility readmitted Resident 1 on 9/7/2021 with diagnoses including non-Alzheimer's dementia (decline in mental ability severe enough to interfere with daily functioning/life), pseudobulbar affect (PBA- a condition that causes sudden, frequent, and uncontrollable episodes of crying and/or laughing that don't match how one feels inside), and hypertension (HTN - elevated blood pressure) A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive assessment and care screening tool), dated 3/9/2023, indicated Resident 1 was moderately cognitively impaired (decisions poor; cues/supervision required). The MDS indicated the resident required total dependence with two-person physical assist for transfer, and one person assist for toilet use and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 1's care plan (written guide that organizes information about the resident's care) for activities of daily living (ADL - term used in healthcare to refer to daily self-care activities) functioning with self-care deficit, dated 3/9/2023, indicated Resident 1 required total assistance for transfer and to assist with ADLs as needed. During an interview with CNA 1, on 5/2/2023 at 1:25 PM, CNA 1 stated he transfers Resident 1 by himself. CNA 1 stated when the resident is heavy, he would transfer with another staff, but Resident 1 is not heavy and he stated he can transfer by himself. He stated Resident 1 requires two people assist for transfer. CNA 1 further stated he was required to have annual competencies to ensure he can provide safe resident care including transferring residents. CNA 1 stated he does not remember doing a return demonstration or competency for transferring residents safely. During an interview with CNA 2, on 5/3/2023 at 8:52 AM, CNA 2 stated Resident 1 was total dependence care with two people assist for transfer. She stated she should have gotten another staff to help transfer Resident 1 because she requires two people to transfer safely. She stated not following the number of staff to provide ADL may potentially cause harm to the resident when transferring. She stated she should have competencies every year to make sure she can provide safe care to residents. She stated she did not conduct annual competency or return demonstration for resident transfer with two people assist. During a concurrent interview and record review on 5/3/2023 at 11:29 AM, with Director of Staff Development (DSD), Competency Check List for 2022 and 2023 were reviewed. DSD stated staff are required to have annual competencies including proper and safe transferring of residents. She stated she is not able to provide competencies for safe and proper transfer of residents for CNA 1 and CNA 2. She stated it was an oversight to not provide competencies such as return demonstration for safe transfer of resident. DSD stated she should have conducted the annual competencies for resident transfer. She stated CNA 1 and CNA 2 should have transferred Resident 2 with two staff assist rather than transferring the resident with one person assist for resident safety. During an interview with Director of Nursing (DON), on 5/3/2023 at 11:50 AM, DON stated facility staff are required to have annual competencies. She stated staff should be competent to safely transfer residents. DON stated the facility failed to provide annual evaluation and skills competencies check for CNA 1 and CNA 2 to transfer residents safely. She stated the potential outcome of failing to conduct evaluation of skills competency for licensed staff is the resident may not receive the necessary care and services and place residents at harm. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures titled, Competency Evaluation, dated 7/2019, indicated annually, each employee's competency will be review during performance evaluation review. The competency checklist will include at a minimum verification of the staff's skills on the assessment, evaluation, planning, and implementation of resident's plan of care and resident needs. The competency performance review will include of the most common procedures performed in the facility. CNA master competency worksheet indicated required for all CNAs annually. The same policy further indicated transfer/ambulation, transferring from bed to stretcher, and transferring from bed to wheelchair.
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
  • • 32% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 3 harm violation(s), $54,237 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 44 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $54,237 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in California. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (13/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 13/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Mid-Wilshire Health Care Cntr's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns MID-WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CNTR an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is Mid-Wilshire Health Care Cntr Staffed?

CMS rates MID-WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CNTR's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 32%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Mid-Wilshire Health Care Cntr?

State health inspectors documented 44 deficiencies at MID-WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CNTR during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 3 that caused actual resident harm, and 40 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Mid-Wilshire Health Care Cntr?

MID-WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CNTR 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 80 certified beds and approximately 73 residents (about 91% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in LOS ANGELES, California.

How Does Mid-Wilshire Health Care Cntr Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, MID-WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CNTR's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (32%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Mid-Wilshire Health Care Cntr?

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 Mid-Wilshire Health Care Cntr Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MID-WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CNTR 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 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in California. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Mid-Wilshire Health Care Cntr Stick Around?

MID-WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CNTR has a staff turnover rate of 32%, 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 Mid-Wilshire Health Care Cntr Ever Fined?

MID-WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CNTR has been fined $54,237 across 2 penalty actions. This is above the California average of $33,621. Fines in this range indicate compliance issues significant enough for CMS to impose meaningful financial consequences. Common causes include delayed correction of deficiencies, repeat violations, or care failures affecting resident safety. Families should ask facility leadership what changes have been made since these penalties.

Is Mid-Wilshire Health Care Cntr on Any Federal Watch List?

MID-WILSHIRE HEALTH CARE CNTR 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.