ANBERRY TRANSITIONAL CARE

1000 WEST YOSEMITE AVENUE, MERCED, CA 95341 (209) 783-9200
For profit - Partnership 120 Beds Independent Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
43/100
#737 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Anberry Transitional Care in Merced, California has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some significant concerns. It ranks #737 out of 1155 facilities in California, placing it in the bottom half overall, and #7 out of 10 in Merced County, meaning only a few local options are available that are rated higher. While the facility has shown improvement from 17 issues in 2024 to only 1 in 2025, there are still critical areas needing attention, such as the lack of consistent monitoring of residents' nutritional and hydration needs, exemplified by a serious incident where a resident experienced severe weight loss and dehydration due to staff neglect. Staffing is a relative strength with a 4/5 star rating and a turnover rate of 35%, which is lower than the state average, but there is concerning RN coverage, with less than 11% of California facilities providing more. Additionally, the facility incurred $7,443 in fines, which is average and suggests some compliance issues, but it is important to note that the facility has not had any life-threatening incidents reported.

Trust Score
D
43/100
In California
#737/1155
Bottom 37%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Better
17 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
35% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$7,443 in fines. Higher than 98% of California facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 19 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
28 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 17 issues
2025: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (35%)

    13 points below California average of 48%

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

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 35%

11pts below California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $7,443

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 28 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Mar 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality for one of three residents ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of quality for one of three residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1 was admitted with a pressure ulcer (a localized area of skin damage and underlying tissue that develops when prolonged pressure is applied to the body) of the sacral region (the area of the lower back and pelvis) and Resident 1 required to be turned and repositioned every two hours. Resident 1's care plans did not indicate Resident 1 be turned and repositioned every two hours and Resident 1's medical records did not indicate Resident 1 was turned and repositioned every two hours. This failure resulted in incomplete and inaccurate documentation of when Resident 1 was turned and repositioned and had the potential to result in the worsening of Resident 1's pressure ulcer and the potential of developing new pressure ulcers resulting in the death of Resident 1 on [DATE] with a diagnosis of septic shock (a life-threatening condition that occurs when an infection triggers a widespread inflammatory response that leads to dangerously low blood pressure and organ damage). Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (AR), the AR indicated, Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] and with a history of Hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and Hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (loss of blood flow to part of the brain) affecting left non-dominant side and Pressure Ulcer of sacral region unspecified stage. During a review of Resident 1's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS; an assessment of a resident's cognitive status; the ability to remember, concentrate, learn new things, and/or make decisions that affect their everyday life), dated [DATE], Resident 1's BIMS score was 12 (a score of 0 to 7 indicated severe impairment, 8 to 12 indicated moderate impairment, and 13 to 15 indicated minimal to no impairment). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS; process for clinical assessment of all residents of long-term care nursing facilities), dated [DATE], the MDS indicated, Resident 1's functional abilities was dependent (Helper does all the effort. Resident does none of the effort to complete the activity) on toileting hygiene (the ability to maintain cleanliness after voiding or bowel elimination) and rolling left and right (the ability to roll from lying on back to left and right side and return to lying on back on the bed). During a review of Resident 1's Clinical admission (CA), (undated), the CA indicated, . 72. Skin Issue. 73. Location . h. Coccyx (a small triangular-shaped bone located at the bottom of the spine) . Open wound . 77. Length (cm; centimeter; unit of measurement) 4 . 78. Width (cm) 0.5 . During a review of Resident 1's Wound Consultation (WC), dated [DATE], the WC indicated, . Wound Location: Coccyx a Stage 4 (full-thickness skin and tissue loss with exposed or directly palpable fascia; a thin, fibrous connective tissue that surrounds and supports all the structures in the body, muscle, tendon, ligament, cartilage, or bone) Type: Pressure. L (length in cm) 6 x (by) W (width in cm) 7 x D (depth in cm) UTD (unable to determine) . Plan: Implement pressure relieving measures and offloading as tolerated. – offload/reposition . Specialty Devices: Bed – Group 2: Low Air loss Mattress (a medical-grade mattress designed to prevent and treat pressure injuries by distributing weight, minimizing heat and moisture buildup, and promoting airflow through tiny air holes in the mattress surface) . During a review of Resident 1's WC, dated [DATE], the WC indicated, . Wound Location: . coccyx. L 9.5 x W 6.5 x D 3.4. R (right) heel L 4.4 x W 4.9 x D 0.1. L (left) trochanter (a bony prominence located at the upper end of the femur; thigh bone) L 1.5 x W 2.3 x D 0.4. L elbow L 0.3 x W 0.3 x D 0.1 . Plan: Offload/Reposition . Devices: Low Air loss Mattress . During a review of Resident 1's Progress Notes (PN), dated [DATE], the PN indicated, . Upon assessment patient was . nonresponsive to physical stimuli or verbal communication . Patient's BP (blood pressure) was noted to be dropping while oxygen was increasing . 1st (first) EMT (emergency medical technician) arrived at 0655 (6:55 a.m.) . and 3 EMT's departed facility in 1 (one) truck with patient at 0715 (7:15 a.m.) . During a review of Resident 1's hospital Final Report (FR), dated [DATE], the FR indicated, . admission Information: admit date : [DATE] 10:35 (p.m.) . Hospital Course: . In the ED (Emergency Department) here patient was noticed to be hypotensive (low blood pressure) with blood pressure of 57 x 48, hypoxic (low oxygen level) with O2 (oxygen) sats (saturation) in 60s and GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale; a neurological assessment tool used to evaluate a person's level of consciousness) 4 (a score of 1 indicating no response up to a score of 15 indicating fully responsive). Patient was intubated (a tube inserted into the lungs to assist with breathing) . Patient was then treated aggressively in the ICU (Intensive Care Unit) with a working diagnosis of septic shock likely from his urinary/infected decubitus ulcer (a skin lesion that develops when prolonged pressure on an area of the body restricts blood flow, leading to tissue damage) . Despite aggressive measures patient went into multiorgan failure became anuric (absence or significantly low production of urine) needing emergent Quinton catheter (a tunneled, double-lumen, flexible silastic catheter used for long-term central vascular access) and starting of dialysis (a medical procedure that removes waste products and excess fluid from the blood when the kidneys have failed) . But despite all the efforts patient's condition continued to deteriorate and later at night patient coded (when a person experience a cardiac or respiratory arrest and require immediate, life-saving resuscitation efforts) . Patient was pronounced dead on 3/26 ([DATE]) at 01:12 am (1:12 a.m.) . During a review of Resident 1's Interdisciplinary Team (IDT; a group of staff members consisting of nursing, dietary, rehabilitation, social services, activities, and administration who meet regularly to discuss incidents that occurred involving the well-being of residents and staff) Review, dated [DATE], the IDT Review indicated, . IDT Recommendations. 1. Nursing to monitor and provided wound tx (treatment) as ordered . Reposition q (every) 2 hrs (hours) and prn (as needed) . During a review of Resident 1's IDT Review, dated [DATE], the IDT Review indicated, IDT Recommendations. 1. Turning and repositioning – care plan updated . During a review of Resident 1's IDT Review, dated [DATE], the IDT Review indicated, IDT Recommendations. 1. Turning and repositioning – care plan updated – wound vac (a device that applies gentle suction to a wound to promote healing) to be placed [DATE] to sacrum . During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan Report (CPR), dated [DATE], the CPR indicated, Wound Management. admitted with bruising. admitted with open area to coccyx . Interventions: Monitor ulcer for signs of infection. Notify provider if no signs of improvement on current wound regimen. Provide wound care per treatment order. During a review of Resident 1's CPR, dated [DATE], the CPR indicated, Documented Pressure on admission . Interventions: Encourage Resident to frequently shift weight. Evaluate skin for areas of blanching or redness. Notify family of new onset finding. Notify provider if no signs of improvement on current wound regimen. Provide skin care per facility's guidelines and PRN as needed. Provide wound care per treatment order. During a review of Resident 1's CPR, dated [DATE], the CPR indicated, Upon my admission, I have an ADL (Activities of Daily Living; dressing, toileting, washing, feeding, mobility, and transferring) self-care performance deficit r/t (related to) HEMIPLEGIA AND HEMIPARESIS FOLLOWING CEREBRAL INFARCTION AFFECTING LEFT NON-DOMINANT SIDE. Goal: I am dependent on help to perform all of my ADLs and require staff assistance to meet all of my ADL needs . Interventions: Assist and meet ADL needs. Encourage to assist with ADLs as able. Encourage to attend/participate in therapy. Observe for decline in ADL function. Observe for improvement in ADL function. During a review of Resident 1's Roll Left and Right (RLR), dated [DATE] through [DATE], the RLR indicated, Resident 1 required substantial to dependent assistance. The times Resident 1 was rolled left and right indicated Resident 1 was not rolled left and right every two hours. On [DATE], the record indicated Resident 1 was rolled left and right at 1:36 a.m., 9:35 a.m., 8:37 p.m., and 11:48 p.m. On [DATE], the record indicated Resident 1 was rolled left and right at 3:54 a.m., 1:59 p.m., and 7:41 p.m. During an interview on [DATE] at 12:59 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated she was assigned to Resident 1 on [DATE]. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was immobile (incapable of moving or being moved) and was turned and repositioned every 2 hours. LVN 1 stated lying in one position longer than two hours will cause skin injuries. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:11 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), CNA stated she was assigned to Resident 1 on [DATE]. CNA stated Resident 1 was dependent on transfer and required the use of a hoyer lift (a mechanical device used to safely transfer individuals with limited mobility from one place to another) and was turned and repositioned every two hours. CNA stated Resident 1 was incontinent (unable to control bowel and bladder) and was toileted every two hours. CNA stated lying in one position longer than two hours will cause skin injuries. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:26 p.m. with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated she was the Treatment Nurse (a nurse assigned to provide wound care to residents with wounds). LVN 2 stated Resident 1 was incontinent and required the use of a hoyer lift. LVN 2 stated Resident 1 required wound care and turning and repositioning every two hours. LVN 2 stated turning and repositioning was required every two hours to alleviate pressure points on the body to prevent skin break down and to let wounds heal. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:40 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated Resident 1 had impaired mobility, was incontinent of bowel and had an indwelling foley catheter (a tube inserted into the bladder to collect urine). The DON stated staff was required to check Resident 1's briefs (adult diaper) and turn and reposition Resident 1 every two hours. The DON stated it was the standard of practice to prevent skin break down and promote wound healing by turning and repositioning residents with wounds every two hours. The DON stated Resident 1's care plan did not specify how often Resident 1 should be turned and repositioned and should have. The DON stated there was no documentation that Resident 1 was turned and repositioned every two hours and should have. The DON stated the facility recently added turning and repositioning every two hours as a task for CNAs to complete for residents who required turning and repositioning every two hours to reflect that care was provided as indicated. The DON stated complete and accurate documentation was a requirement. During an interview on [DATE] at 1:45 p.m. with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated Resident 1 was unable to articulate (verbally express) his needs. The ADM stated Resident 1's spouse visited Resident 1 every day and she was his advocate (a person who supports and defends the interests of a patient). The ADM stated Resident 1 had skin breakdown and required two people to assist with transfer. The ADM stated it was standard of practice to turn and reposition immobile residents every two hours to avoid skin breakdown and promote wound healing. The ADM stated documentation of turning and repositioning every two hours should be complete and accurate to reflect the care provided. During an interview on [DATE] at 11:09 a.m. with the Medical Doctor (MD), the Medical Doctor stated he specialized in wound care. The MD stated the standard of practice to turn and reposition residents with pressure ulcers was every two hours to relieve pressure to the injured area, to promote wound healing and prevent the formation of pressure ulcers. The MD stated care plans should indicate offloading devices and repositioning every two hours. The MD stated documentation should be complete and accurate to reflect the required care ordered and provided. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Wound and Skin Management, dated [DATE], the P&P indicated, Purpose: To maintain and/or improve tissue tolerance to pressure in order to prevent injury and/or infection and to assure that skin breakdown, and/or the potential for skin breakdown, is identified on admission and weekly thereafter as needed . Prevention: 1. The IDT, licensed nurses and CNAs are to ensure the following preventative measures are implemented for residents at risk for skin breakdown: . c. Ensure the resident is turned and repositioned as needed in bed and/or chair, if the resident can't do so independently . Intervention: 1. All staff are to take preventative measures for residents at risk for skin breakdown . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Turning and Repositioning Patients, dated [DATE], the P&P indicated, Purpose: To prevent skin breakdown and contractures while providing the patients with appropriate circulation and comfort. Policy: It is the policy of this facility that patients will be repositioned throughout the day as needed for their physical and medical wellbeing. Procedure: . 2. Patients are to be repositioned routinely based on their needs . During a professional reference review retrieved from https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000147.htm titled, Preventing pressure ulcers, dated [DATE], the professional reference indicated, Pressure ulcers are also called bedsores, or pressure sores. They can form when your skin and soft tissue press against a harder surface, such as a chair or bed, for a prolonged time. This pressure reduces blood supply to that area. Lack of blood supply can cause the skin tissue in this area to become damaged or die. When this happens, a pressure ulcer may form . Change your position every 1 to 2 hours to keep the pressure off any one spot .
Dec 2024 17 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

ADL Care (Tag F0677)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide personal hygiene for one of eight sampled resi...

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 personal hygiene for one of eight sampled residents (Resident 46) when Resident 46's fingernails were long and not cut. This failure had the potential to result in Resident 46 to develop skin infections or sustain skin injuries. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24 at 12:01p.m. in Resident 46's room, Resident 46 had long yellow fingernails. Resident 46 stated he did not like his fingernails long and wanted them cut or filed. Resident 46 stated he was a diabetic and long fingernails could have caused infections when he scratched his skin. Resident 46 stated he did not remember the last time staff cut or trimmed his fingernails. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/13/24 at 8:17 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 6, CNA 6 stated Resident 46's fingernails were long and should have been trimmed or cut. CNA 6 stated Resident 46's long fingernails were dirty and could have contained bacteria. CNA 6 stated Resident 46's long fingernails could have prevented him from holding a spoon and affected his meal intake. CNA 6 stated Resident 46 was a diabetic and he was not able to cut his long fingernails. CNA 6 stated he should have told the nurse about Resident 46's request to cut his long fingernail. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/13/24 at 8:35 a.m. with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated Resident 46's fingernails were long. The IP stated nurses should have cut Resident 46's fingernails. The IP stated, We cut them straight across and CNA should have filed them down. The IP stated Resident 46 was at risk for scratching himself and causing an infection to his skin. The IP stated Resident 46's overall hygiene was affected. The IP stated the nurses should have cut them monthly or as needed when they noticed the fingernails were too long. The IP stated nurses did not cut Resident 46's fingernails and she did not remember the last time they were cut. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 10:04 a.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing, ADON, the ADON stated, Residents with long fingernails were at risk for an infection when they scratch their skin. The DON stated Resident 46 could have injured himself with long fingernails. The ADON stated staff should have cut them every 2 weeks or as needed. The ADON stated Resident 46's fingernails should have been cut as soon as staff notice his fingernails were long. During a review of Resident 46's admission Record (AR - a summary of information regarding a patient which includes patient identification, past medical history, insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 12/13/24, the AR indicated Resident 46 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of transient ischemic attack (TIA - a short period of symptoms similar to those of a stroke, caused by a brief blockage of blood flow to the brain), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), candidiasis (a type of fungal infection) of skin and nails, type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition that happens when you have persistently high blood sugar level), resistance to multiple antibiotics, dependent on oxygen, muscle weakness, anxiety (feeling of fear, dread, and uneasiness that can be a normal reaction to stress), sleep apnea ( a sleep disorder characterized by repeated episodes of pauses in breathing during sleep). During a review of Resident 46's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify cognitive [mental processes] and physical functional level assessment), dated 10/23/24 the MDS section C indicated Resident 46 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test given by medical professionals to determine cognitive understanding on a scale of 1-15 ) score of 12 (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired, 13-15 suggests cognitively intact), which indicated Resident 46 was moderated impaired in cognition. During a review of Resident 46's Care plan (CP), dated 12/13/24, the CP indicated, .[box]Focus: The Resident has a ADL Self Care Performance Deficit R/T [related to] .[box]Interventions: .Nail care provided by Licensed staff as needed . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADL) dated 1/31/2022, the P&P indicated, .Residents are to be provided assistance as needed to maintain good personal hygiene including .e. cleaning and cutting of finger and toenails .
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of seventeen sampled residents (Resident 32...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of seventeen sampled residents (Resident 32 and 236) were free from unnecessary medications when: 1. Monitoring for behaviors and non-pharmaceutical interventions were not implemented for Resident 236 while administering anti-psychotic medications (a medication used to treat a collection of symptoms that affect your ability to tell what's real and what is not). 2. Resident 32 did not have monitoring orders for her anxiety and bipolar disorder in place upon her admission to the facility on [DATE]. These failures placed Resident 32 and Resident 236 at risk for receiving unnecessary antipsychotic medications and had the potential of preventing them from maintaining their highest practicable mental, physical, and psychosocial well-being. Findings: 1. During an observation on 12/9/24 at 12:25 p.m.in Resident 236's room, Resident 236 was observed eating his meal. Resident 236 began speaking very loud in his native language ([NAME]) and appeared angry when introduction made. During a review of Resident 236's admission Record (AR - a summary of information regarding a patient which includes patient identification, past medical history, insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 12/13/24, the AR indicated Resident 236 was admitted to the facility from the acute care hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses of urinary tract infection (UTI - an infection in the bladder/urinary tract), type 2 diabetes mellitus (when the blood sugar levels in the body are too high), legal blindness (loss of vision), dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life) and depression (feeling of sadness and loss of interest). During a review of Resident 236's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify cognitive [mental processes] and physical functional level assessment), dated 12/3/24, the MDS section C indicated Resident 236 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test given by medical professionals to determine cognitive understanding on a scale of 1-15 ) score of five (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired, 13-15 suggests cognitively intact), which suggested Resident 236 was severely impaired. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/24 at 3:35 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, Resident 236's Order Summary Report, undated was reviewed. The Order Summary Report indicated, . quetiapine fumarate (a medication used to treat schizophrenia [a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly], bipolar disorder [a disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs] and depression) tablet 25 mg (milligrams - a unit of measurement) give 0.5 tablet by mouth at bedtime for BPSD (behavioral and psychological symptoms of dementia) M/B (manifested by) highs and lows . LVN 2 stated monitoring for highs and lows were observed for highs if Resident 236 was happy and wanted to participate in activities. LVN 2 stated lows were if Resident 236 wanted to sleep and did not want to participate in anything but just felt down. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/24 at 3:38 p.m. with LVN 2, Resident 236's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 12/1/24-12/31/24 was reviewed. The MAR indicated no behavior monitoring was implemented for the administration of quetiapine. LVN 2 stated there was no behavior monitoring implemented for Resident 236 for quetiapine administration. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/13/24 at 12:21 p.m. with the Infection Preventionist (IP), Resident 236's Physician Summary Report, undated was reviewed. The Physician Summary Report indicated . monitor behavior of BPSD M/B highs and lows every shift . Resident 236's MAR, dated 12/1/24 to 12/31/24 was reviewed. The MAR indicated no monitoring for behaviors were implemented. The IP stated there was no monitoring of Resident 236's behavior. The IP stated it was important to monitor Resident 236's behaviors if he was on an anti-psychotic to be sure the medication was therapeutic (healing effect, making healthier). The IP stated if the medication was not therapeutic, the physician might need to adjust the dose or give an alternative form of therapy. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Care of Residents with Dementia, dated 1/31/22, indicated, . the interdisciplinary team is to care plan all individual interventions that will be carried out with the resident, including . non-pharmacological behavior interventions and possibly pharmacological treatment . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Medications, Psychotherapeutic Drugs, dated 1/31/22, indicated, . to provide a therapeutic environment using only those medications with a therapeutic value to individual residents . the interdisciplinary team should identify any resident who exhibits behavioral symptom(s) and is to institute behavioral tracking . monitor order as appears on the Medication Administration (for residents prescribed a psychotherapeutic medication) . documentation in the medical record should include the interdisciplinary team's (IDT) review of the resident's behavioral symptoms and the non-pharmacological interventions that were ineffective . all residents on psychotherapeutic drugs is to have behaviors tracked and medication side effects charted on the medication administration record . the IDT is to review the behavioral data, effectiveness of the medication, and any side effects of the medication . a monthly tally of behaviors and side effects is to be documented for physician review . 2. During a review of Resident 32's AR, dated 12/13/24, the AR indicated Resident 32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of bipolar disorder (a mental health condition characterized by significant and persistent mood swings between periods of extreme happiness and sadness, anxiety (an emotional state characterized by feelings of fear, worry, unease, and apprehension, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (when the blood sugar levels in the body are too high) During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/13/24 at 1:00 p.m. with Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDSN) 1, Resident 32's Order Summary Report, dated 10/14/24 was reviewed. The Order Summary Report indicated Resident 32 was prescribed duloxetine (medication which can treat sadness and anxiety), Seroquel (medication which can treat bipolar disorder) and Lorazepam (medication used to help treat anxiety). No behavioral monitoring was in place for Resident 32 in the month of October. MDSN 1 stated anytime a resident was prescribed psychotropic medications they also needed orders to monitor for any behaviors. MDSN 1 stated monitoring orders for Resident 32 were not in place upon her admission or in the month of October. MDSN 1 stated it was important to put in monitoring orders whenever a resident received psychotropic medications because it helped ensure the intended use of the medications was being achieved and it helped prevent any side effects from occurring. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/13/24 at 3:22 p.m. with the Admissions Nurse (AN), Resident 32's Order Summary Report, dated 10/14/24 was reviewed. The Order Summary Report indicated no behavioral monitoring was in place for Resident 32 in the month of October. The AN nurse stated when residents were admitted with psychotropic meds nurses needed to obtain a doctor's order to monitor for any side effects from the psychotropic medication and for unresolved behaviors related to their diagnoses. The AN stated Resident 32 did not have any monitoring orders in place when she was admitted into the facility on [DATE] and no orders were placed in the month of October. The AN stated it was important to monitor for behaviors in order to know if the medications given were effective. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 4:24 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated Resident 32 should have had behavior monitoring orders in place when she was admitted . The ADON stated she did not know why the orders were missed. The ADON stated if nurses were not monitoring any of her behaviors, they would not have been able to know if Resident 32's behaviors were improving. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Medications, Psychotherapeutic Drugs, dated 1/31/22, indicated, . to provide a therapeutic environment using only those medications with a therapeutic value to individual residents . the interdisciplinary team should identify any resident who exhibits behavioral symptom(s) and is to institute behavioral tracking . monitor order as appears on the Medication Administration (for residents prescribed a psychotherapeutic medication) . documentation in the medical record should include the interdisciplinary team's (IDT) review of the resident's behavioral symptoms and the non-pharmacological interventions that were ineffective . all residents on psychotherapeutic drugs are to have behaviors tracked and medication side effects charted on the medication administration record . the IDT is to review the behavioral data, effectiveness of the medication, and any side effects of the medication . a monthly tally of behaviors and side effects is to be documented for physician review .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0806 (Tag F0806)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of eight sampled residents (Resident 21) f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of eight sampled residents (Resident 21) food preferences were accommodated when halal (Halal food is prepared and processed in accordance with Islamic law and dietary standards outlined in the Quran) meat was not served. This failure had the potential to place Resident 21 at risk for not meeting his nutritional status and feeling worried and anxious about his health status. Finding: During an interview on 12/10/24 at 10:21 a.m. in Resident 21's room, Resident 21 stated he was not able to consume protein in the form of meat products. Resident 21 stated, he would like to have Halal meat and the facility was not able to accommodate to his food preferences. Resident 21 stated he was worried about his protein intake. Resident 21 stated he was ordering bone broth from online store so he can get some protein. Resident 21 stated, I want to consume meat and I want the facility to help me obtain my protein from halal meat. Resident 21 stated he has spoken to the Registered Dietitian (RD) and Certified Dietary Manager (CDM) about his request for halal meat. Resident 21 stated the facility was not able to accommodate his food preferences and asked his family to bring food to him. Resident 21 stated the facility was not able to provide halal meat, so he registered as a vegetarian. During an interview on 12/11/24 on 3:02 p.m. with the CDM, the CDM stated, Resident 21 wanted particular foods. The CMD stated in the past Resident 21 requested to consume fish. The CDM stated she was able to purchase food and provide halal meat for him. The CDM stated his family used to buy halal meat for him. The CDM stated she asked the family to bring food from home. The CDM stated the facility was able to warm the food for Resident 21. The CDM stated We can't just bring meat from outside source and cook for him. The CDM stated she saw Resident weekly and he agreed to lentils and eggs. The CDM stated it was important to honor resident food preferences to prevent weight loss. During an interview on 11/11/24 at 4:35 p.m. with the Administrator (ADM) the facility should have honored resident's preferences. The ADM stated the facility purchased halal meat from a reputable store. ADM stated it was important to accommodate food preferences for cultural reasons and to prevent weight loss. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 4:23 p.m. with the Registered Dietitian (RD), the RD stated, in the past Resident 21's family brought food from home. The RD stated she notified Resident 21 regarding the importance of consuming protein. The RD stated in the past Resident 21 requested his protein in the form of halal meat. The RD stated the facility was not able to accommodate his food preferences. The RD stated it was important to honor Resident 21's food preferences so he can enjoy his meals. The RD stated resident was at risk for weight loss when food preferences were not honored. The RD stated it was important to help honor Resident 21's food preferences to prevent weight loss. The RD stated the CDM was responsible to input the food preferences for Resident 21 in the tray card and to re-assess the food preferences quarterly (three months) and as needed when Resident requested. During a review of Resident 21's admission Record (AR - a summary of information regarding a patient which includes patient identification, past medical history, insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 12/13/24, the AR indicated Resident 21 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition that happens when you have persistently high blood sugar level), heart failure (a serious condition that occurs when the heart can't pump enough blood and oxygen to the body), atrial fibrillation (type of irregular heartbeat, or arrhythmia, that occurs when the upper chambers of the heart beat irregularly and often very quickly), hypertension (high blood pressure) and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 21's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify cognitive [mental processes] and physical functional level assessment), dated 10/17/23 the MDS section C indicated Resident 46 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test given by medical professionals to determine cognitive understanding on a scale of 1-15 ) score of 15 (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired, 13-15 suggests cognitively intact), which indicated Resident 21 was cognition intact. During a review of Resident 21's Dietary Tray Card undated the Dietary Tray Card indicated, .[line] Notes: provided Dal two bowls .[line]Dislikes: Meat (all kinds of meat). During a review of the facility's policy and procedures titled, Resident Food Preferences dated review date 4/30/17, the P&P indicated, .To enhance the resident's eating experience by providing food that they enjoy and request .b. Resident preferences are to be entered into the electronic tray care system .7. Ethnic food preferences should be taken into consideration for all resident and ethnic foods should be made available .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0807 (Tag F0807)

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 one of eight sampled residents (Resident 60) f...

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 one of eight sampled residents (Resident 60) fluid consistent with resident needs and preferences when Resident 60's standing order (a written instruction from a healthcare provider that authorizes nurses, pharmacists, or other healthcare professionals to perform specific tasks or administer treatments without the need for an individual order each time) included apple juice and Resident 60's dislikes included apple juice. This failure placed Resident 60 at risk of not having sufficient fluid intake to maintain proper hydration. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/9/24 at 1:09 p.m. in Resident 60's room, a cup of apple juice was on the lunch tray. Resident 60 stated, They don't always honor my food preferences. Resident 60 stated, I don't know why I have a standing order for apple juice. Resident 60 stated, I won't drink everyday but once in a while. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/11/24 at 12:39 p.m. in the dining room with the Certified Dietary Manager (CDM), the CDM confirmed Resident 60 had dislike of apple juice on her dietary tray ticket (DTT-menu based on the resident's diet order, standing orders and food preferences). The CDM stated Resident 60 had standing order for apple juice. The CMD stated she should have asked Resident 60 if she liked apple juice or disliked apple juice and removed it from the DTT. The CMD stated, she was responsible to update the DTT. The CDM stated it should have been updated to reflect Resident 60's juice preferences. The CDM stated Resident 60's food preferences were not honored. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 4:31 p.m. with the Registered Dietitian (RD), the RD stated Resident 60 was okay with drinking apple juice. The RD stated the likes and dislikes food preferences should be honored every time the food was served. The RD stated the Dietary Tray Ticket was confusing when it had a standing order for apple juice, one of her dislikes. The RD stated Resident 60 could have not meet her nutritional intake in fluids when she did not drink the apple juice. The RD stated Resident 60 was selective about her fluids and it was important for the staff to get her fluids correct. The RD stated Resident 60 could have lost weight and had a decrease in quality of life. The RD stated when staff did not input her likes and dislikes correctly, they did not honor her food preferences. During a review of Resident 60's admission Record (AR - a summary of information regarding a patient which includes patient identification, past medical history, insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 12/13/24, the AR indicated Resident 60 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of Ogilvie syndrome (condition characterized by severe dilation of the colon without any physical obstruction), hypotension (low blood pressure), pain, constipation, signs concerning food and fluid intake, shortness of breath and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 60's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify cognitive [mental processes] and physical functional level assessment), dated 11/6//24 the MDS section C indicated Resident 46 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test given by medical professionals to determine cognitive understanding on a scale of 1-15 ) score of 15 (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired, 13-15 suggests cognitively intact), which indicated Resident 60 was cognitively intact. During a record review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, . Resident Food Preferences dated review date 4//30/17, the P&P indicated, .To enhance the resident eating experience by providing food that they enjoy and request .b. Resident preferences to be entered into the electronic tray care system
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurate and complete medical records in accordance with pr...

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 accurate and complete medical records in accordance with professional standards of practices for one of nine sampled residents (Resident 59) when the Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST- a form that contains written medical orders for healthcare professionals regarding specific medical treatments that can or cannot be done at the end-of life) was not accurate and complete with section B (Medical Interventions) unmarked. This failure had the potential for Resident 59's decisions regarding treatment options and end of life wishes to not be honored. Findings: During a review of Resident 59's admission Record (AR - a summary of information regarding a patient which includes patient identification, past medical history, insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 12/13/24, the AR indicated Resident 59 was admitted to the facility from the acute care hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses of heart failure (a condition when the heart muscle doesn't pump enough blood to meet the body's needs which can cause fatigue and shortness of breath), kidney failure (a condition when the kidneys suddenly are unable to filter waste products from the blood), hemiplegia (paralysis [the loss of the ability to move and sometimes to feel anything] of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body that can affect the arms, legs, and facial muscles) following cerebral infarction (damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and pneumonia (an infection that affects one or both lungs, causing the air sacs of the lungs to fill with fluid). During a review of Resident 59's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify cognitive [mental processes] and physical functional level assessment), dated 11/11/24, the MDS section C indicated Resident 59 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test given by medical professionals to determine cognitive understanding on a scale of 1-15 ) score of 15 (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired, 13-15 suggests cognitively intact), which suggested Resident 59 was cognitively intact. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/13/24 at 12:41 p.m. with the Infection Prevention Nurse (IP), Resident 59's POLST, dated 11/7/24 was reviewed. The POLST indicated Section- B Medical Interventions, which contained wishes for . Full Treatment - primary goal of prolonging life by all medically effective means . Selective Treatment - goal of treating medical conditions while avoiding burdensome measures . Comfort-Focused Treatment - primary goal of maximizing comfort . was not marked. The IP stated Resident 59's POLST was not complete. The IP stated section B should have been completed. The IP stated the POLST was important in case of an emergency, the facility would want to do what the resident wished for end-of-life care. The IP stated if staff did not do what the resident wished for end-of-life care, it could cause harm to the resident. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 2:28 p.m. with the admission Nurse (AN), the AN stated a resident's POLST was important so staff would know what type of care to give a resident in an emergency. The AN stated if section B was not completed, the POLST would not be complete. The AN stated the POLST form would go with the resident if they were transferred out of the facility, so the receiving facility would know what the resident's wishes were for end-of -life care. During a review of the facility's job description document titled, Medical Records, undated, indicated, . initiate, facilitate and promote the accuracy of clinical records . ensures the quality of medical records by verifying their completeness, accuracy . create, implement and manage audit system of resident medical records to ensure accuracy and completion of documentation as ordered by the physician .
CONCERN (E)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to notify residents and residents' representatives (RP-person designated to make decisions for a resident) in writing of a resident's transfer ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to notify residents and residents' representatives (RP-person designated to make decisions for a resident) in writing of a resident's transfer to the hospital for four of eight residents (Resident 2, 16, 33, and 41) when the facility did not provide written notice to the resident or their RP when they were transferred to the hospital. This failure violated the rights of Residents 2, 16, 33, and 41 to be informed in writing of the reason for transfer to the hospital. Findings: During an interview on 12/24/24 at 2:39 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1, LVN 1 stated she had never sent a notification in writing to the resident or their RP whenever a transfer to the hospital occurred. LVN 1 stated if residents had an RP, nurses would call them, but no written notice was ever given to the RP regarding reason for transfer to the hospital. LVN 1 stated if residents or their RP's were not given a written notice for the reason for the hospitalization they may be unaware as to why the resident was sent to the hospital During an interview on 12/13/24 at 4:38 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated none of the nurses in the facility notified the resident or their RP in writing during transfers to the hospital, they would only call them. The ADON stated nurses needed to notify the resident or their RP in writing of transfer to the hospital because having notification in writing informed the decision maker of any changes in condition and allowed them to be aware of all the changes occurring to the resident. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Admission/Transfer/Discharge, undated, indicated . Prior to a transfer or discharge, this facility shall: Notify the resident, and if known, a family member or legal representative, 30 days in advance of the transfer or discharge or as soon as the discharge date is known. The resident/family member/legal representative will also be informed of the reason for the transfer or discharge. Exceptions to this would be a medical emergency, an improvement in the resident's condition and situations where the health and safety of other individuals is involved . Documentation regarding notification, orientation, preparation, etc., shall be contained in the resident's clinical records. Documentation will be made by appropriate personnel in the Nursing, Social Services, Activities, and Specialized Rehabilitation Departments .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide residents and residents' representatives (RP- a person designated to make decisions for a resident) written information regarding th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide residents and residents' representatives (RP- a person designated to make decisions for a resident) written information regarding the bed hold policy for four of eight sampled residents (Resident 2, 16, and 41) when no written notices about the facility's bed hold policy was given to residents or their RPs upon the residents' transfer to the hospital. This failure violated the right for residents and RPs to be notified in writing of the facility's bed hold policy. Findings: During an interview on 12/12/24 at 9:01 a.m. with the Business Office Manager (BOM), the BOM stated whenever residents were transferred to the hospital the business office would call the RP to let them know of the bed hold policy, but she would not send them a notification in writing. The BOM stated a written bed hold notification was only given to residents and their RPs on admission and no written notice was given upon transfer to the hospital. The BOM stated she was not aware RPs needed written information regarding bed holds to be given to them upon a residents transfer to the hospital. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 4:31 a.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) the ADON stated it was not a practice of the facility staff to notify residents and RPs in writing of the bed hold information upon a resident's transfer to the hospital. The ADON stated it was important to provide written notification because it helped ensure residents could read the information at their own pace and so they could be aware of their rights to return to their own bed in the facility. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Bed Hold, dated 1/31/22, indicated, .Documentation in the medical record should indicate how the resident or the resident's representative was notified on the transfer and right to hold their bed . A copy of the bed hold consent is to be sent with the resident to the acute hospital. A copy is to be sent to the resident or their representative .
CONCERN (E)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered c...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive person-centered care plans (CP - a detailed approach to care customized to an individual resident's needs) for two of 16 residents (Residents 231, and 235) when Resident 231 and Resident 235 did not have care plans for oxygen administration. This failure put Residents 231 and 235 at risk for harm due to improper monitoring, documentation and administration of oxygen use. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/09/24 at 11:56 a.m. in Resident 231's room, Resident 231 was observed in a gown, sitting in a wheelchair with oxygen infusing via a nasal cannula (a tube that delivers oxygen through the nose to people who have low oxygen levels). Resident 231 stated she had been in the facility for two days. Resident 231 stated she was in the facility due to having a mini stroke (stroke -(damage to tissues in the brain due to a loss of oxygen to the area). During a review of Resident 231's admission Record (AR - a summary of information regarding a patient which includes patient identification, past medical history, insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 12/13/24, the AR indicated Resident 231 was admitted to the facility from the acute care hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), and dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life). During a review of Resident 231's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify cognitive [mental processes] and physical functional level assessment), dated 12/11/24, the MDS section C indicated Resident 231 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test given by medical professionals to determine cognitive understanding on a scale of 1-15 ) score of 11 (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired, 13-15 suggests cognitively intact), which suggested Resident 231 was moderately impaired. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 2:46 p.m. with the Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDSN), the MDSN stated the admission Nurse (AN) should have started a care plan. The MDSN stated whoever took the order for oxygen use should have entered an oxygen care plan. The MDSN stated an oxygen care plan was important to assess and monitor the resident for shortness of breath if the resident was using oxygen. The MDSN stated staff needed to know the safety and precautions of oxygen use in residents. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/24 at 2:59 p.m. with the AN, Resident 231's Care Plan, undated was reviewed. The Care Plan indicated there was no oxygen use care plan in place for Resident 231. Resident 231's Order Summary Report was reviewed. The Order Summary Report indicated, . oxygen @ (at) 2L/min via n/c (nasal cannula), prn (as needed), to keep sats (oxygen saturation - the amount of oxygen circulating in the blood) at or above 90% as needed . The AN stated Resident 231 should have had a care plan for oxygen administration. The AN stated care plans are triggered by physician orders. The AN stated if a resident came in with oxygen and there was an order, she would have put in a care plan on admission. The AN stated residents should have had a care plan if they required oxygen as needed or continuous flow. The AN stated care plans were important as they gave a breakdown of what was to be done for the resident. The AN stated care plans addressed interventions to be administered and what the goals were for the resident. The AN stated if there was not a care plan in place for the resident, staff would not have met goals set for the resident, interventions would not be administered for the resident. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 5:50 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, LVN 3 stated care plans were important for staff to know how to give the right care to the resident. LVN 3 stated there was the potential for the resident to not receive the right care if the resident's care plan was not specific to the resident. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 3:38 p.m. with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated the care plan should have been in place for Resident 231 for staff to follow the plan of care for the resident and to be sure staff was doing what they needed to for Resident 231. LVN 2 stated a care plan for oxygen use would have also included oxygen safety for staff and the resident. LVN 2 stated if there was no care plan in place, resident's care would not have been followed appropriately which could have caused a negative outcome. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24 at 11:20 a.m. with Resident 235 in Resident 235's room, Resident 235 was observed dressed in bed wearing oxygen tubing with a nasal cannula. Resident 235 stated she was on oxygen which was usually set at a rate of 2 L/min. Observed Resident 235's oxygen flow rate set at 4.5 L/min. Resident 235 stated her oxygen flow seemed high. During a review of Resident 235's AR dated 12/12/24, the AR indicated Resident 235 was admitted to the facility from the acute care hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses of emphysema (a chronic lung disease in which the air sacs may be destroyed, making it difficult to breath. Also referred to as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - COPD), pleural effusion (a buildup of fluid between the tissues that line the lungs and the chest, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), acute kidney failure (a condition when the kidneys suddenly are unable to filter waste products from the blood), atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm), intestinal obstruction (a blockage that keeps food or liquid from passing through the small intestine or large intestine), and surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system. During a review of Resident 235's MDS dated 11/27/24, the MDS section C indicated Resident 235 had a BIMS score of 15 which suggested Resident 235 was cognitively intact. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/24 at 2:46 p.m. with the MDSN, the MDSN, Resident 235's Care Plan, undated was reviewed. The Care Plan indicated there was no care plan for oxygen administration for Resident 235. The MDSN stated the admission Nurse (AN) should have started a care plan. The MDSN stated whoever took the order for oxygen use for Resident 235 should have entered an oxygen care plan. The MDSN stated an oxygen care plan was important to assess and monitor the resident for shortness of breath if the resident was using oxygen. The MDSN stated staff needed to know the safety and precautions of oxygen use in residents. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/24 at 2:59 p.m. with the AN, Resident 235's Care Plan, undated was reviewed. The Care Plan indicated there was no oxygen use care plan in place for Resident 235. Resident 235's Order Summary Report was reviewed. The Order Summary Report indicated, . oxygen @ 2L/min via n/c, prn, to keep sats at or above 90% as needed . The AN stated Resident 235 should have had a care plan for oxygen administration. The AN stated care plans are triggered by physician orders. The AN stated if a resident came in with oxygen and there was an order, she would have put in a care plan on admission. The AN stated nurses should have checked the physician's orders for oxygen administration for Resident 235 and put in a care plan. The AN stated Resident 235 should have had a care plan if she required oxygen as needed or continuous flow. The AN stated care plans were important as they gave a breakdown of what was to be done for the resident. The AN stated care plans addressed interventions to be administered and what the goals were for the resident. The AN stated if there was not a care plan in place for the resident, staff would not have met goals set for the resident and interventions would not be administered for the resident. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 5:50 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, LVN 3 stated care plans were important for staff to know how to give the right care to the resident. LVN 3 stated there was the potential for the resident to not receive the right care if the resident's care plan was not specific to the resident. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 3:38 p.m. with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated the care plan should have been in place for Resident 235 for staff to follow and to be sure staff was doing what they needed to for Resident 235. LVN 2 stated a care plan for oxygen use would have also included oxygen safety for staff and the residents. LVN 2 stated if there was no care plan in place, Resident 235's care might not have been followed appropriately which could have caused a negative outcome. During a review of the facility's job description document titled, MDS Coordinator, undated, the job description indicated, . manages resident assessment schedule to ensure timely completion of assessments and comprehensive care plan . initiates, develops and completes a comprehensive assessment and written care plan in collaboration with the interdisciplinary team that identifies the resident centered medical problems and/or needs and goals to be accomplished for each problem and/or need identified . completes resident interviews and bedside assessment needed for completion of the comprehensive assessment and care plan . ensure that all nursing services personnel are aware of the care plan and that care plans are used in providing daily nursing services to the resident . review nurses' notes and monitor residents to determine if the care plans are being followed . During a review of the facility's job description document titled, admission Nurse, dated 4/8/2016, indicated, . responsible for the complete admission assessment, order reconciliation and communication with the attending physician of each resident admitted to the facility . plans, implements and evaluates resident care specific to each resident admitted . initiates the resident care plan after completing the admission assessment . During a review of the facility's job description titled, Charge Nurse, Licensed Vocational Nurse, LVN, undated, indicated, . participates in the development of an individualized plan of care . implement plan of care consistently, effectively . with focus on resident centered outcomes . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Care Plans, dated 7/1/2015, indicated, . to standardize the development and update of resident care plans that outline care to be provided to the resident . based on comprehensive assessment the interdisciplinary team (IDT) will develop quantifiable objectives for the highest level of functioning the resident may be expected to attain . the comprehensive care plan is initiated at the time of admission to the facility . the resident's care plan will identify the professional services that are responsible for each element of the resident's care .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals (a substance such as vaccines or drugs derived from a living organism used for treatment) were s...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals (a substance such as vaccines or drugs derived from a living organism used for treatment) were stored and labeled in accordance with currently accepted professional standards of practice when: 1. The refrigerator in section 300-Medroom contained an antibiotic with an unreadable expiration date. Carts 200-Backside and 300-B contained : one of five inhalers (medications used to treat respiratory disease with a mist or spray that the patient breathes in through the nose or mouth) had an expiration date of 11/2/24, lactulose (a medication used to decrease the amount of ammonia in the blood) had an expiration date of 12/2/24, 11 of 143 pill packets had expired dates in November, 26 of 60 ferrous gluconate (a medication to treat low iron in the blood) expired 5/24, combined with new packets of pills individually packaged with date of 1/27 one of one bottle of folic acid (a mineral) did not have a readable expiration date on the bottle, one of four bottles of insulin (a medication used to lower the amount of sugar in the blood) had an expiration date of 12/4/24, and one of 161 pill packets (a packet that contains a set number of medication pills of the same brand in individual pop-out wrapping) was expired. These failures had the potential for residents to receive expired medications resulting in medication ineffectiveness (not producing any significant or desired effect), and adverse (unintended) reactions. 2. Medication cart was left unlocked while administering medications to residents. This failure had the potential for residents and non-licensed staff to have access to unprescribed (advise and authorize the use of a medicine or treatment) medication putting residents at risk of medication adverse reactions. 3. Two loose white pills were found on Resident 189's bedside table while she was out of her room. This failure had the potential to cause other residents, staff, or visitors, to enter Resident 189's room and take the unsecured medications, and for Resident 189 to not receive medications prescribed by her doctor to treat her medical condition Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/12/24 at 9:17 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 and the Infection Prevention Nurse (IP) in the medication room in section 300, the medication refrigerator was observed to have an antibiotic (a medication that fights bacterial infection) with an unreadable expiration date. The IP stated the expiration date was written over with another date in pen. The IP stated the expiration date was unreadable. The IP stated staff should not have written over the original expiration date but should have called the pharmacist to obtain an updated label. The IP stated expired medications could cause a reaction (an unplanned response) if used or be ineffective (not produce the desired effect). During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/12/24 at 5:15 p.m. with LVN 3 at the nurses' station, cart 300-B was observed to contain one bottle of folic acid with an unreadable expiration date and one vial of insulin with and expired date of 12/9/24. LVN 3 stated the folic acid and insulin should not have been in the medication cart. LVN 3 stated if the expiration date was unreadable, the medication could have been expired. LVN 3 stated if residents received expired medication, the medication might not work, or the resident could have a bad side effect from the expired medication. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/13/24 at 3:51 p.m. with LVN 9 in the East Wing, Cart 200-Backside was observed to have one of five inhalers with an expiration date of 11/2/24, one of one bottle of lactulose with an expiration date of 12/2/24, 26 of 60 individually packaged ferrous gluconate, and 11 of 143 pill packets with expiration dates of 11/2024. LVN 9 stated expired medications should not have been in the medication cart. LVN 9 stated expired medications might not have worked as intended on the resident. LVN 9 stated giving residents expired medications could have caused more harm than good to the resident. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/11/24 at 4:28 p.m. with LVN 7 in section 300 west hallway, LVN 7 was observed leaving the medication cart unlocked while administering resident medication in the resident's room. LVN 7 stated she could see the medication cart when she was giving medication to the residents. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 3:52 p.m. with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated medication carts should not have been unlocked when nurses stepped away to give resident medications. LVN 2 stated even if the medication cart was in the nurses' line-of-site, medication carts should have been kept locked so no unauthorized person could have taken medications from the medication cart. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medications Storage, dated 1/31/22, indicated, . store medications, drugs, and biologicals in a safe, secured and properly temperature controlled environment . all medications, drugs and biologicals are to be stored in a safe, secure and orderly manner . accessible to only licensed nurses and the pharmacist . medication labels are to be legible . medications are to be stored in the facility in a locked medication room or medication cart that is accessible to only authorized persons . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Administration, dated 1/31/22, indicated, . medications are to be administered from containers, bubble packs or bottles that are clearly marked with the name of the medication, concentration, dose, route and expiration date . the medication cart should be under the licensed nurse's supervision at all times when administering medications. The cart is to be locked whenever the nurse walks away from the cart . 3. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/9/24 at 11:38 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 7 in Resident 189's room, two loose white pills were found on Resident 189's bedside table while she was out of her room. LVN 7 stated the two unknown pills should not have been left out and unsecured. LVN 7 stated anyone could have entered the room and taken the unknown pills. LVN 7 stated nurses were supposed to watch the resident take all their medications and if any weren't taken, the nurse would destroy or secure the medication. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 9:00 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2, CNA 2 stated if he ever saw any loose pills in the facility, he would let the nurses know in order for them to dispose of the medications. CNA 1 stated it was important for medications to always be secured because having loose pills lying around could cause another resident to take them and experience bad side effects. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 4:20 p.m. with LVN 8, LVN 8 stated if any unknown loose pills were found in a resident's room, he would ensure the medications were disposed of because other residents may wander in the room and take a potentially harmful medication. LVN 8 stated all nurses needed to ensure residents took all of their medications in front of them, otherwise medications could have been missed. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 4:24 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated no pills should have been left unsecured on a resident's bedside table. The ADON stated the nurse who administered the pills to Resident 189 should have ensured the resident took every pill to avoid having unknown medications lying around. The ADON stated it was important to ensure all prescribed medications were taken because if any medications were missed Resident 189 may not have gotten the therapeutic effect of their medication. The ADON stated loose pills may also attract other residents to wander in the room and take them. During a review of Resident 189's admission Record AR - a summary of information regarding a patient which includes patient identification, past medical history, insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 11/22/24, indicated Resident 189 was admitted with the following diagnoses: cellulitis (infection of the skin that causes redness and swelling), hyperlipidemia (when there are high levels of fats in the blood), Vitamin D deficiency (when the body does not have enough vitamin D which is responsible for strong bones and muscles), hypokalemia (condition where the potassium [minerals in the body that help muscles move] levels in the body are low), hypertension (when the force of blood circulating in your body is too high). During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Medication Storage, dated 1/31/22, indicated, . 4. Medications are to be stored in the facility in a locked medication room or medication cart that is accessible to only authorized persons .
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 menus were followed for 16 Residents (Resident 5, 7, 13, 18, 23, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 41, 44, 45, 52, 60, 281) when a d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure menus were followed for 16 Residents (Resident 5, 7, 13, 18, 23, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 41, 44, 45, 52, 60, 281) when a dessert was served that was not on the planned and approved menu. This failure had the potential to result in 16 residents having a decreased intake of nutrients and lower satisfaction and interest of the meal as the resident could have been looking forward to receiving the planned and approved dessert menu item. Findings: During a review of Winter Menus for Monday 12/9/24, (undated), the Winter Menus indicated the lunch served on Monday included, .Southern Style Beef Pattie, Cream Gravy, Mashed Potatoes, Garlic Parmesan Spinach, Parsley Sprig Garnish, Wheat Roll, Margarine [butter] Ambrosia Pudding with 2 sl [slices] mandarin oranges/ 1 tsp [teaspoon] coconut . During an observation on 12/9/24 at 12:36 p.m., in the kitchen at tray line, resident trays at the end of tray line had different desserts placed on the resident trays. Sixteen Residents (Resident 5, 7, 13, 18, 23, 28, 32, 33, 35, 36, 41, 44, 45, 52, 60, 281) received gelatin with whipped topping on their trays instead of ambrosia pudding. During an interview on 12/9/24 at 12:52 p.m. with Dietary Aide (DA) 1, DA 1 stated these residents received a different dessert than what was on the menu because they had leftover gelatin from the day before. DA 1 stated the cook last night made less of the ambrosia pudding so they could use up the remaining gelatin dessert, so it didn't go bad. During an observation on 12/10/28 at 12:58 p.m. at the Resident Menu Board, the posted menu for the week stated lunch for Monday December 9 is, Southern Style Beef Pattie, Cream Gavy, Mashed Potatoes, Garlic Parmesan, Spinach, Wheat Roll, Ambrosia Pudding. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 10:20 a.m. with the Registered Dietitian (RD), the RD stated she expects the staff to follow menus. The RD stated she has not heard of staff changing the menu before. The RD stated, I understand the staff knows they are not supposed to make any changes or if something runs out, they would need to consult with the RD first. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 12:31 p.m. with the Director of Nutritional Services (DNS), the DNS stated the dessert change that occurred on Monday, 12/9/24, was an isolated incident. The DNS stated this menu change was an oversight. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Menus, dated 5/1/2016, the P&P indicated, . 4. Menus will be written and posted in the facility at least one week in advance of service. Menus will be posted in the kitchen, dining rooms, and resident accessible areas 8. Menus will be planned with three meals per day consisting of breakfast, lunch and dinner .
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, two of two Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN 4 and LVN 7) failed to implement ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, two of two Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVN 4 and LVN 7) failed to implement and maintain infection control practices to provide a safe and sanitary environment to help prevent the development and transmission of infections when: 1. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4 failed to don appropriate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) prior to entering an isolation room. 2. LVN 7 failed to perform hand hygiene (the cleansing of hands with soap and water, antiseptic hand washes, and antiseptic hand rubs such as alcohol-based hand sanitizers) before and after administering medications. 3. LVN 7 failed to sanitize a glucometer (a device used to measure the amount of sugar in the blood, typically using a small drop of blood placed on a test strip) according to manufacturer's instructions before placing it back in the medication cart. These failures put residents at risk of acquiring healthcare associated infections (infections that patients get while or soon after receiving health care) and blood born infections (viruses that are carried in the blood). Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/11/24 at 12:05 p.m. with LVN 4 in the 300-Wing hallway, LVN 4 was observed entering an isolation room without donning an isolation gown (a protective article used by medical personnel to avoid exposure to blood, body fluids, and other infectious [likely to spread infection] materials, or to protect patients from infection) to administer medication. LVN 4 verified the notice on the resident's door frame which indicated the appropriate PPE to don prior to entering the resident's room as: gloves, gown, and mask. LVN 4 stated the resident was in isolation due to an E. coli (a bacteria found in the gut) infection. LVN 4 stated she should have put a gown on before entering the resident's room. LVN 4 stated she could have spread the E. coli infection to other residents by not donning a gown prior to entering the resident's room. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/11/24 at 4:43 p.m. with LVN 7 in the 300-Wing hallway, LVN 7 was observed starting a nebulizer (a device that changes medication from a liquid to a mist so it can be inhaled into the lungs) on a resident in room [ROOM NUMBER]. LVN 7 was then observed pulling medications for another resident in room [ROOM NUMBER] without performing hand hygiene. LVN 7 stated she should have performed hand hygiene before and after giving medications from one resident to another. LVN 7 stated she could have spread infection if she did not perform hand hygiene. 3. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/11/24 at 4:47 p.m. in the 300-Wing hallway, LVN 7 was observed wiping a glucometer after performing a blood glucose check and placing it back into the medication cart without letting it sit in the sanitizing solution for the appropriate dwell time (contact time). LVN 7 stated she wiped the glucometer and let it air dry for two minutes. LVN 7 stated she did not know about wrapping the glucometer in a burrito with the sanitation wipes for the two-minute dwell time. LVN 7 stated she had not been trained to perform that procedure when sanitizing the glucometer. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 3:48 p.m. with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated nurses should have been doing hand hygiene in-between residents. LVN 2 stated staff should have been doing hand hygiene before entering and exiting resident rooms. LVN 2 stated if hand hygiene was not performed, staff could transfer infection to other residents. LVN 2 stated signs were posted on resident's room doors if the resident was on isolation and what PPE was required before entering the room. LVN 2 stated the isolation signs were for anyone who entered the resident's room. LVN 2 stated donning the appropriate PPE stopped staff from getting the infection and spreading it to other residents. LVN 2 stated it did not matter how long staff was in the isolated resident's room. LVN 2 stated even if a nurse went into the isolated resident's room and gave medication, the nurse should have donned a gown. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Isolation Precautions in Long Term Care, dated 4/30/22, indicated, . to prevent the spread of infections in the facility in order to keep residents, staff and visitor safe . the IP (Infection Preventionist) in collaboration with the physician will determine necessary isolation precautions . isolation is implemented and maintained . to prevent the spread of infection . wash hands before and after resident contact and after removing gloves . staff should wear a moisture resistant gown . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Personal Protective Equipment, dated 4/30/22, indicated, . Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) is required for healthcare personnel who may be subject to hazardous environmental conditions that could cause injury, illness or impairment . this policy outlines the facility's actions in preventing the spread of community and healthcare associated infections . it is the policy that all employees will use the appropriate PPE when providing resident care or working in resident care areas . isolation carts are to be set up outside the resident's room with all PPE that is needed to enter the room and provide proper care . Infection Preventionist is to ensure that empolyees are properly trained on the use of PPE, donning & doffing procedures, and when to use specific types of PPE based on the exposure to hazards . gowns are also worn to prevent the transfer of infectious agents from the resident's skin, clothing, bedding and environmental surfaces to the HCP (healthcare provider) bare skin and clothing . hand hygiene should be performed following gown and glove removal . gowns should be worn when . entering a Contact Precaution room . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Hand Hygiene, dated 4/30/22, indicated . to decrease the risk of transmission of infections between persons . hand washing/hygiene is considered the most important single procedure for preventing the spread of infections . prior and after resident care regardless of whether gloves were worn or not . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Cleaning Point of Care Equipment (Blood Glucose Meter), dated 4/30/22, indicated, . to prevent the transmission of bloodborne pathogens by cleaning point of care equipment . it is the policy of this facility to clean all point of care equipment, including blood glucose meters, according to manufacturer's recommendations. Point of care equipment will not be used between two residents without being cleaned according to the manufacturer's recommendations . During a review of the glucometer manufacturer's manual section six titled, Caring for the Meter, undated, indicated, . the EVENCARE G3 Meter should be cleaned and disinfected between each patient . clean the meter surface with one of the approved disinfecting wipes . allow the surface of the meter to remain wet at room temperature for the contact time listed on the wipe's directions for use . wipe the meter dry, or allow to air dry . During a review of the germicidal wipes manufacturer's documentation titled, Micro-Kill Bleach Germicidal Bleach Wipes technical data bulletin, dated 2023, indicated, . durable, low lint polyester cloth features a bleach solution equivalent to a 1:10 dilution of 6.5% bleach proven to kill 62 microorganisms . with a 3-minute contact time . During a review of the germicidal wipes manufacturer's documentation titled, Micro-Kill One Germicidal Alcohol Wipes technical data bulletin, undated, indicated, . is a durable polypropylene cloth that features a quaternary ammonium and alcohol solution to kill 25 microorganisms . with a 1-minute contact time .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility failed to inform and provide written information on how to formulate an advance directive (a legal document that outlines a person's wishes regarding ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility failed to inform and provide written information on how to formulate an advance directive (a legal document that outlines a person's wishes regarding their medical care in the event they become unable to make decisions for themselves due to illness or injury) for 87 of 87 residents when staff did not document information on how to obtain an advance directive in resident charts. This failure violated the rights of 87 residents to be informed on how to formulate and obtain an advance directive. Findings: During an interview on 12/11/24 at 10:28 a.m. with the Medical Records Director (MRD), the MRD stated the facility did not help residents obtain an advance directive, they refer the resident to someone else such as their primary physician to get an advance directive completed. The MRD stated the facility will only keep a resident's advance directive on file in their chart if a resident came in with one. The MRD stated if a resident did not have an existing advance directive when they came into the facility no education or information on how to obtain an advance directive will be documented in the resident's chart. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 10:34 a.m. with Social Services Director Assistant (SSDA) 1, SSDA 1 stated if a resident or their family wanted an advance directive the resident or their family would get directed to follow up with the Long Term Care Ombudsman (LTCO) in order to have the LTCO help them obtain an advance directive. SSDA 1 stated no documentation was put in resident's charts regarding advance directives. SSDA 1 stated it was important to ensure proper documentation was present regarding how to obtain an advance directive because an advance directive ensured a resident's wishes for end of life were followed. During an interview on 12/11/23 at 10:47 a.m. with the Intake Coordinator (IC), the IC stated if a resident came into the facility and did not have an advance directive but would like one, the facility staff would direct the resident to go to their primary physician for assistance in obtaining one. The IC stated staff did not keep documentation in resident charts regarding communication to the resident or their family on how to obtain an advance directive. The IC stated documentation on how to obtain an advance directive was important because an advance directive would allow a resident's last wishes to be honored if they became too ill to make their own decisions. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 4:31 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) the ADON stated it was not a practice of the facility to document on any resident's chart whether or not they provided education and information to residents on how to obtain an advance directive. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Advance Health Care Directive (AHCD), dated 4/30/22, indicated, . 6. If the resident is not able to discuss an advance health care directive due to his/her condition, the social service designee is to review when the resident and/or representative is ready to discuss his/her wishes .7. Social Services designee is to document discussions with the resident and/or representative in the resident's medical record .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan (CP-...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to revise and implement a person-centered comprehensive care plan (CP- road map for the care of a resident and a necessary tool in following the nursing process) for one of eight sampled residents (Resident 45) when the care plan was not updated to reflect discharge from hospice (end of life) service. This failure had the potential for Resident 45's needs to not be meet. Findings: During an interview on 12/10/24 at 9:38 p.m. in Resident 45's room with Family Member (FM) 1, FM 1 stated her mother was no longer on hospice services. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/11/24 at 11:23 a.m. with License Vocation Nurse (LVN) 5, LVN 5 stated Resident 45 had been on hospice but was discharged from hospice on 11/16/24. LVN 5 stated the care plan for hospice should have been updated on the same day Resident 45 was discharged from hospice. LVN 5 stated the business office and primary physician were notified when Resident 45 was discharged from hospice. LVN 5 stated she received a verbal order from the hospice agency to discharge Resident 45 on 11/16/24. LVN 5 stated she documented the conversation on Resident 45's chart. LVN 5 stated the care plan for hospice should have been discontinued. LVN 5 stated Resident 45's care plan should have been updated when there was a change in condition (CIC-refer to a resident's health or functioning that is either short term or significant) LVN 5 stated a discharge from hospice was considered a changed in condition. LVN 5 stated Resident 45's care plan tells the nurses how to care for her and it was something the nurses needed to follow. LVN 5 stated, It should be updated because it is the care plan we are following. LVN 5 stated an incorrect care plan could have led to lack of communication for staff. LVN 5 stated care plans were individualized and specific to each resident's needs. LVN 5 stated licensed nurses should have updated the care plan. LVN 5 stated it was not done for Resident 45. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 11:56 a.m. with Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDSN) 2, MDSN 2 stated Resident 45 had a significant change in condition and the care plan should have been updated when she was discharged from hospice. MDSN 2 stated it was important for care plan to be updated when Resident 45 was no longer receiving hospice services. MDSN 2 stated Resident 45's care plan was used for communication with other healthcare team members, and it should have been done. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 3:26 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated the MDSN should have updated and reviewed the care plan when there was a change in condition. The ADON stated updating care plan was part of the job description for licensed nurses. The ADON stated Resident 46's care plan was not patient specific and individualized when it was not updated. The ADON stated all care plans were specific to each resident's care. The ADON stated Resident 45's care plan should have been updated when she was discharged from hospice, and it was not done. During a review of Resident's admission Record (AR-a document with personal identifiable and medical information), dated 12/12/24 the AR indicated, Resident 45 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses which included hemiplegia ( a neurological condition that causes paralysis or weakness on one side of the body/0 and hemiparesis (condition that causes weakness or an inability to move on one side of the body) following cerebral infraction (a serious condition that occurs when blood flow to the brain is blocked, leading to brain cell death), hypertension (high blood pressure- is when the pressure in your blood vessels is too high (140/90 mmHg or higher), anxiety (feeling of fear, dread, and uneasiness that can be a normal reaction to stress ), severe protein-caloric malnutrition (a condition that occurs when someone doesn't consume enough protein, calories, and other essential nutrients), muscle weakness and pain. During a review of Resident 45's Physician Order (PO), dated 11/16/24, the PO indicated, .Created Date 11/16/24 00:16 [line] Communication Method: Verbal .Order Summary: Admit to [Hospice Agency Name] hospice: Dx: Hemiplegia following cerebral infection [infraction] affecting left non-dominant side. [line]Discontinue: 11/16/24 .Discontinue Date/Reason: pt requesting bx (biopsy) from oncology, hospice dc [discharged ] . During a review of Resident 45's [Facility Name] Transitional Care- Progress Note (PN), dated 11/15/24, the PN indicated, .Note Text: Per hospice RN [nurse name] patient came off hospice today d/t patient is pending a biopsy on 11/18/24 with an oncologist . During a review of Resident 45's Care plan (CP) dated 12/13/24, the CP indicated, .[box] Resolved:1 The resident was admitted to [hospice Agency Name] Hospice: Dx: Hemiplegia following cerebral infarction affecting left non-dominant side .Resolved date: 11/28/2024. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Care Plans dated revision date 7/1/2014, the Care Plans indicated, .2. The care plan will be reviewed and revised by the IDT [ Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meeting is a collaborative meeting where professionals from different disciplines work together to plan and coordinate resident care] after each resident's assessment, quarterly and more often as warrant by the changes in the resident's condition .4. The resident's care plan will be updated as changes occur including, but not limited to .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of practice for four of 16...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to meet professional standards of practice for four of 16 sampled residents (Resident 46, Resident 231, Resident 233, and Resident 235) when: 1. Resident 46, Resident 231 and Resident 235's oxygen tubing were not labled with the date the tubing was changed. This failure put Residents 46, 231 and 235 at risk of infection. 2. The Attending Physician (AP) was not notified when Resident 233's medication for hypertension (high blood pressure) was not given due to low blood pressure levels. This failure put resident 233 at risk of harm due to low blood pressure levels. 3. Resident 235's physician order (a set of instructions written by a doctor for clinicians to follow when caring for a resident) for oxygen flow rate was for 2 L/min (liters per minute - a unit of measurement) and it was set at 4.5 L/min. This failure resulted in Resident 235 receiving too much oxygen and had the potential to result shortness of breath and respiratory distress (difficulty breathing) for Resident 235. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/09/24 at 11:50 a.m. in Resident 46's room, Resident 46 had no date on his nasal cannula tubing (a device that gives you additional oxygen through your nose). During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24 at 4:41 p.m. in Resident 46's room, LVN 6 confirmed no date was on the nasal cannula tubing. LVN 6 stated the nasal cannula tubing should have been labeled with a date. LVN 6 stated, it was important to date the nasal cannula tubing to ensure when it was last changed. LVN 6 stated, night nurses were responsible for changing the nasal cannula tubing weekly. LVN 6 stated, Resident 46 was at risk for an infection when the nasal cannula was not changed weekly. During a review of Resident 46's admission Record (AR - a summary of information regarding a patient which includes patient identification, past medical history, insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 12/13/24, the AR indicated Resident 46 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses of transient ischemic attack (TIA - a short period of symptoms similar to those of a stroke, caused by a brief blockage of blood flow to the brain), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), candidiasis (a type of fungal infection) of skin and nails, type 2 diabetes mellitus, resistance to multiple antibiotics, dependent on oxygen, muscle weakness, anxiety (feeling of fear, dread, and uneasiness that can be a normal reaction to stress), sleep apnea ( a sleep disorder characterized by repeated episodes of pauses in breathing during sleep). During a review of Resident 46's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify cognitive [mental processes] and physical functional level assessment), dated 10/23/24 the MDS section C indicated Resident 46 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test given by medical professionals to determine cognitive understanding on a scale of 1-15 ) score of 12 (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired, 13-15 suggests cognitively intact), which indicated Resident 46 was moderated impaired in cognition. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/09/24 at 11:56 a.m. with Resident 231 in Resident 231's room, Resident 231 was observed in a gown sitting in a wheelchair with oxygen (O2) infusing via a nasal cannula (a tube that delivers oxygen through the nose to people who have low oxygen levels). Resident 231's O2 nasal cannula was observed to not have the date the oxygen tubing was changed. Resident 231 stated she had been in the facility for two days. During a review of Resident 231's admission Record (AR - a summary of information regarding a patient which includes patient identification, past medical history, insurance status, care providers, family contact information and other pertinent information), dated 12/13/24, the AR indicated Resident 231 was admitted to the facility from the acute care hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a chronic lung disease causing difficulty in breathing), type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM-a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), and dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life). During a review of Resident 231's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool used to identify cognitive [mental processes] and physical functional level assessment), dated 12/11/24, the MDS section C indicated Resident 231 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS - a test given by medical professionals to determine cognitive understanding on a scale of 1-15 ) score of 11 (a score of 0-7 suggests severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 suggests moderately impaired, 13-15 suggests cognitively intact), which suggested Resident 231 was moderately impaired. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24 at 8:55 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 in Resident 231's room, Resident 231's oxygen tubing was observed to be not labled with a date. LVN 2 verified Resident 231's oxygen tubing was not dated. LVN 2 stated Resident 231's oxygen tubing should have been dated so staff would know when it was changed. LVN 2 stated if Resident 231's oxygen tubing was not changed weekly, Resident 231 could get an infection. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24 at 11:20 a.m. in Resident 235's room, Resident 235 was observed dressed in bed, wearing oxygen tubing with a nasal cannula Resident 235's oxygen tubing did not have a date label. During a review of Resident 235's AR dated 12/12/24, the AR indicated Resident 235 was admitted to the facility from the acute care hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses of emphysema (a chronic lung disease in which the air sacs may be destroyed, making it difficult to breath. Also referred to as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - COPD), pleural effusion (a buildup of fluid between the tissues that line the lungs and the chest, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), acute kidney failure (a condition when the kidneys suddenly are unable to filter waste products from the blood), atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm), intestinal obstruction (a blockage that keeps food or liquid from passing through the small intestine or large intestine), and surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system. During a review of Resident 235's MDS dated 12/5/24, the MDS section C indicated Resident 235 had a BIMS score of 15 which suggested Resident 235 was cognitively intact. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24 at 11:52 a.m. with LVN 5 in Resident 235's room. Resident 235's oxygen tubing was not labeled with a date. LVN 5 stated Resident 235's oxygen tubing should have been labeled with the date it was changed. LVN 5 stated Resident 235's oxygen tubing should have been dated so staff would know when the tubing was changed. LVN 5 stated the oxygen tubing should have been changed weekly so no dirt or particulates were in the tubing. LVN 5 stated residents could aspirate the dirt or particles in the tubing which would be a risk of infection to residents. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 12:21 p.m. with the Infection Prevention Nurse (IP), the IP stated a date on the oxygen tubing would let other staff know when the tubing was last changed. The IP stated if there was no date on the tubing, staff could not assume when the tubing was changed. The IP stated Resident 46, Resident 231and Resident 235's oxygen tubing should have been dated due to a risk of infection for Residents 46, Resident 231and Resident 235. During a review of the facility's job description document titled, Charge Nurse, undated, the document indicated, . implement plan of care consistently, effectively . with focus on resident centered outcomes . follow facility policies and procedures to ensure a safe, caring, comfortable and clean environment . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Oxygen Administration, dated 1/3122, indicated, . humidifiers and oxygen devices (cannulas or mask) are to be marked with black sharpie the date and nurse's initial . nasal cannulas are to be changed weekly or as needed if soiled. The date and initials of the nurse who changed these items is to be marked with a black sharpie . 2. During an observation on 12/11/24 at 12:20 p.m. in Resident 233's room, Resident 233 was observed wearing a gown, sitting in his wheelchair. LVN 4 was observed taking Resident 233's blood pressure, with a reading of 96/59. LVN 4 was observed to not give Resident 233's high blood pressure medication. During a review of Resident 233's AR, dated 12/13/24, the AR indicated, Resident 233 was admitted on [DATE] from the acute care hospital with diagnoses of heart failure (a condition when the heart muscle doesn't pump enough blood to meet the body's needs which can cause fatigue and shortness of breath), pneumonia (an infection that affects one or both lungs, causing the air sacs of the lungs to fill with fluid), hypertension (high blood pressure), and dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life). During a review of Resident 233's MDS, dated 11/29/24, the MDS section C indicated Resident 233 had a BIMS score of three, which indicated Resident 233 had severe impairment. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/12/24 at 3:38 p.m. with LVN 2, Resident 233's physician Order Summary Report, undated was reviewed. The Order Summary Report indicated, . hydralazine hcl oral tablet 25 mg (milligram - a unit of measurement) . give one tablet by mouth two times a day for HTN (hypertension) hold if SBP (systolic blood pressure [when the heart muscle contracts] < (less than) 100 and notify MD (physician) . Resident 233's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 12/1/24 to 12/31/23 was reviewed. The MAR indicated Resident 233's medication for hypertension was held on 12/11/24 and 12/12/24. LVN 2 stated there was no documentation from the nurse that Resident 233's physician was notified when Resident 233's medication was not given. LVN 2 stated if the physician was not notified, the nurse was not following physician orders. LVN 2 stated a negative outcome could occur with Resident 233 if his medication was not given due to low blood pressure and the physician was not notified. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 12:21 p.m. with the IP, the IP stated nurses should have followed physician orders. The IP stated if staff did not follow physician orders, they could have caused harm to Resident 233. The IP stated an adverse (harmful) reaction could have occurred with Resident 233 if staff did not follow physician orders. During a review of the facility's job description document titled, Charge Nurse, undated, the document indicated, . implement plan of care consistently, effectively . with focus on resident centered outcomes . carries out physician orders as prescribed . follow facility policies and procedures to ensure a safe, caring, comfortable and clean environment . keep physician and/or other health care professionals (Nurse Practitioner, Physician Assistant, podiatrist, dentist, etc.) informed of resident's condition; and notify physician and/or other healthcare professions immediately of significant changes of condition . administers medications as ordered and monitors for signs and symptoms of adverse effects . follows up on resident change of conditions. Documents all findings and communicates with the physician . notify physician and/or other health care professionals if orders are not carried out and document event appropriately . During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Documentation, Nursing, dated 1/31/22, indicated, . licensed nurses are to document throughout their shift, capturing all changes in condition, treatments, responses to treatment and overall observation of the resident . nurses notes are written for any episodic issue, physician communication or other nursing measure that requires documentation in the medical record . During a review of the facility's P&P titled Physician Orders, dated 12/01/15, indicated, . the facility may also fax to the physician a blank (except when sending statistical information) facsimile order form on which the physician may write an order or instructions and return to the facility via facsimile . the facility may fax a MD Notification form to physician with information regarding resident condition on which the physician may write an order/response and return to the facility . 3. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24 at 11:20 a.m. in Resident 235's room, Resident 235 was observed dressed in bed, wearing oxygen tubing with a nasal cannula. Resident 235 stated she is receiving oxygen at a rate of 2 L/min. Oxygen was being administered at 4.5L/min. Resident 235 stated the oxygen rate seemed high. During a review of Resident 235's AR dated 12/12/24, the AR indicated Resident 235 was admitted to the facility from the acute care hospital on [DATE] with diagnoses of emphysema (a chronic lung disease in which the air sacs may be destroyed, making it difficult to breath. Also referred to as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - COPD), pleural effusion (a buildup of fluid between the tissues that line the lungs and the chest, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), acute kidney failure (a condition when the kidneys suddenly are unable to filter waste products from the blood), atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm), intestinal obstruction (a blockage that keeps food or liquid from passing through the small intestine or large intestine), and surgical aftercare following surgery on the digestive system. During a review of Resident 235's MDS dated 11/27/24, the MDS section C indicated Resident 235 had a BIMS score of 15 which suggested Resident 235 was cognitively intact. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24 at 11:52 a.m. with LVN 5 in Resident 235's room, Resident 235's oxygen rate was observed to be set at 4.5L/min. LVN 5 stated Resident 235's oxygen rate should have been set to 3L/min. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/10/24 at 11:54 a.m. with LVN 5, Resident 235's Order Summary Report, undated was reviewed. The Order Summary Report indicated, . oxygen @ (at) 2L/min via n/c (nasal cannula), prn (as needed), to keep sats (oxygen saturation - the amount of oxygen circulating in the blood) at or above 90% as needed . LVN 5 stated during report she received information that Resident 235's oxygen rate was to be set at 3L/min. LVN 5 stated she was not sure why Resident 235's rate was changed. LVN 5 stated Resident 235's oxygen rate should have been set to 2L/min. LVN 5 stated Resident 235's oxygen rate should have been checked every day during shift change after nurses received report, and during each medication pass to the Resident 235. LVN 5 stated it was important to follow physician orders to prevent adverse events occurring with residents. During an interview with LVN 2 on 12/12/24 at 3:38 p.m., LVN 2 stated she expected nurses to follow physician's orders. LVN 2 stated if staff did not follow physician orders, residents could have a negative outcome. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 12:21 p.m. with the IP, the IP stated nurses should have been following orders for Resident 235's oxygen rate. The IP stated staff could cause more harm to residents if oxygen was not given as ordered by the physician especially for residents with certain diagnoses such as COPD. The IP stated an adverse reaction could occur to residents if staff did not follow physician orders. During a review of the facility's job description document titled, Charge Nurse, undated, the document indicated, . implement plan of care consistently, effectively . with focus on resident centered outcomes . carries out physician orders as prescribed . follow facility policies and procedures to ensure a safe, caring, comfortable and clean environment . administers medications as ordered and monitors for signs and symptoms of adverse effects . performs prescribed treatments and documents all findings in the resident's medical record . notify physician and/or other health care professionals if orders are not carried out and document event appropriately . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Oxygen Administration, dated 1/31/22, indicated, . oxygen will only be administered by physician's order . oxygen shall be administered to residents only by a licensed nurse . licensed nurses are to document on the MAR (Medication Administration Record) each shift that oxygen is used at the ordered flow rate . check the operation of the oxygen delivery system when monitoring the flow rate .
CONCERN (F)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure nursing staff information data posting contained or demonstrated the total numbers and actual hours worked by Registere...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure nursing staff information data posting contained or demonstrated the total numbers and actual hours worked by Registered nurses (RN), license vocational nurses (LVN) and Certified nurse aides, were posted daily. This failure resulted in 87 out of 87 residents and their family members not being able to identify who was responsible for their care, how many licensed and unlicensed staff were on shift, and the total number of hours staff were working. Findings: During an observation on 12/13/24 at 2:35 p.m. in the hallway, the Census and Direct Care Services Hours Per Patient Day (DHPPD) did not contain the total number of actual hours worked for RNs, LVNs and CNAs. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 3:04 p.m. with the Administrator (ADM) the ADM stated, We have only CNA hours posted and no nursing hours posted. The ADM stated, the posting sign had CNA actual hours and no licensed nurse actual hours posted. The ADM stated he was not aware the hours needed to be posted. The ADM stated there were no posted numbers of RNs, LVNs and CNAs working. During an interview on 12/13/24 at 3:56 p.m. with the Staff Coordinator (SC), the SC stated, The hours for everyone is on there, but it is not specific. The SC stated she and ADM were responsible for inputting the posting hours. The SC stated, You can't tell how many hours were worked by the RN, LVN and CNA. The SC stated the hours on the DHPPD were for the total hours worked by the combined staff. The SC stated she was not aware she needed to post the RN, LVN and CNA hours separately. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Nursing Staffing Ratio Posting, dated review date 1/31/22, the P&P indicated, It is the policy of this facility to post the daily nurse staffing ratios in a clear and readable format that is readily available to the staff, residents and interested members of the public .The Staff Coordinator, designated by the facility administrator, is responsible for the following on a daily basis: 1. Collect and document the required staffing information on the facility staff posting form: a. Facility name b. The current date c. The total number of staff bodies and the actual hours worked by the following categories of licensed and unlicensed nursing staff directly responsible for resident care per shift. i. Registered nurse ii. Licensed vocational nurses iii. Certified nurse aides .
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0804 (Tag F0804)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide palatable and flavorful food when: 1. Broccoli was bland and without flavor for the regular diet. 79 Residents receive...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide palatable and flavorful food when: 1. Broccoli was bland and without flavor for the regular diet. 79 Residents received broccoli at the facility. 2. Puree salad did not taste good. Five residents (Residents 2, 9, 63, 481, 482) were on the puree diet. These failures resulted in lack of flavor and palatability in vegetables and puree salad which can lead to residents having a decreased food intake and could result in weight loss and further compromise nutritional and medical status. There were 84 residents eating at the facility. Findings: During an interview on 12/9/24 at 1:10 p.m. with Resident 60 (R 60), R 60 stated the food was bland. During an interview on 12/10/24 at 12:32 p.m. with Resident 20 (R 20), R 20 stated the food did not taste good and he will not eat the food item if he does not like it. During a review of the facility menu titled, Winter Menus, the lunch menu on 12/10/24 indicated residents on regular, mechanical soft, dysphagia mechanical, no added salt and controlled carbohydrate diets received Pork with Pear Sauce, Sweet Potatoes, Seasoned Broccoli, Fresh [NAME] Salad with Dressing, Cranberry Crunch Square and Milk. The lunch menu indicated residents on puree diets received, Grinded Pork with Puree Pear Sauce, Sweet Potatoes, Seasoned Broccoli, Fresh [NAME] Salad with Dressing, Cranberry Crunch Square and Milk. During a review of the facility document titled, Diet Type Report, dated 12/9/24, showed there were 84 residents eating at the facility. 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24 at 12:43 p.m. with the Director of Nutritional Services (DNS) during a test tray of the regular and puree diets. Surveyors and DNS tasted the food items on the test trays. The broccoli was soggy and mushy, watery, bland, and dull green in color. DNS stated, limited salt and seasoning was added to the broccoli, and she needed to add additional salt and pepper to eat the food item. DNS stated the recipes do not call for many seasonings. DNS acknowledged the broccoli was bland and stated she was not sure why it was watery as they only use the steamer to cook it. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 12:31 p.m. with DNS, DNS stated excess moisture from cooking the broccoli made the food item soggy and additional salt seasoning would have made the food item taste better. DNS acknowledged that cooking with seasonings and salt helped improve flavor in the food. DNS stated, the goal should be to liberalize regular and therapeutic diets so residents will eat and enjoy their food. DNS stated she will have the RD discuss with the menu company. During a review of the facility's broccoli recipe titled, Healthcare Menus Direct, LLC Recipe: Seasoned Broccoli, dated 2024, the recipe indicated, 96 servings required only 1 tablespoon of salt seasoning. 2. During a concurrent observation of food preparation and interview on 12/10/24 at 10:48 a.m., with (DA 2) Dietary Aid 2, while making the puree salad, DA 2 put the salad in the robot coupe (food processor) then put the food in the blender. DA 2 stated she had to put the food in the robot coupe first to get enough liquid for the blender since the recipe does not call for any liquid when pureeing the salad. DA 2 stated they put salad dressing packets on the trays for the residents to use for the puree salad. During a review of the facility document titled Diet Type Report, showed there were five residents (Residents 2, 9, 63, 481, 482) on the puree diet. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/10/24 at 12:43 p.m. with the Director of Nutritional Services (DNS) during a test tray of the regular and puree diets. Surveyors and DNS tasted the food items on the test trays. The puree salad tasted sharp and earthy and not very good. The salad dressing packet was very difficult for the DNS and surveyors to open. The puree salad tasted better with the Italian salad dressing however still not very palatable. DNS stated the recipe is without adding any liquid and the salad dressing is to be added at bedside. During an interview with CNA 1 on 12/11/24, CNA 1 stated she helps residents that are on puree diet with meals and trays. CNA 1 stated she will usually put salad dressing on the puree salads when the residents ask for it. CNA 1 stated if the trays do not have salad dressing, then she will go get some. CNA 1 stated the residents do not like the puree salads and will not eat it. During a review of the facility's document, Resident Council minutes (RCM), dated 10/28/24, the RCM's indicated, a dietary concern of, food not being good. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 10:06 a.m. with the Administrator (ADM), ADM stated he was unable to locate response forms for the last three months of resident council. ADM stated the activities director has been out on leave and resident council response forms were never completed. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 10:20 a.m. with the Registered Dietitian (RD), RD stated she is not involved in resident council and no changes in the menus or recipes have been made based on recent RCM's. RD stated, she would expect to be notified of any issues residents may have with food so menus and diets can be reviewed to determine changes. RD stated most food items in the kitchen use less salt seasoning since that is what is recommended by The American Heart Association (a nonprofit organization that aims to reduce the number of deaths and disabilities caused by cardiovascular disease). RD stated regular and therapeutic diets should be liberalized so residents can enjoy their food. RD stated she does do test trays and she relies on others to let her know if the residents do not like food items. RD does not ask kitchen staff or observe plate waste of puree salads and was not aware residents do not really eat that food item. RD stated she would discuss with the menu company about the lower sodium menu. During a review of document titled, Nutritional Breakdown of the Winter 2024-25 menus, showed for the regular diet there was 2,785 milligrams (mg) of sodium. During a review of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Nutrition Care Manual, dated 2024, showed that a reduction in sodium intake to 2000 mg to 3000 mg sodium per day has been effective in patients with heart failure. It showed a more liberalized approach to sodium intake may benefit older adults. It indicated that many institutions offer diet orders with varying degrees of sodium restriction and the most liberal sodium diet is the no-salt-packet diet and the no-added-salt (NAS) (3000 mg to 4000 mg sodium) diet limits high-sodium foods and eliminates the salt packet. It showed the low-sodium diet (1500 mg to 2300 mg sodium) restricts some high-sodium foods and replaces other higher-sodium foods with lower-sodium items. The facility regular diet provides 485 mg more than the upper range of what is considered a low sodium diet. During a review of the Position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics: Individualized Nutrition Approaches for Older Adults: Long-Term Care, Post-Acute Care, and Other Settings, dated 2018, indicated the Pioneer Network's New Dining Practice Standards are supported by multiple health care organizations, including the Academy. It indicated the standards encourage liberalizing dietary restrictions that are not essential to a resident's well-being. It indicated food is an essential component of quality of life; an unpalatable or unacceptable diet can lead to poor food and fluid intake, resulting in malnutrition and related negative health effects. It indicated older adults may find restrictive diets unpalatable, resulting in reduced pleasure in eating, decreased food intake, unintentional weight loss, and malnutrition.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food and ice were stored, distributed, and served safely when: 1. The ice machine was observed with black spots above...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food and ice were stored, distributed, and served safely when: 1. The ice machine was observed with black spots above the water trough (a compartment within the ice machine where water is stored before it is frozen into ice cubes) and pink residue on the ice grate (a compartment within the ice machine that determines the size of the ice cubes that are produced) and sensor (monitors ice levels) 2. Apple juice pitcher located in the nourishment room refrigerator was dated past the use by date; and 3. The nourishment room refrigerator had dry, sticky substance on bottom drawers and a door shelf. These failures resulted in a unit refrigerator and facility ice machine not being in clean safe operating condition, and juice kept past the use by date, which can lead to the growth of microorganisms and can result in foodborne illness for the 84 residents consuming food, juice, and ice at the facility. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/11/24 at 9:19 a.m. with Maintenance (MN) in the kitchen, after removal of the ice grate cover, a black substance that was observed as dots was seen on tubing located in the water trough. MN stated he could see the black dots and they come off when cleaned. A pink substance was observed on the paper towel used to wipe the ice grate. The surveyor used a white paper towel and wiped off the pink substance from the ice grate and sensor. The MN acknowledged the observed pink substance on the paper towel and stated the ice machine should be cleaned. MN stated the last time the ice machine was cleaned was 6/13/24. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 9:21 a.m. with MN, MN stated the ice machine is cleaned and sanitized every six months. MN stated since the ice machine is due to be cleaned, it was cleaned about six months ago. During an interview on 12/12/24 at 10:20 a.m. with the Registered Dietitian (RD), the RD stated the ice machine is a main area of focus for sanitation. The RD stated she will notify maintenance if the ice machine needs to be cleaned before scheduled cleaning. The RD stated the ice machine was cleaned some time in September or October but was unable to provide ice machine sanitation review logs for September or October. During a record review of, Descaling/Sanitation Procedure, (undated), the Descaling/Sanitation Procedure stated, .This 2-step procedure descales/sanitizes all components in the water flow path and is used to descale/sanitize the ice machine between biannual detailed descaling/sanitizing procedures . 2. During an observation on 12/11/24 at 8:54 a.m. in the 300-wing nourishment room refrigerator, one pitcher of apple juice was observed with a prep date label of 12/4/24 and a use by date label of 12/10/24. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 8:58 a.m. with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated the pitcher of apple juice is expired and should be discarded immediately. IP stated nursing and dietary staff are responsible for monitoring use by dates and should discard items on the day they are expired. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 9:03 a.m. with the Director of Nutritional Services (DNS), the DNS stated nursing and dietary staff review use by date labels daily and are responsible for removing expired food items from unit nourishment refrigerators. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 2:42 p.m. with the DNS, the DNS stated, At the end of the day the dietary staff will stock and refresh items in the nourishment rooms. The DNS stated, if something expires that day, then staff will leave it until it expires. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 3:33 p.m. with DNS, DNS stated apple juice in a pitcher should be discarded after 7 days. During a review of the facility's daily log titled, 300- Wing Nourishment Room Stocking, the log indicted expired items are to be removed daily and refrigerator is to be cleaned daily. The log did not have a current date, nursing or dietary staff signatures for the day. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Usage and Storage of Leftovers, dated 4/30/2022, the P&P indicated, beverages are to be labeled and dated .and discarded at the end of the day. 3. During an observation on 12/11/24 at 8:54 a.m. in the 300-wing nourishment room refrigerator, when opening bottom drawers inside the refrigerator, the drawers were stuck together with a hard, sticky substance. The bottom of the refrigerator had a sticky substance and on the middle shelf of the door, observed spilled apple juice and the shelf was wet. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/11/24 at 9:00 a.m. with the IP in the 300-wing nourishment room refrigerator, bottom of refrigerator was sticky and unable to open bottom drawers. IP stated dietary, maintenance and housekeeping clean the nourishment room. IP stated, everyone is responsible to clean, especially if something spills. IP stated it is, very sticky in drawers and should be cleaned. During an interview on 12/11/24 at 9:03 a.m. with the DNS, the DNS stated, every night someone cleans and sanitizes the refrigerators. The DNS stated, If juice or something spills it will be sticky because it wasn't cleaned right away so it gets sticky. Should be cleaned right away but [refrigerators] are cleaned every evening. During a review of the facility's daily log titled, 300- Wing Nourishment Room Stocking, the log indicted expired items are to be removed daily and refrigerator is to be cleaned daily. The log did not have a current date, nursing or dietary staff signatures for the day.
Nov 2023 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0554 (Tag F0554)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed to determine if self-administration of medication was clinically app...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident was assessed to determine if self-administration of medication was clinically appropriate for 1 (Resident #48) of 6 sampled residents reviewed for medication administration. Specifically, Resident #48 was found with two white pills in a small cup at bedside with no staff present without an assessment of the resident's ability to safely self-administer the medication. Findings included: A review of a facility policy titled, Medications, Self-Administration, reviewed on 01/31/2022, revealed, It is the policy of this facility that an individual resident may self-administer specific medications if the IDT [interdisciplinary team] has determined that this practice is safe, and physician orders are obtained for self-administration of the specific medication(s). The policy specified, 2. If a resident voices desire to self-administer medications, the IDT is to assess the resident's cognitive, physical and visual ability to carry out this responsibility. 3. A licensed nurse is to complete the Self-Administration of Medication Assessment (UDA) [user defined assessment]. The resident is to be asked to read and understand the directions on the pharmacy label, and to administer his/her medications in the presence of a licensed nurse to demonstrate the ability to take the medication according to the safe practice and facility policy. 4. The self-administration assessment and any other information is to be reviewed by the resident's physician and IDT for final determination of the resident's ability to self-administer medications. The policy indicated, The resident may not begin self-administration of medications prior to the approval of the physician and IDT. A review of Resident #48's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 09/29/2023 with diagnoses that included end stage renal disease and dependence on renal dialysis. A review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/04/2023, revealed Resident #48 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Per the MDS, Resident #48 received dialysis while residing in the facility. A review of Resident #48's care plan revised on 10/01/2023, t indicated the resident needed hemodialysis related to renal failure. A review of Resident #48's Order Summary Report, that listed active orders as of 10/30/2023, revealed an order dated 09/29/2023, for sevelamer carbonate (a medication used to lower high blood phosphorus levels in patients on dialysis) 800 milligrams (mg), two tablets by mouth before meals for hypocalcemia. There was no physician's order for Resident #48 to self-administer their medications. A review of Resident #48's Scheduling Details dated 09/29/2023, for the sevelamer carbonate 800 mg indicated the medication should be administered by a clinician. The options for Supervised Self-Administration and Unsupervised Self-Administration were not selected. In a concurrent observation and interview on 10/30/2023 at 11:37 AM, the surveyor noted two white pills in a small cup on Resident #48's bedside table while no staff was present in the resident's room. Resident #48 stated the two white pills in the small cup were phosphorus binders they took when they ate their meals. Resident #48 said they did not eat breakfast that morning, so they asked the nurse to leave the pills, and the resident planned to take one pill halfway through the next meal and the other after eating. Resident #48 further stated the facility staff had not spoken with the resident about self-administering the phosphate binder, but the nurses stood there while the resident took the rest of their medications. During an interview on 10/31/2023 at 1:26 PM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) #2 stated Resident #48 took the sevelamer carbonate when they ate and requested the nursing staff to leave the pills at bedside, so they had them available when they chose to eat. LVN #2 further stated Resident #48 had no swallowing difficulties and took this medication on their own at home. LVN #2 said Resident #48 sometimes did not eat their breakfast, so they did not take their sevelamer carbonate. LVN #2 said when this happened, the resident did not always let nursing staff know. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 2:41 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated if a resident wanted to self-administer medications, the facility must first assess the resident to determine if they were able, then the staff would obtain a physician's order. The DON said this process was important to ensure the resident could safely self-administer the medication. The DON said a self-administration assessment for Resident #48 to self-administer their sevelamer carbonate was not conducted until 10/31/2023. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 2:51 PM, the Administrator stated he expected the nursing staff to follow the facility's procedure for medication self-administration. The Administrator said an assessment must be completed, it must be care planned, and there should be a physician's order in place for residents to self-administer medications. Per the Administrator, Resident #48's medication self-administration assessment was completed after they found out the resident took their medications on their own. The Administrator further stated it was important to follow the facility's medication self-administration procedure for resident safety.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0645 (Tag F0645)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Level II evaluation was completed after a positive Level I Preadmission Screen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, facility document review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure a Level II evaluation was completed after a positive Level I Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (PASARR) for 1 (Resident #65) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for PASARRs. Findings included: Review of guidance from the California Department of Health Care Services (DHCS), dated 08/09/2023, indicated, Purpose: The PASRR [Preadmission Screening and Resident Review] Information Notice (IN) clarifies the Hospitals' and SNFs' [skilled nursing facilities'] responsibilities to provide MCPs [Medi-Cal Managed Care Plans, health care for people with low or no income] confirmation that a PASRR Level I Screening was completed and to provide completed PASRR documentation for cases that advance to a Level II Evaluation with SNF referrals for prior authorization. Further review of the guidance indicated, PASRR documentation is no longer required to be sent to the MCP when a Level I Screening is negative for SMI [serious mental illness] and/or ID/DD/RC [intellectual disability/developmental disability/related condition]. It is only required when a Level I Screening is positive for SMI and/or ID/DD/RC and the case advances to a Level II Evaluation. Under this scenario, the MCP's approval of the prior authorization request will be pending until PASRR documentation is received. Once the PASRR process is completed, Hospitals and SNFs must provide the resulting Level II Evaluation letter to the MCP within three calendar days of issuance to obtain approval of the prior authorization request for SNF placement. A review of Resident #65's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 10/10/2023 with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder. Review of an admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/16/2023, revealed Resident #65 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, which indicated the resident was cognitively intact. Review of Resident #65's care plan with an initiation date of 10/13/2023, revealed the resident had a mental health history that included bipolar disorder. A review of a letter from DHCS dated 10/10/2023 and sent to Resident #65 related to their positive Level I (PASARR) screening, indicated the facility would be contacted within two to four days to set up an appointment for an evaluator to conduct a Level II mental health evaluation. The letter also indicated that once the Level II mental health evaluation was completed, the resident would receive a report that provided recommendations for specialized services. The letter indicated a copy of the letter was also sent to the facility. A review of Resident #65's medical record, revealed no evidence of a Level II mental health evaluation. During an interview on 10/31/2023 at 11:28 AM, the Administrator said the facility received Resident #65's positive Level I PASARR when the facility admitted the resident, but the facility failed to note that the resident needed a Level II evaluation within two to four days of their positive Level I. The Administrator stated that it was the MDS Coordinator's responsibility to review a positive Level I PASARR upon admission and the MDS Coordinator should have noted the request to have a Level II evaluation. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 10:31 AM, MDS Coordinator #6 stated that when the facility received a positive Level I PASARR, it was the MDS Coordinator's responsibility to ensure that a Level II evaluation was conducted in a timely manner. She said she was not working when the facility admitted Resident #65, so MDS Coordinator #7 would have reviewed the resident's Level I PASARR. She stated the positive Level I PASARR should have been caught and addressed when Resident #65 was first admitted so the resident subsequently received all the mental health services the resident needed for their mental illness. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 10:41 AM, MDS Coordinator #7 stated that when the facility received Resident #65's positive Level I PASARR, she should have reached out to the transferring facility for information regarding the resident's mental illness and psychoactive medications so a Level II evaluation could be scheduled. MDS Coordinator #7 stated the importance of getting the Level II evaluation was to ensure the resident received necessary care and services for their mental illness. She said that she did not know why the Level II evaluation was missed for Resident #65.
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

Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff monitored the skin as ordered by the physician for 1 (Resident #36) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for skin ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure staff monitored the skin as ordered by the physician for 1 (Resident #36) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for skin issues. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Skin Assessments, dated 07/18/2023, revealed Purpose: To ensure that every resident admitted to and residing at the facility has their skin checked on a routine basis for any conditions that require medical intervention. If skin breakdown occurs, a resident is to receive the appropriate treatment per physician's order. Review of Resident #36's admission Record revealed the facility readmitted the resident on 10/06/2023 with diagnoses that included fracture of neck of the left femur (hip area) and age-related osteoporosis with a current pathological fracture. Review of Resident #36's admission Minimum Date Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) dated 10/12/2023, revealed the resident had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) of 11, which indicated the resident had moderate cognitive impairment. The MDS revealed the resident surgical wound(s) and received surgical wound care. Review of Resident #36's care plan dated 10/10/2023, revealed the resident had skin impairment as evidenced by a surgical site. The facility developed interventions that directed staff to monitor the skin each shift and report any changes to the physician and to provide treatment per the physician's order. Review of Resident #36's Order Summary Report which included active order as of 10/31/2023, revealed an ordered dated 10/06/2023, to monitor surgical site to the left hip each shift for signs and symptoms of infection and notify medical doctor. The resident also had a physician's order dated 10/07/2023, to monitor the surgical site to the resident's back each shift for signs and symptoms of infection and notify the medical doctor. Review of Resident #36's Treatment Administration Record [TAR] for October 2023, revealed staff documented the surgical site to the resident's back and left hip were monitored three times daily from 10/07/2023 to 10/31/2023. The TAR revealed, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) #5 documented she monitored each of the resident's surgical sites on the evening shift on 10/29/2023 and 10/30/2023. Per the TAR, LVN #3 documented she monitored each of the resident's surgical sites each day shift from 10/25/2023 to 10/28/2023. Review of Resident #36's Skin Assessment dated 10/22/2023, revealed the surgical incision to the resident's lower back was scabbed and healing well. A review of the Skin Assessment, dated 10/25/2023, revealed the wound care physician examined the resident and noted there were no signs/symptoms of infection to the resident's left hip surgical site. During an interview on 10/30/2023 at 1:56 PM, Resident #36 stated they had surgical incisions. The resident stated the site to their left hip had not healed and no one at the facility had looked at their surgical sites. During an interview on 11/01/2023 at 12:08 PM, LVN #3 stated she had not looked at Resident #36's surgical site to their back or hip. LVN #3 stated Resident #36 was at the facility after a fracture, and the facility staff were to monitor the resident for signs and symptoms of an infection. LVN #3 stated she did not know where the resident's surgical sites were located and had not visualized the surgical sites. LVN #3 stated she had signed off on the TAR, indicating she completed monitoring of the resident's surgical sites, even though she had not seen or monitored the surgical sites. LVN #3 stated not following orders could lead to infection and complications. During an interview on 11/01/2023 at 1:53 PM, LVN #5 stated Resident #36 had a surgical site to their back only and she was not aware of any other surgical sites to the resident had. LVN #5 stated she should not have documented that monitoring of both surgical sites was completed. During an interview on 11/01/2023 at 2:38 PM, the Medical Doctor (MD) stated when there was an order to monitor incision sites each shift, he expected the nursing staff to monitor and look for signs of warmth, cellulitis, redness, and pain of the site. The MD also stated he expected the nurses to visually inspect the sites. In an interview on 11/02/2023 at 2:56 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the nursing staff should have completed daily skin monitoring of the surgical sites for Resident #36. Per the DON, the nursing staff should not document completion on the TAR if they had not completed the skin monitoring. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 3:26 PM, the Administrator stated staff should not document completion of a skin assessment if the staff had not completed the assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure a bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) mask and an updraft nebulizer mask were stored in a bag ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, record review, and policy reviews, the facility failed to ensure a bi-level positive airway pressure (BiPAP) mask and an updraft nebulizer mask were stored in a bag when they were not in use for 1 (Resident #58) of 2 sampled residents reviewed for respiratory care. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, CPAP [continuous positive airway pressure] and BiPAP Use, revised on 01/31/2022, revealed, 11. Nursing staff is to ensure that the CPAP/BiPAP is kept clean at all times, and that the mask is cleaned according to the manufacturer's recommendations prior to each use. Review of a facility policy titled, Nebulizer Treatments, revised on 01/31/2022, revealed, 4. Remove nebulizer from plastic bag. Connect tubing to oxygen source and fill the nebulizer with prescribed medication. a. Nebulizer tubing and storage bags are to be changed weekly, on Sundays, and dated when changed. A review of Resident #58's admission Record indicated the facility readmitted the resident on 09/27/2023 with diagnoses that included acute and chronic respiratory failure with hypoxia, obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and dependence on supplemental oxygen. A review of Resident #58's admission Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/02/2023, revealed Resident #58 had a Brief Interview of Mental Status (BIMS) score of 15, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. The MDS revealed the resident received oxygen therapy and a non-invasive mechanical ventilator. Review of Resident #58's care plan with an initiation date of 10/04/2023, indicated the resident had shortness of breath (SOB) related to emphysema/COPD, OSA, and chronic respiratory failure. Review of Resident #58's Order Summary Report indicated an order dated 10/01/2023, for BiPAP 14/5 with oxygen (O2) every 12 hours as needed. The Order Summary Report revealed an order dated 10/23/2023, for albuterol sulfate inhalation nebulization solution every four hours as needed for SOB or wheezing and ipratropium-albuterol solution every six hours as needed for SOB or wheezing for 30 days. In an observation on 10/30/2023 at 10:38 AM, Resident #58's BiPAP mask and updraft nebulizer mask were noted lying on top of the resident's bed side table. The masks were not in bags or covered. Resident #58 said the nurses put their BiPAP mask on and took it off. The resident said the last time the BiPap mask was used was on 10/29/2023. Resident #58 also stated they received an updraft nebulizer treatment earlier this morning (10/30/2023). In an observation on 10/31/2023 at 7:23 AM, the surveyor noted Resident #58's BiPAP and updraft nebulizer mask were lying on top of the resident's bed side table and were not covered or in bags. During an observation on 11/01/2023 at 7:56 AM, the surveyor noted Resident #58's BiPAP mask was lying on top of the bed side table uncovered and not in a bag. Resident #58 said they did not wear the BiPAP last night and it had been on top of the bed side table since the morning before. During an interview on 11/01/2023 at 7:58 AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) #3 said BiPAP and updraft nebulizer masks were to be kept in bags in residents' rooms when they were not in use. During a telephone interview on 11/01/2023 at 2:39 PM, LVN #8 stated the normal process after administering a resident's updraft nebulizer treatment or when the staff took off a resident's BiPAP mask was to put the masks away; specifically, put them in bags. She indicated she gave Resident #58's updraft nebulizer treatment at 6:00 AM on 10/30/2023 and on 10/31/2023. She also indicated she did not know why she did not put the mask in a bag after she administered the resident their updraft nebulizer treatment but should have. LVN #8 said she had removed Resident #58's BiPAP mask several times lately and should have placed it in a bag when it was not in use. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 7:05 AM, LVN #9 said BiPAP masks and updraft nebulizer masks were supposed to be stored in bags when they were not in use. She confirmed that she took off Resident #58's BiPAP mask Monday morning (10/30/2023) and had also given the resident their 6:00 AM updraft nebulizer treatment. She indicated she should have placed them in bags to prevent the spread of infection. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 2:48 PM, the Director of Nursing indicated she expected BiPAP and updraft nebulizer masks to be placed in bags when they were not in use to prevent the spread of infection and prevent the risk of a respiratory infection. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 3:19 PM, the Administrator stated that his expectation was to have the resident's BiPAP mask and updraft nebulizer mask placed in bags or covered when they were not in use to prevent the spread of infection.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary medications for 1 (Resident #17) of 5 sampled residents r...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interviews, record review, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure a resident's medication regimen was free from unnecessary medications for 1 (Resident #17) of 5 sampled residents reviewed for unnecessary medications. Specifically, Resident #17 had an order for lorazepam 0.5 milligrams (mg), one tablet by mouth every six hours as needed (PRN) for anxiety and agitation started on 06/15/2023 with no specified duration (stop date). Findings included: A review of a facility policy titled, Medications, Psychotherapeutic Drugs, reviewed on 01/31/2022, revealed, Purpose: To provide a therapeutic environment using only those medications with a therapeutic value to individual residents. The use of unnecessary drugs is to be avoided whenever possible. Policy: It is the policy of this facility that psychotherapeutic drugs will not be administered for purposes of discipline or convenience, and if required is to be used to treat the resident's medical symptoms. Each resident's drug regimen is to be free from unnecessary drugs. The section of the policy titled, Psychotherapeutic Drug Management specified, 3. Physician's orders for the psychotherapeutic medications must specify a f. Stop Date or Duration. A review of Resident #17's admission Record revealed the facility admitted the resident on 05/17/2022 with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus and chronic kidney disease. Per the admission Record, on 06/14/2023, the resident received a diagnosis of anxiety disorder. A review of a quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 09/14/2023, revealed Resident #17 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 13, indicating the resident was cognitively intact. Per the MDS, Resident #17 received hospice services while a resident of the facility and did not receive antianxiety medication during the seven-day assessment period. A review of Resident #17's care plan initiated on 06/20/2023, indicated the resident received antianxiety medication for an anxiety diagnosis manifested by agitation. A review of Resident #17's Order Summary Report, which listed active orders as of 11/02/2023, revealed an order dated 06/15/2023, for lorazepam 0.5 mg, one tablet by mouth every six hours PRN for anxiety and agitation. The order did not specify the duration of use (stop date). A review of a Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber, signed by a consultant pharmacist and dated 09/30/2023, revealed the following information regarding the pharmacist's review of Resident #17's PRN lorazepam order, patient is currently on PRN Lorazepam (Ativan) with the following diagnosis: anxiety. Please evaluate current diagnosis, behaviors and usage patterns and evaluate continued need. PRN psychotropic orders cannot exceed 14 days with the exception that the prescriber documents their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration for the PRN order. The handwritten physician/prescribed response indicated the medication was started when the resident was placed in hospice care on 06/14/2023 and there would be no changes in the medication at this time. During an interview on 11/01/2023 at 2:37 PM, the Medical Director stated he did not like using PRN antianxiety medications but received quite a bit of negative push back from the nurses and family members who wanted the PRN medications available, so he just left the orders in place. During an interview on 11/01/2023 at 3:56 PM, the Pharmacist stated PRN antianxiety medications should have a stop date included in the order and the use should be re-evaluated after 14 days. The Pharmacist further stated she notified facilities and physicians that there was no exception on PRN antianxiety use for hospice residents and that the orders still needed to have a stop date. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 2:41 PM, the Director of Nursing stated the facility tried to keep PRN antianxiety medications active for only 14 days but if the physician felt it appropriate for a hospice resident, they kept the PRN order in place.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments and not left unlocked while they were unattended by authori...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observations, interviews, and policy review, the facility failed to ensure drugs and biologicals were stored in locked compartments and not left unlocked while they were unattended by authorized staff. This deficient practice was observed for 2 of 2 treatment carts in the facility and had the potential to affect all residents who resided on the 200 and 300 halls. Findings included: Review of a facility policy titled, Medications Storage, with a review date of 01/31/2022, revealed, It is the policy of this facility that all medications, drugs and biologicals are to be stored in a safe, secure and orderly manner, at a temperature as directed by the manufacturer, and accessible to only licensed nurses and the pharmacist in accordance with federal and state regulations. During an observation on 10/31/2023 at 7:21 AM, the treatment cart on the 300 Hall was observed unlocked and unattended. The contents of the treatment cart included tubes of lidocaine ointment (an aesthetic used to prevent and treat pain from some procedures, minor burns, scrapes, and insect bites), clotrimazole betamethasone cream (a combination medication used to treat a variety of inflamed fungal skin infections), permethrin cream (a medication used to treat scabies), and triamcinolone cream (a medication used to treat a variety of skin conditions). During an observation of the 200 Hall on 11/01/2023 at 12:06 PM, the surveyor noted the key was in left in the lock of the treatment cart and the treatment cart was unlocked and unattended. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) #3 stated she accidentally left the key in the treatment cart lock and forgot to lock the cart. During an observation on 11/02/2023 at 1:08 PM, the treatment cart on the 200 Hall was unlocked and unattended. The contents of the treatment cart included antifungal cream and antifungal powder. In an interview on 11/02/2023 at 1:13 PM, LVN #3 stated the last person who accessed the 200 Hall treatment cart was LVN #12. During an interview on 11/02/2023 at 2:01 PM, LVN #12 confirmed she left the treatment cart unlocked and unattended and stated she thought she locked the cart. During an interview on 11/02/2023 3:56 PM, the Administrator stated it was his expectation that medication and treatment carts be locked when not in the line of sight of staff, and the keys be removed from the carts.
Mar 2023 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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

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 implement an effective process to ensure the maintenance of accepta...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement an effective process to ensure the maintenance of acceptable parameters of nutritional status and hydration for one of three sampled residents (Residents 1) when staff did not weigh Resident 1 weekly in accordance with facility policy and procedure, the recommendations and instructions provided by the Registered Dietician (RD) after identifying a risk for weight loss during the admission assessment, and again after weight loss had occurred, were not implemented by nursing staff. Staff did not notify the physician of Resident 1's decreased intake of food and fluids and weight loss until Resident 1 had experienced severe weight loss and was dehydrated. Staff did not consistently provide Resident 1 with assistance with eating and drinking. Resident 1 was on a Controlled Carbohydrate diet (CCHO- a diet ordered for diabetics) from 6/17/22 to 7/7/22 and did not have a diagnosis of diabetes. These failures resulted in Resident 1 experiencing an avoidable severe weight loss of 24% from an admission weight of 146.7 pounds (lbs.) on 6/17/22 to 111.2 lbs. on 6/28/22, contributed to dehydration and the development of two pressure-induced Deep Tissue Injuries (DTI) and a decline in health. Resident 1 was transferred to the hospital Emergency Department (ED) on 7/3/22 when Resident 1 became difficult to arouse and again on 7/9/22 due respiratory distress and was admitted to the hospital. Resident 1 was discharged from the hospital to hospice on 7/12/22 where he expired on 7/14/22. Findings: During a review Resident 1 ' s medical record, the document titled, admission Record (AR) dated 6/17/22, indicated, Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] from an acute care hospital (Hospital A) following hip replacement surgery. The AR indicated Resident 1 was a [AGE] year old male with diagnoses of muscle weakness, difficulty walking, retention of urine after surgery, placement of a indwelling urinary catheter, facial weakness, and a history of chronic kidney disease, hearing loss, unspecified dementia (a general term to describe a group of symptoms related to loss of memory, judgment, language, complex motor skills, and other intellectual function) without behavioral disturbance, enlargement of prostate without urinary tract symptoms, presence of a cardiac pacemaker (a small electronic device, implanted in the chest to help the heart beat at a normal rate and rhythm), and prior cardiac surgery. The AR indicated Resident 1 had been discharged from the facility to an acute care hospital (Hospital B) on 7/9/22. During an interview on 2/16/23 at 10:10 a.m., with a close friend (CF) of Resident 1, CF stated she had been close friends with Resident 1 for 20 years, saw him frequently before his fall and surgery, and visited him several times while he was at the facility. CF stated Resident 1 had stooped posture and had difficulty sitting up enough to be able to feed or hydrate himself. CF stated Resident 1 was weak and unable to reach and pick up a glass of water and bring it to his mouth to drink. CF stated when she visited Resident 1 on more than one occasion there was a cup of water with a straw, a carton of milk or juice with a straw in it on the bedside table but Resident 1 could not drink from them unless someone was there to pick up the drink and put the straw up to his mouth. CF stated she was very concerned Resident 1 would become dehydrated. CF stated Resident 1 lost so much weight while at the facility he was just skin and bones. During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission orders, dated 6/17/2022, the orders indicated Resident 1 had the ability to make his own decisions and wanted Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (CPR- a lifesaving procedure performed when the heart stops beating) performed if needed. The record included orders for physical therapy and an order for a CCHO mechanical soft diet with thin liquids. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool used to identify resident cognitive and physical function), dated 6/23/22, the MDS assessment indicated Resident 1 ' s Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, an assessment used to identify a resident ' s current cognition) score was 7 out of 15, which indicated at the time of the assessment Resident 1 had severe cognitive impairment. The MDS also indicated Resident 1 required one-person physical assist with Eating/Drinking, and two or more-person physical assist with Bed Mobility (how resident moves to and from lying position, or turns side to side, and positions self in bed). During an interview on 7/29/2022 at 3 p.m. with the Director of Nurses (DON), the DON stated Resident 1 was no longer a resident at the facility. The DON stated Resident 1 was sent from the facility to the hospital (Hospital B) on 7/9/22 and did not return to the facility. The DON stated she was aware that Resident 1 had passed away several days after he was sent to Hospital B. During an interview on 7/29/2022 at 3:15 p.m. with the Social Services Assistant (SSA), the SSA stated she met with Resident 1 shortly after he was admitted , and Resident 1 was alert, aware of his name and where he was, and did not seem confused. The SSA stated Resident 1 was independent prior to having hip surgery and lived at home with his girlfriend and her caregiver. The SSA stated Resident 1 ' s goal was to be discharged back to his home. During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Nutrition Assessment, dated 6/20/22 at 4:43 p.m., the assessment completed by RD 2 indicated Resident 1 was 5 feet 10 inches tall and weighed 146.7 pounds on admission to the facility with a Body Mass Index (BMI - measure of body fat based on height and weight. A normal BMI is 18.5 to 24.9) of 21. RD 2 indicated Resident 1 ' s usual weight was unknown, and his ideal body weight was 166 lbs. RD 2 ' s assessment indicated Resident 1 was alert and was not confused. RD 2 indicated Resident 1's estimated daily calorie requirements were between 1340 and 1675 kilocalories (kcals- a unit of measurement, used interchangeably with calories) estimated daily protein requirements were between 54 and 67 grams (gms- a unit of measurement), and estimated daily fluid requirements were between 1340 and 1675 milliliters (mls- a unit of measurement). RD 2 indicated Resident 1's current CCHO diet provided 1961 calories and 93 gms of protein per day. RD 2 reviewed the three days of oral intake since admission and noted Resident 1 consumed approximately 36% of his meals (706 calories and 33 gms of protein per day) which met 53% of Resident 1 ' s estimated nutritional needs. RD 2's assessment indicated Resident 1 was at risk for weight loss and required a therapeutic diet. RD 2 ' s recommendations included a fortified diet (addition of protein, fat, and/or carbohydrate to foods), nutritional supplement shakes twice a day, weekly weights, monitor oral intake and skin. During a review of Resident 1's report of meal percentage (%) consumed, the report showed the % eaten by Resident 1 for each meal (breakfast, lunch, and dinner) during his stay at the facility from 6/17/22 through 7/9/22. Of the 65 meals scheduled, three meals were not served due to Resident 1 being away from the facility or fasting for lab work. The report showed for 45 of the 62 meals (72.5%) served, Resident 1 ate 50% or less of the meal. The report showed Resident 1 ate 75% or more for eight of the meals served (13%) and refused six meals (9.6%). The report indicated there was no documentation of how much Resident 1 ate for three of the meals (4.8%). During a review of the Interdisciplinary Care Conference (meeting with staff from different disciplines involved in the resident's care) Summary dated 6/30/22, the Dietary section completed on 6/28/22 by the Dietary Manager indicated, .Percentage of Meal Consumption 38% and fluid intake of 631 mls per day [estimated daily fluid requirement- 1340-1675 mls]. Last recorded weight of 111.2 lbs. on 6/28/2022. Weight loss of 35.5 lbs./24.2% since admission weight on 6/17/2022. admission weight suspected to be inaccurate. Dietary Goal: Continue to tolerate current diet per MD [medical doctor] orders with increased PO (oral) meal and fluid intake and no significant weight changes . During a review of Resident 1 ' s Dietician Note, dated 6/29/22 at 10:52 a.m., the note written by RD 2 indicated Resident 1 had significant weight loss of 35.5 lbs. in two weeks. RD 2 ' s note indicated Resident 1's current daily diet provided 2214 kcal (calories) with 97 gms protein, and Resident 1 consumed approximately 37% of meals (819 calories, 36 gms protein) and approximately 689 ml of fluid per day for the past seven days [approximately 51% of estimated daily fluid need of 1340-1675mls per day]. The note indicated, .RD [RD 2] recommended to fortify diet and provide [nutritional supplement shakes] twice a day upon admission assessment, recommendations not yet carried out. Weight loss r/t [related to] inadequate intake of nutrient needs, 54% of estimated kcal needs met via diet .Malnutrition r/t inadequate intake of meals AEB [as evidenced by] underweight BMI 16, significant weight loss 24.4%/35 lbs. x 2 weeks. Fortify diet, shakes with lunch and dinner, MD- add malnutrition as diagnosis. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/30/22 at 9:35 a.m. with the Registered Dietician (RD 1), RD 1 stated she did not take care of Resident 1, but she had reviewed the record. RD 1 stated weights are supposed to be done on admission and once a week for the first four weeks and then at least once a month unless they need to be done more frequently. Review of Resident 1 ' s Weight and Vitals Summary indicated: 6/17/22 146.7 lbs. (pounds) 6/26/22 106.9 lbs. 6/28/22 111.2 lbs. RD 1 stated she did not know why Resident 1 was not weighed again after 6/28/22 given there was such a significant change. RD 1 stated it may be that the nursing staff thought things were improving when the weight was 111.2 lbs. on 6/28/22. RD 1 stated 106.9 lbs. is quite a drop. RD 1 stated if someone gets a weight which seems wrong, they should re-weigh the resident to make sure they are getting an accurate weight. RD 1 stated the staff can contact the RD if they have a concern about weight loss and should also notify the physician. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/30/22 at 12:30 p.m. with the Director of Nurses (DON), Resident 1's weight summary record was reviewed. The DON confirmed the weight summary indicated Resident 1 had experienced a weight loss of 35.5 lbs. from admission on [DATE] to 6/28/22 and that no more weights were obtained after 6/28/22. The DON stated she does not know why Resident 1 was not weighed again after 6/28/22 since weights were supposed to be done weekly The DON stated she thought the resident had refused to be weighed but could not remember specifically when Resident 1 refused. The DON stated the record indicated staff did not document any unsuccessful attempts to weigh Resident 1 or any occasions when Resident 1 refused to be weighed. The DON also stated there was no documentation in Resident 1 ' s medical record indicating the physician was notified about a refusal, if it had occurred. The DON stated if there is a question about a weight being correct, it should be rechecked. During a review of Resident 1's record, the intake record from 6/18/22 through 7/8/22 was reviewed. The record indicated the date, time, and amount of oral fluid intake, and the total amount for each day which included the amount of fluid served with the meal trays. The record indicated Resident 1's daily oral fluid intake between 6/18/22 and 7/8/2022 ranged from 240 ml (one cup) to 1090 ml per day. The record indicated the majority of the time (13 of 20 days [6/17/22 and 7/3/22 excluded]), Resident 1's fluid intake was 720 ml or less per day. The record indicated there were no days that Resident 1's fluid intake met the estimated daily fluid requirement of between 1340 ml and 1675 ml per day. During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/30/22 at 12:40 p.m. with the Director of Nurses (DON), Resident 1 ' s fluid intake records were reviewed. The DON stated Resident 1 refused fluids frequently. Review of the record of fluid intake from admission on [DATE] until 7/9/22, indicated out of the 119 times Resident 1 was offered fluids, the record indicated he refused six times. The DON stated the staff need to document any time the resident refuses. A review of the care plan dated 6/17/22 through 7/9/22 did not indicate refusal of food and fluids had been identified as a problem. During an interview on 12/30/22 at 1 pm with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated in order to ensure weights are accurate and not missed, there needs to be a consistent process. The weights need to be done in the same way, on the same day of the week, and by the same core group of certified nursing assistant (CNA) staff. The DSD stated they used to do it this way but that stopped this last year when they did not have enough staff to dedicate to that task which meant each CNA was responsible for doing the weights of the residents on their assigned team. The DSD stated this method of taking weights led to missed weights, inaccurate weights, and the need to reweigh residents. The DSD stated all of the staff were trained before, it is just that some staff are better than others at weighing residents. The DSD stated the facility just restarted the process that week (the last week of December 2022) of having a core group of CNAs doing the weights on a designated day of the week. The DSD stated this process was not in place when Resident 1 was at the facility (6/17/22- 7/9/22). During a concurrent interview and record review on 12/30/22 at 2 p.m. with the DON, a report of the documented level of eating/drinking support provided by staff for breakfast, lunch, and dinner was reviewed. The DON stated staff assisted Resident 1 with eating and drinking. The report indicated from 6/17/22 to 7/9/22 set up help only was provided with eating and drinking for 31 of 62 meals served (50%) meals, one-person physical assist was provided for 24 meals (38.7%), and the level of assistance provided was not documented for seven meals (11.3%) Review of the Care Plan dated 6/21/22, indicated a Focus of Risk for Weight Fluctuations however, the only interventions were to provide supplements as ordered and to weigh resident weekly and did not include providing staff assistance with eating and drinking. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Skin/Wound Note, dated 7/2/22 at 8:33 p.m., the note indicated Resident 1 had developed deep tissue injuries (DTI) on both of his heels, the left one measuring four centimeters by four centimeters in size, and the right one measuring six centimeters by six centimeters in size. During a review of Resident 1 ' s record, the Physical Therapy notes dated 7/3/22 at 9:48 a.m., indicated, Resident 1 experienced a syncopal episode (passed out) while sitting in his wheelchair and was unresponsive for 1-2 minutes. During a review of the Physician's Assistant's (PA - a licensed health care professional trained to provide medical care under physician supervision) progress note dated 7/3/22, untimed, the progress note indicated, . Staff reporting decreased oral intake. BMI 16, weight 111.2 lbs. [6/28/22], height 70 inches .oral mucosa dry .Foley [urinary catheter] cloudy .discussed with Dr. [name of MD] .Plan: Lab- Complete Blood Count [CBC- test to evaluate the different types of blood cells and can be used to help diagnose health conditions such as anemia and infection], basic metabolic panel [BMP s a blood test that includes eight different measurements and may be used to evaluate kidney function, fluid and electrolyte balance, blood sugar, and acid-base balance], clamp foley for urinalysis [UA] and urine culture and sensitivity [C&S- a test to identify what bacteria is present in the urine and which antibiotics will be most effective in treating the infection] . Start Intravenous line [IV-into a vein)] D5NS [IV fluid containing dextrose and sodium chloride] infuse at 100 ml/hour .Intake and Output [I&O]- Record hourly urine output . During a review of Resident 1 ' s record, the SBAR (Situation, Background, Assessment, and Recommendation-a communication tool used by staff for assessing and recording change in resident status) note dated 7/3/22 at 4:42 p.m., indicated, .At 3:40 p.m . noticed a change in condition in pt [patient] from prior days. Pt had been sleeping throughout the day and hard to arouse awake and was drinking and eating very little .This is new as previous days pt would be awake and able to answer questions .PA to send pt to ER . The record indicated Resident 1 was sent to the Emergency Department (ED) at Hospital B at 4:02 p.m. During of review Hospital B ' s ED physician ' s note dated 7/3/22 at 4:27 p.m., the note indicated Resident 1 was brought to ED by ambulance due to staff concern that Resident 1 has not been eating and does not want to get out of bed and is not at his baseline mentation. The note indicated Resident 1 was at baseline with no neuro deficits (abnormal function caused by injury to the brain, spinal cord, nerves), was alert and oriented and had no complaints except being tired. Lab work including blood cultures, imaging, and an electrocardiogram were done. A urinalysis was ordered but not done. ED MD indicated Resident 1 was dehydrated and IV fluids were given. The note indicated at 7:07 p.m. Resident 1 was feeling better and the ED MD gave a discharge order and diagnoses of dehydration, acute renal failure (a sudden episode of kidney failure or kidney damage that happens within a few hours or a few days), and generalized weakness. Resident 1 was transferred back to the facility at approximately 10:30 p.m. During a interview on 12/30/22 at 2:10 p.m. with the DON, the DON was asked if a urinalysis (UA) was obtained by the facility per the PA ' s note on 7/3/22. The DON stated no UA was done at the facility; once the resident goes to the ED, that negates any orders given by the PA. The DON stated she was not sure if the hospital did a UA. During a review of the Nursing Progress Note, dated 7/6/22 at 9:52 a.m., the progress note indicated Resident 1 tested positive for COVID-19. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Dietician Note, dated 7/7/22 at 6 p.m., the note written by RD 3 indicated Resident 1 was on a CCHO diet. The note indicated Resident 1 had developed pressure induced DTI and had a recent ED visit because of a change in condition. Average intake for the last six days of approximately 31% of meals (686 calories, 30 gms protein per day) with a fluid intake of 658 ml per day (approximately 44% of estimated daily fluid requirements of 1500-1750 mls). RD 3 noted Resident 1 did not have a diagnosis of diabetes and recommended liberalizing the diet, discontinuing the CCHO diet and starting him on a regular fortified diet, nutritional supplement shakes, and adding a concentrated form of liquid protein to promote wound healing and meet Resident 1 ' s estimated needs. During a review of the document Clinical Physician Orders, dated 1/6/23, the document indicated on 7/7/22 the CCHO mechanical soft diet was discontinued, and a Fortified Regular mechanical soft diet was ordered. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Dietician Note, dated 7/8/22 at 11:58 a.m., the note written by RD 2 indicated Resident 1 was being seen due to a change in condition and that Resident 1 had not been weighed since 6/28/22. The note indicated Malnutrition r/t inadequate nutrient intake AEB [as evidenced by] significant weight loss, emergence of DTI to bilateral heels . The note indicated the recommendation to add malnutrition to diagnosis [BMI 16], provide assistance with oral intake as needed .monitor weight, skin, PO [oral] intake . During a concurrent interview and record review at 1/5/23 at 10:57 a.m. with the DON and the Administrator (ADM), Resident 1 ' s Nutrition Assessments were reviewed. The DON indicated when the RD has completed her note and recommendations, an email goes out to the DON, the ADON, the MDS Coordinator, and the dietary manager so everyone knows. The DON stated the MDS coordinator then faxes the recommendations to the physician who is supposed to review the recommendations and send back orders. The DON and ADM agree the orders and the Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 6/17/22 through 7/6/22 did not indicate Resident 1 was receiving nutritional supplement shakes, and the RD notes on 6/29/22 and 7/7/22 indicate Resident 1 was not receiving nutritional supplements. However, the ADM stated the dietary list of what is included on the meal tray indicated Resident 1 was receiving shakes twice a day beginning on 6/21/22. The DON stated they have standing orders for supplements so as soon as the RD writes her notes the dietary manager gets alerted so the supplement can get added to the meal tray. Unfortunately, for some reason the supplements didn ' t get added to the orders, so they were not part of the medical record. The ADM stated they need to communicate better, and a consistent process has to be followed. The ADM stated the addition of supplements needs to get onto the orders, not just onto the meal tray list so that information is available for the dieticians and others to review. As far as the fortified diet, the DON stated she does not know why the RD ' s recommendation on 6/20/22 and 6/29/22 for a fortified diet was not implemented until 7/7/22 or why Malnutrition was never added as a diagnosis as the RD recommended on 6/29/22 and 7/8/22. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/16/23 at 11:55 a.m. with RD 2, the Dietician Note dated 6/20/22 and 6/29/22 were reviewed. RD 2 stated when she documents her nutrition assessment and recommendations, the recommendations are sent to nursing to carry out and to send to the doctor for orders. RD 2 stated it is her expectation that the nursing staff implement the recommendations of the RD. RD 2 stated if she sees that a recommendation was not implemented, she follows up by notifying the DON. RD 2 stated in this case, on 6/29/22 when she checked on Resident 1 for the second time, she noticed the recommendations from 6/20/22 were not carried out and notified the DON. As far as the weights, RD 2 stated she does not know why staff did not weigh Resident 1 again after 6/28/22. RD 2 was asked why Resident 1 was on a CCHO diet from admission on [DATE] until the diet was changed by RD 3 on 7/7/22 since Resident 1 did not have a diagnosis of diabetes. RD 2 stated she was not sure but stated usually a resident will be put on whatever they were on at the hospital. RD 2 was asked what the benefit of continuing the CCHO diet was for Resident 1 who had poor intake and significant weight loss. RD 2 stated, Good question. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/16/23 at 12:35 p.m. with the DON and the ADM, the DON was asked when the nursing staff first notified the MD or a PA about Resident 1's ongoing inadequate oral intake of food and fluid and severe weight loss. The DON stated she wasn't sure and needed to review the record. The DON reviewed the nurses ' notes for Resident 1 from 6/17/22 through 7/9/22 and stated the nursing staff notified the PA on 7/3/22, when Resident 1 was sent to the ED. The DON confirmed there were no nurses' notes other than on 7/3/22 indicating the MD or PA were notified about weight loss, or poor oral intake of food or fluids. The DON was asked under what circumstances would she notify the MD or PA about a resident's ongoing inadequate oral intake of fluids over a period of a week or more. The DON stated if a resident did not drink anything for a day, she would notify the physician. During an interview on 2/17/23 at 10:40 a.m. with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated she does not recall Resident 1 specifically but stated she had worked with residents who did not want to eat or drink much. CNA 1 stated she cannot recall ever being told a resident was dehydrated or that there was a certain amount of fluid the resident should be drinking. CNA 1 stated if a resident is not eating or drinking very much or is refusing to eat or drink, CNA 1 would always inform the nurse. During an interview on 2/17/23 at 11:25 a.m. with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated he recalled taking care of Resident 1 on several days during Resident 1 ' s stay. CNA 2 was asked what set up only and one-person physical assist meant in terms of CNA support provided to a resident for eating or drinking. CNA 2 stated set up only means the meal tray is placed on the table within reach of the resident and the lid removed. CNA 2 stated one-person physical assist means the resident needs staff to stay with him to assist him with eating and drinking. CNA 2 stated if a resident is unable to reach for a cup and lift it to his mouth the resident would need to be offered assistance with drinking fluids every two hours. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 required total assistance with eating and drinking. CNA 2 stated he was not told by anyone that Resident 1 required feeding but found out after taking care of him. CNA 2 stated on one of the first days he took care of Resident 1, he set the meal tray and drink on the bed table in front of him and left the room. Later when CNA 2 returned he saw the food and drink was still sitting there untouched. From then on when CNA 2 took care of Resident 1 he stayed with the resident and fed him and helped him to drink fluids. CNA 2 recalled Resident 1 did not want to eat or drink very much and required a lot of encouragement and assistance. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 did not communicate when he was hungry or thirsty and was quiet most of the time. CNA 2 stated he recalled there were times when Resident 1 ate less than 25% of his food. CNA 2 stated he always notifies the nurse if a resident is refusing to eat or drink or does not eat or drink very much. CNA 2 stated he was not told Resident 1 had lost weight or was getting dehydrated and had not been told Resident 1 should try to drink a certain volume of fluid. During an interview on 2/17/23 at 11:50 a.m. with Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA 1), RNA 1 stated she was recently assigned along with a CNA to do all the residents' weights. RNA 1 stated this process started at the beginning of the year. RNA 1 stated all residents on the short-term unit of the facility get weighed every Sunday. Residents on the long-term unit are weighed at least once a month, on Sunday during the first week of the month. Weights are done either with a Hoyer lift or a chair scale depending on the ability of the resident. Standing weights are not done. RNA 1 stated she has a list of all the residents and what each resident's weight was the last time they were weighed. After she weighs a resident, she compares that weight to what they weighed the last time and if the weight is five pounds or more over or five pounds or more under what their last weight was then she does not record the weight. RNA 1 stated she notes this on the list and those residents will be reweighed the next day. RNA 1 stated she gives the list with all the residents' weights and the residents that need to be reweighed to the DSD. During a review of Resident 1 ' s record, the SBAR note, dated 7/9/22 at 10:25 a.m., the note indicated Resident 1 ' s oxygen saturation (the amount of oxygen carried by the red blood cells- Normal values are 95-100%) dropped to 80% and he became difficult to arouse. The physician was notified, and Resident 1 was transferred to Hospital B. During a review of Hospital B ' s ED record dated 7/9/22 at 11:15 a.m., the record indicated Resident 1 was brought by ambulance to Hospital B with shortness of breath due to possible aspiration (the accidental breathing in of food or fluid into the lungs) arriving to ED with altered mental status and was hypoxic. COVID+ since 7/6/22. Oxygen saturation of 88% on 15 liters of oxygen. Temperature 38.5 degrees Celsius, respirations 34 breaths per minute, gurgling respirations. Diagnoses included aspiration syndrome, urinary tract infection, sepsis (the body's overwhelming and life-threatening response to infection), pneumonia, acute kidney injury. admitted to ICU. Review of the Discharge summary dated [DATE], indicated Resident 1 was receiving end of life care and was discharged to hospice on 7/12/22. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Weights, dated 11/24/17, the P&P indicated, .All residents are to be weighed upon admission to the facility. The resident is to be weighed by the CNAs and/or licensed nurse as soon as possible after arrival to the facility .New residents are to be weighed weekly for the first four weeks in the facility . Physician orders should be obtained for residents who require daily weights. Daily weights may be indicated for residents with specific medical conditions that require close monitoring of weight fluctuations. Gross weight gains or losses should trigger an immediate reweighing of the resident to be completed the day after the original weight. Reweighs are to be done on any resident who has a five (5) pound weight difference, whether it is a gain or loss .Weight Variance: Calculate weight loss or gain every time a resident is weighed . Significant weight variances [5% or more in 30 days; 10% or more in 180 days] are to be reported to the Registered Dietitian for review . Dietitian or designee is to review weight changes and discuss recommended interventions with the resident and/or their authorized representative. Recommendations and discussions are to be documented in the resident's medical record .The physician is to be notified of significant weight changes by the licensed nurse. All dietitian recommendations are to be communicated to the physician and orders carried out as indicated . The resident's care plan is to be updated with recommendations made by the dietitian and IDT [Interdisciplinary Team- a healthcare approach that integrates multiple disciplines through collaboration] upon review. Residents should be weighed by the same type of scales on a consistent basis, when possible. The type of scale used should be documented and considered when a significant weight variance is found . During a review of a professional reference, retrieved from https://www.aafp.org/dam/brand/aafp/pubs/afp/issues/2002/0215/p640.pdf titled, Evaluating and treating unintentional weight loss in the elderly, dated 2/15/02, the reference indicated, . Elderly patients with unintentional weight loss are at higher risk for infection, depression and death .Involuntary weight loss can lead to muscle wasting, .depression and an increased rate of disease complications . Various studies demonstrated a strong correlation between weight loss and morbidity and mortality .One study showed that nursing home patients had a significantly higher mortality rate in the six months after losing 10 percent of their body weight, irrespective of diagnoses or cause of death . Another study showed institutionalized elderly patients who lost 5 percent of their body weight in one month were found to be four times more likely to die within a year . During a review of a professional reference titled, Prognostic Significance of Monthly Weight Fluctuations Among Older Nursing Home Residents, dated 6/01/04, the reference indicated, .a weight loss of =10% in any 3-month interval was associated with an 8-fold increased risk for death after controlling for age and other health status variables .A 1-month weight loss of 5% or more was a powerful predictor of death . During a review of the professional reference Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics Evidence Analysis Library regarding Unintended Weight Loss for Older Adults Evidence-Based Nutrition Practice Guidel[TRUNCATED]
Feb 2019 3 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure nutrition service personnel effectively carried out the functions of food and nutrition services when one kitchen staff...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure nutrition service personnel effectively carried out the functions of food and nutrition services when one kitchen staff (KS) did not follow the recipe for the lunch meal on 2/20/19. Failure to follow the lasagna recipe could lead to the resident's receiving inadequate protein which could lead to their nutritional needs not being met and over time this could result in weight loss. Findings: On 2/20/19 at 9:30 a.m., during a kitchen observation and concurrent interview, kitchen staff (KS) prepared two hotel pans (steam table pan made of steel) with lasagna. One bowl had marinara and ground meat and the other bowl had a cheese mixture. The KS used an eight ounce spoodle (a utensil that acts as a spoon and ladle) for meat sauce, the KS put five spoodles per layer of lasagna each time. There were two layers of meat sauce in the pan. The KS stated she put five spoodles per layer of lasagna. On 2/21/19 at 3:23 p.m., during an interview and concurrent record review, the registered dietitian (RD) stated following the recipe is very important, there is no going about not following recipe. The RD stated it was her expectation for staff to follow the recipe as it was written on the recipe. Review of the Italian lasagna recipe, the recipe indicated for each pan the layer of meat sauce should be seven cups in each layer (one cup = eight ounces). Review of an in-service dated 7/17/18, indicated, . Standardized recipes portion control, how to read spreadsheet, enhanced meals . The KS signature was included on the sign in sheet. There was no documentation to show how competency of the topics were evaluated. The facility policy and procedure titled, Dietary Policy & Procedure Guidelines dated 5/1/2016, indicated POLICY, It is the policy of this facility to provide food that is prepared according to an approved recipe . PROCEDURE, 2. The facility will follow recipes provided in the menu system .
CONCERN (D)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure two of four ice machines were maintained in safe operating condition when: 1. Manufacturer's directions were not follow...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure two of four ice machines were maintained in safe operating condition when: 1. Manufacturer's directions were not followed to clean the kitchens ice machine. 2. The ice machine chute (area where ice comes out) in the main dining room contained a hard white substance. This failure had the potential of maintaining ice machine that were not in safe operating condition and could result in the growth of bacteria. Findings: 1. On 2/20/19 at 3:27 p.m., during an observation and a concurrent interview, with the physical plant director (PPD), the PPD stated he cleaned and sanitized the ice machines every six months. The PPD stated he would take out the ice machine parts and place them in one and a half gallons of water with three ounces of ice machine cleaner. The PPD stated the step would be followed by placing the parts in one and a half gallons of water with three ounces of ice machine sanitizer. The PPD confirmed he did not follow the manufacturer's directions for the amounts of ice machine cleaner and sanitizer for soaking the parts. Review of the Manufacturer's directions for cleaning ice machine located on the inside of the ice machine indicated, STEP 7, .Use the table to mix enough solution to thoroughly clean all parts. Water 1 gallon, cleaner 16 ounces . STEP 10, Mix a solution of sanitizer and lukewarm water. Water three gallons, sanitizer two ounces. 2. On 2/20/19 at 3:53 p.m., during an observation and interview in the main dining room with the PPD, a white hard substance was observed outside side of the ice machine. The PPD acknowledged the white hard substance. The PPD stated the white substance was hard to remove after cleaning the parts. The PPD stated he would have to replace the ice machine chute instead. Review of the Manufacturer's directions indicated, . Cleaning and Sanitizing Instructions . recommends cleaning and sanitizing this unit at least twice a year. More frequent cleaning and sanitizing, however, may be required in some existing water conditions
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store medications under proper temperature controls when: one of two medication refrigerators stored refrigerated medications...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store medications under proper temperature controls when: one of two medication refrigerators stored refrigerated medications in temperatures which exceeded 46 degrees Fahrenheit (F) (temperature scale). This practice had the potential for residents to receive medication exposed to increase temperatures and not receive the therapeutic (healing) effects of the medications administered. Findings: On 2/21/19 at 2:57 p.m., during a medication storage observation in station 300 and concurrent interview, licensed vocational nurse (LVN) opened the refrigerator and stated the following sealed medications were stored inside the refrigerator. Two Insulin Basaglar (medication used to control high blood sugar), one Humalog insulin (a rapid acting medication used to control high blood sugar), one Humulin Regular (a short acting medication used to control high blood sugar), one PPD solution (purified protein derivative[solution used to test for tuberculosis[an infectious disease that affects the lungs]), one Humalog kwik injection (a rapid acting medication used to control high blood sugar with the use of a medication pen), two Pneumovax injections (a vaccine used to help prevent infections caused by certain types of bacteria called pneumococcus), two Ertapenem injections (a medication used to treat and prevent infections after colon or rectal surgery), three boxes of Tylenol suppositories (rectal medication used to treat fever) and one box of Bisacodyl suppositories (rectal medication used to treat constipation). The LVN stated the refrigerator temperature was 58 degrees F. On 2/21/19 at 2:59 p.m., during an interview and concurrent record review, the LVN stated the temperature log in the medication storage room indicated temperatures were required to be maintained in temperatures of 36 to 46 degrees F. On 2/21/19 at 3:20 p.m., during an interview, the director of nursing (DON) stated the medication refrigerator temperature should have been between 36 degrees F to 46 degrees F. The DON stated if the medication refrigerator was not at the appropriate temperature the medications could lose their efficacy (effectiveness) and not be good anymore. The DON stated the temperature of 58 degrees F was not an appropriate temperature of the medication refrigerator. On 2/21/19 at 3:24 p.m., during a concurrent observation and interview in the medication storage room on nurse's station 300, the physical plant director (PPD) inserted an electrical thermometer. The thermometer's final reading was 52 degrees F. The PPD stated it was not the appropriate temperature and could have been due to adjusting the temperature dial in the refrigerator. The facility policy and procedure titled, Medication Storage in the Facility Storage of Medications dated 6/15, indicated, . Medications requiring refrigeration are kept in a refrigerator at temperatures between 2 C [Celsius] (36 F) and 8 C (46 F) with a thermometer to allow temperature monitoring .
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

  • "Can I speak with families of current residents?"
  • "What's your RN coverage like on weekends and overnight?"

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 35% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • 28 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
  • • Grade D (43/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 43/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Anberry Transitional Care's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns ANBERRY TRANSITIONAL CARE 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 Anberry Transitional Care Staffed?

CMS rates ANBERRY TRANSITIONAL CARE's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 35%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Anberry Transitional Care?

State health inspectors documented 28 deficiencies at ANBERRY TRANSITIONAL CARE during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 27 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Anberry Transitional Care?

ANBERRY TRANSITIONAL CARE 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 120 certified beds and approximately 86 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in MERCED, California.

How Does Anberry Transitional Care Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, ANBERRY TRANSITIONAL CARE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (35%) 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 Anberry Transitional Care?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "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?"

Is Anberry Transitional Care Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, ANBERRY TRANSITIONAL CARE has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 2-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in California. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Anberry Transitional Care Stick Around?

ANBERRY TRANSITIONAL CARE has a staff turnover rate of 35%, 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 Anberry Transitional Care Ever Fined?

ANBERRY TRANSITIONAL CARE has been fined $7,443 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,153. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Anberry Transitional Care on Any Federal Watch List?

ANBERRY TRANSITIONAL CARE 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.