NORWALK SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC

11510 IMPERIAL HIGHWAY, NORWALK, CA 90650 (562) 868-6791
For profit - Corporation 99 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
0/100
#1079 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: July 2025

Inspected within the last 6 months. Data reflects current conditions.

Overview

Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre has a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the care provided at this facility. It ranks #1079 out of 1155 nursing homes in California, placing it in the bottom half of the state. Although the facility is showing some improvement, with issues decreasing from 30 in 2024 to 22 in 2025, it still reported 80 total problems, including one critical incident involving a resident's suicide due to inadequate monitoring and care. Staffing is an average strength, with a turnover rate of 30%, which is better than the state average. However, the facility has accumulated fines totaling $101,631, which is concerning and higher than 91% of California facilities, indicating ongoing compliance issues.

Trust Score
F
0/100
In California
#1079/1155
Bottom 7%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
30 → 22 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
30% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$101,631 in fines. Higher than 84% of California facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 30 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for California. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
80 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★☆☆
3.0
Care Quality
★☆☆☆☆
1.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 30 issues
2025: 22 issues

The Good

  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (30%)

    18 points below California average of 48%

Facility shows strength in fire safety.

The Bad

1-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Significant quality concerns identified by CMS

Staff Turnover: 30%

15pts below California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $101,631

Well above median ($33,413)

Significant penalties indicating serious issues

The Ugly 80 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening 5 actual harm
Aug 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 F0573 (Tag F0573)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide medical records within two working days of a written reques...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide medical records within two working days of a written request from an authorized representative ([AR] a person who is legally authorized to act on behalf of) per the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Access to Protected Health Information (PHI), for two of three sampled residents (Residents 1 and 2). Findings: a. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle weakness (a lack of muscle strength), type 2 diabetes mellitus ([DM] a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). The Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was discharged on 10/2/2024. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool), dated 9/11/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderate cognitive (thought process) impairment. During a review of the request for medical records from the LA dated 7/28/2025, the request indicated the LA was requesting a copy of Resident 1's complete medical records including all records and documents that may be stored physically, digitally, and/or electronically, including but not limited to nonmedical records from 1/1/2024 to the present date. During a telephone interview on 8/21/2025 at 9:53 a.m., with the LA, the LA stated she hand delivered Resident 1's medical records request in writing to the facility on 7/30/2025. LA stated that Resident 1's medical records were received on 8/15/2025, 12 days after she requested Resident 1's documents. During a review of the facility's Log Resident Requests for Access to Protected Health Information (PHI] any information about your health or healthcare that can identify you. This includes your medical history, test results, and even payment information for healthcare services, whether in a paper record, electronic file, or even an email), dated 8/2025, the Log indicated Resident 1's AR requested Resident 1's medical records on 7/30/2025, and the medical records were sent to AR 1 on 8/19/2025. b. During a review of Resident 2's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face sheet indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle weakness, type 2 diabetes mellitus, and gastro-esophageal reflux disease ([GERD] a chronic condition that occurs when stomach contents move up into the esophagus, causing irritation). During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 7/22/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 2's had moderate cognitive impairment. During a review of the request for medical records from the AR dated 7/22/2025, the request indicated the AR was requesting a copy of Resident 2's complete medical records including all non-privileged physical, digital, and hand-written medical records including records from 7/17/2025 to present. During a review of the facilities Log of Resident Requests for Access to PHI, dated 7/2025, the Log indicated Resident 2's AR 2 requested Resident 2's medical records on 7/22/2025 and the medical records were submitted to Resident 2's representative on 8/15/2025, 16 days after the request date. During an interview on 8/21/2025 at 11:21 a.m., with medical records (MR), MR stated some of her job functions are to gather, file and retain medical records in chronological order. Maintain medical records, release health information records and maintain medical records in the active charts. MR stated to be unaware of how long the process of submitting medical records when they are requested in writing should be. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/21/2025 at 12:07 p.m., with Medical Records (MR), the facility's P&P titled, Resident Access to Protected Health Information (PHI), revised 11/1/2025 was reviewed. The P&P indicated the facilities MR will provide the residents representatives with a copy of the medical records within two working days after receiving a written request. MR stated that it is her responsibility to ensure that this process is done in a timely manner. MR stated Resident 1's and 2's medical records request process was not done within the two working days because she needed to wait until she received the ok from legal services and facility consultant prior to releasing the records and when she was notified it was ok to release the records, it was already past the two working days. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/21/2025 at 2:27 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the Logs of Resident Requests for Access to Protected Health Information dated 7/2025 and 8/2025 were reviewed. The DON stated the process of releasing medical records is to be submitted immediately and it should not take more than 24 hours for the residents or their AR to receive the requested documents. The DON stated that it took the facility over two working days to have Resident 1's and Resident 2's medical records submitted to their representatives. The DON stated this process was not done in a timely manner and resulted in a delay in services. The DON stated that usually whoever is requesting these documents needs them within 24 to 48 hours of them being requested. The DON stated that it is the MR's, DON and the Administrators (ADM) responsibility to ensure this process is done in a timely manner. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Resident Access to PHI, and revised 11/1/2015, the P&P indicated the purpose of this P&P is to establish guidelines for reviewing resident or resident's personal representative's requests for access to PHI. The time and manner of access is for the resident's representative to request a copy of the resident's medical record. The MR will provide the representative with a copy of the medical record within two working days after receiving the written request.
Jul 2025 20 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure two of three sampled residents' (Resident 2 and Resident 44) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure two of three sampled residents' (Resident 2 and Resident 44) informed consent (voluntary agreement to accept treatment and/or procedures after receiving education regarding the risks, benefits, and alternatives offered) for psychotropics (drug or other substance that affects how the brain works and causes changes in mood, awareness, thoughts, feelings, or behavior) was obtained prior to administration.This deficient practice violated Resident 2 and 44's rights to receive all information, in advance, of risks and benefits of proposed care, treatment, treatment alterative, and choose the alterative of choice which includes information for administration of psychotropic drugs.Findings: A. During a review of Resident 2's admission record, the admission record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities) and bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression to elevated periods of emotional highs). During a review of Resident 2’s Minimum Data Set (MDS – a resident assessment tool), 6/24/2025, the MDS indicated was able to understand and be understood by others and was dependent (helper does all of the effort) for eating, toileting, bathing, and dressing. During a review of Resident 2’s Physician Order Summary, the Order Summary indicated the following: 1. Starting 3/20/2024, Resident 2 is incapable of making healthcare decisions. 2. Starting 2/5/2025, Apripiprazole (medication for bipolar disorder) five milligrams (mg- unit of measurement), every other evening for sudden shifts in mood from pleasant to extreme anger. 3. Starting 3/28/2025, Valporic Acid (medication for bipolar disorder) 250 mg/5 milliliters (ml unit of measurement for liquids), two times a day for extreme mood swings. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/18/2025 at 11:40 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the most recent informed consent for psychotropics for Resident 2 was dated 7/23/2024. The DON stated informed consents for psychotropics should be signed and updated every six months. The DON stated if informed consents for psychotropics are not obtained, there is a risk for unnecessary medication use and violating residents’ right to refuse. B. During a review of Resident 44’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 44 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest) and anxiety disorder (mental health condition characterized by excessive fear and worry). During a review of Resident 44’s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 44’s cognitive skills (functions your brain uses to think, pay attention, process information, and remember things) for daily decision-making was intact. During a review of Resident 44’s Order Summary Report as of 7/11/2025, the Summary report indicated the following: 1. Starting on 7/8/2025, Ativan (medication for anxiety) on mg, by mouth, every 12 hours as needed for verbalization of feeling anxious.2. Starting on 5/16/2025, Trazadone (medication for depression) 125 mg by mouth, at bedtime. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 3 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 2, Resident 5's Informed consents for Ativan and Trazadone were reviewed. RN 2 stated both informed consents were incomplete and therefore not valid. RN 2 stated Ativan consent was missing the date and physician signature. RN 2 stated the Trazadone consent was also missing the date and physician signature. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:30 p.m., with the DON, the DON stated informed consents should be obtained prior to the first dose of medication and need to be obtained by the medical provider who orders the medication. During a review of the facility’s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, “Informed Consent”, revised 6/27/2024, the P&P indicated It was the healthcare provider’s responsibility to obtain informed consent. During a review of the facility’s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, “Behavior/Psychoactive Medication Management”, revised 4/24/2025, the P&P indicated the residents written informed consent for treatment will be obtained and renewed every six months.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0553 (Tag F0553)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct Interdisciplinary Team (IDT- a group of medical professiona...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to conduct Interdisciplinary Team (IDT- a group of medical professionals from different disciplines who work together to help a resident achieve their goals) meetings quarterly and as needed for one of three sampled residents (Resident 32).This failure resulted in Resident 32 and Resident 32's Responsible Party (RP) to be unaware of the plan of care and experience worry while waiting for mammogram (x-ray of the breast to detect signs of breast cancer) results for three months. Findings: During a review of Resident 32's admission record, the admission record indicated Resident 32 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes (a disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), arthritis (a chronic progressive disease-causing inflammation in the joints and resulting in painful deformity and immobility), and kidney failure (condition where kidneys lose the ability to filter waste and fluid from the body). During a review of Resident 32's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/1/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 3 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 32's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 6/18/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 32's cognition (ability to learn reason, remember, understand, and make decisions) was intact, required set-up assistance when eating, required maximal assistance (helper does more than half of the effort) for bathing and dressing, and was dependent (helper does all of the effort) for toileting. During a review of Resident 32's Physician Order Summary dated 7/18/2025, the Order Summary indicated on 3/6/2025, Resident 3 had an order for a diagnostic bilateral mammogram. During an interview on 7/15/2025 at 10:07 a.m. with Resident 32, Resident 32 stated she had a mammogram a few months ago, but has been worried because she has not received any results. During an interview on 7/15/2025 at 12:41 p.m. with Resident 32's Responsible Party (RP), the RP stated Resident 32 had a mammogram around May 2025 and has not heard any updates or results. The RP stated the last IDT meeting was over three months ago.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 1:57 p.m. with the Social Services Director (SSD), Resident 32's medical record was reviewed. The SSD stated Resident 32 had mammogram on 4/14/2025, and did not see results in Resident 32's medical record. The SSD stated the last IDT meeting was 3/19/2025. The SSD stated there should have been an IDT meeting in June 2025. The SSD stated it is important to have quarterly IDT meetings to update residents and their RP's of the plan of care. The SSD stated if there was an IDT meeting in June 2025, the mammogram results would have been discussed. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:30 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated IDT meetings are completed on admission, quarterly, and as needed. The DON stated IDTs are important to update residents and their families of the plan of care and give an opportunity for them to voice their concerns. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, revised 8/24/2023, the P&P indicated the facility must provide the resident and representative, if applicable, reasonable notice of car planning conferences to enable resident and representative participation. The P&P indicated the care planning meeting will be documented in the clinical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0559 (Tag F0559)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility staff failed to inform, and give notice of and information of a room change ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record review, the facility staff failed to inform, and give notice of and information of a room change for one of three sampled resident's (Resident 75) . This deficient practice had the potential to affect Resident 75's self-esteem, self-worth, and cause confusion due to sudden room change. Findings:During a review of Resident 75's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 75 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including encephalopathy (a change in the brain function due to injury or disease) unspecified, Alzheimer's disease (a disease characterized by a progressive decline in mental abilities) unspecified and muscle weakness ( a reduced ability of muscles to generate force, making it harder to perform tasks that require effort, even with a maximal effort). During a review of Resident 75's history and physical (H&P) dated 11/9/2024, the H&P indicated resident 75 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 75's MDS (a residents assessment tool) dated 7/3/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 75 was dependent (resident does none of the effort to complete the activity. Or, the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) for toilet transfers, chair/bed to chair transfer, toilet hygiene, bathing, dressing the upper and lower body , eating, and oral hygiene. During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 2:24.p.m.,with Resident 75's family member (FM) 1, FM 1 stated, he often finds his son has been moved to a new room, with no prior notice. FM 1stated the facility does not notify him when Resident 1 has been moved to a different room. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 10:15 a.m., with Registered Nurse 2 (RN 2), RN 2 stated the resident (general), and the resident's family must always be notified of a room change in advance. RN 2 stated we must explain why the room was changed because we must get their permission to make a room change, even if a resident is moving from bed A to bed B. During an interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 2:02 p.m., with the Social Services Director (SSD) , Resident 75's medical records were reviewed. The SSD stated Resident 75 was transferred to a new room on the dates as follows -room [ROOM NUMBER] B on 1/8/2025-room [ROOM NUMBER] C on 3/2/2025 -room [ROOM NUMBER] B on 6/22/2025The SSD stated there was no documentation of prior notice to Resident 75 or his family of the room changes . The SSD stated when changing a resident's room, we notify the resident and if he is not the decision maker the family is notified, we must get their consent. The DDS stated when a resident is moved from bed A to bed B (in the same room) the resident and family still need to be notified. The SSD stated there was no documentation Resident 75 and his family were notified of the room changes on 1/8/2025, 3/2/2025 and 6/22/2025. The SSD stated it was important to notify the residents and family of room changes so they can know where their family member is going, to ensure the family is aware of his care. The SSD stated residents get used to their normal surroundings and changing their environment suddenly can be bad and we can upset the family. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 2:30 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated when we make room changes we must notify the resident if he is the person responsible, if not we must notify the residents responsible party. The DON stated the individual must know the reason for the move and can refuse to be moved, since it is their home and their right. The DON stated this must be charted in the social nurse's notes giving the reason for the room change, this is the residents' right. During a review of the facility's P&P titled Room or Roommate Change revised on March 2018, the P&P indicates to ensure that a resident is able to exercise his/her right to change rooms or roommates. Prior to changing a room or roommate assignment , the resident, the resident's representative ( if available), and the resident's new roommate will be provided timely advance notice of such a change.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0605 (Tag F0605)

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 there was an appropriate indication for the use of antipsyc...

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 there was an appropriate indication for the use of antipsychotic (medication used to treat mental illness) medication for one of six sampled residents (Resident 4) when Resident 4 had haloperidol (a medication used to treat certain mental health) on an as-needed (prn) basis without a specific diagnosis or documented justification for administration of haloperidol. The deficient practice had the potential for use of unnecessary medications on Resident 4.Findings: During a review of Resident 4's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 4 on 9/30/2021, and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression (a mental health condition characterized by persistent sadness and a loss of interest in activities that were once enjoyable) and vascular dementia (mental illness marked by a decline in thinking skills caused by condition that disrupt blood flow to the brain, leading to damage in blood vessels and brain tissue). During a review of Resident 4's physician Progress note, dated 5/19/2025, the progress note indicated that Resident 4 did not have the capacity to understand and make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 4's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 7/2/2025, the MDS indicated that Resident 4's cognitive ( to think, pay attention, process information, and remember things) ability was severely impaired. The MDS indicated that Resident 4 was dependent (helper does all the effort) with eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, showering, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on/ taking off footwear, and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 4's Order Summary Report, orders as of 7/16/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated starting 7/12/2025, administer Haloperidol 0.5 milligram (mg-unit does) by mouth every 8 hours as needed for anxiety manifested by agitation During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 8:50 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 4's Order Summary Report, orders as of 7/16/2025 were reviewed. RN 1 stated that the physician ordered Haloperidol, an antipsychotic medication, for Resident 4's anxiety. RN 1 stated that Resident 4 did not have a specific diagnosis supporting antipsychotic use. RN 4 stated staff should verify the order with the ordering physician for the right indication for antipsychotic use or it could lead to misuse of antipsychotic causing side effects such as sedation. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:23 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated that staff needed to avoid unnecessary use of antipsychotic medications, and if there was no specific diagnosis, and condition for the use of antipsychotic medications, the medications should be discontinued to avoid harm. The DON stated, if she was the resident, she would not want Haloperidol administered to her without the proper indication. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Antipsychotic medications, revised 4/24/2025, the P&P indicated the following:1. Anti-psychotic medications are to be used only to treat specific mental health diagnoses.2. Antipsychotic and antidepressant medications are not to be administered on a prn (as needed) basis.3. Antipsychotic medications may be used to treat the following conditions:i. Schizophreniaii. Schizoaffective disorderiii. Schizophreniform disorderiv. Tourette's disorderv. Huntington's diseasevi. Nausea, hiccups, itchingvii. A physical behavior problem which causes the resident to:a. Present a danger to self or others, orb. Interferes with resident's ability to participate in the plan of care.viii. Psychotic symptoms such as hallucinations or delusions which impair the resident's functional capacity (eating, sleeping, toileting, etc.).4. Anti psychotic medications should not be used if one or more of the following conditions is the only manifestation: restlessness, nervousness, fidgeting.
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately document the 's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident asses...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately document the 's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool) for one of five sampled residents (Resident 3). This failure had the potential to result in a delay of care or not receiving the appropriate services or treatment. Findings: During a review of Resident 3's admission record , the admission record indicated Resident 3 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including cellulitis (a skin infection that causes swelling and redness) of left finger, sepsis (a life-threatening blood infection), and contractures (a stiffening/shortening at any joint, that reduces the joint's range of motion) of hands, knees, and elbows. During a review of Resident 3's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 4/3/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 3's cognition (ability to learn, reason, remember, understand, and make decisions) was severely impaired, and was dependent (helper does all of the effort) for eating, toileting, bathing, and dressing. During a review of Resident 3's Physician Order Summary, the Order Summary indicated Resident 3 has an order for oxygen as needed at 2 liters (L-unit of measurement)/minute starting 3/12/2025. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/18/2025 at 12:09 p.m. with the MDS Coordinator (MDSC), Resident 3's medical record was reviewed. The MDSC stated if the MDS data was submitted on 4/3/2025, they would have reviewed and referenced observations and documented data during the date range of 3/21/2025 to 4/3/2025. The MDSC stated Resident 3's medical record indicated oxygen use on 3/21/2025, 3/22/2025, 3/23/2025, 3/28/2025, and 3/29/2025. The MDSC stated the MDS dated [DATE] does not indicate or reflect Resident 3 uses oxygen. The MDSC stated it was miscoded and should have indicated that Resident 3 uses oxygen. The MDSC stated it is important that the MDS accurately reflects the residents to show what treatment is ordered and received. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:30 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it the MDS is not accurate, there is a risk that the resident may not be receiving the appropriate services or treatment. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled RAI Process, dated 10/04/2016, the P&P indicated the facility is to provide resident-assessments that accurately depict and identify resident specific issues and objectives as required.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to develop a person-centered care plan for one of two sampled 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 develop a person-centered care plan for one of two sampled residents (Resident 4) for the used of antipsychotic medication, haloperidol (a medication used to treat certain mental health illnesses) .This failure had the potential to result in inappropriate medication use, lack of behavioral monitoring, and increased risk of adverse drug effects. Findings: During a review of Resident 4's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 4 on 9/30/2021, and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression (a mental health condition characterized by persistent sadness and a loss of interest in activities that were once enjoyable) and vascular dementia (decline in thinking skills caused by condition that disrupted blood flow to the brain, leading to damage in blood vessels and brain tissue). During a review of Resident 4's physician Progress note, dated 5/19/2025, the progress note indicated Resident 4 did not have the capacity to understand and make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 4's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 7/2/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 4's cognitive (functions your brain uses to think, pay attention, process information, and remember things) ability was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 4 was dependent (helper does all the effort) with eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, showering, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on/ taking off footwear, and personal hygiene.During a review of Resident 4's Order Summary Report, orders as of 7/16/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated that starting 7/12/2025, administer Haloperidol 0.5 milligram (mg-unit does) by mouth every 8 hours as needed for anxiety manifested by agitation During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 8:50 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 4's care plan, as of 7/17/2025 was reviewed. RN 1 stated there was no care plan for Haloperidol, an antipsychotic medication use for Resident 4. RN 1 stated that a care plan was essential as it outlines the care needed, what staff should monitor, such as behaviors the medication is being used for, and provides the basis for the use of antipsychotics.During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:23 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated that staff needed to develop a person-centered care plan for the use of antipsychotic medications on residents.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, revised 8/24/2023, the P&P indicated followings:1. The facility will provide person-centered, comprehensive, and interdisciplinary care that reflects best practice standards for meeting health, safety, psychosocial, behavioral, and environmental needs of residents in order to obtain or maintain the highest physical, mental, and psychosocial well- being. 2. Additional changes or updates to the resident's comprehensive care plan will be made based on the assessed needs of the resident.3. The comprehensive care plan will also be reviewed and revised at the following times: a. Onset of new problems, b. To address changes in behavior and care; and c. Other times as appropriate or necessary. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Behavior/Psychoactive Medication Management, revised 4/24/2025, the P&P indicated that the IDT will reassess the effectiveness of the psychoactive medication at least quarterly during the IDT Care plan meeting, or psychoactive behavior management committee.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents' (Resident 40) care plan for smo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents' (Resident 40) care plan for smoking was updated. The deficient practice had the potential to result in poor quality of care and a delay in care and services.Findings:During a review of Resident 40's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 40 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including acute respiratory failure (when the air sacs of the lungs cannot release enough oxygen into the blood), and congestive heart failure (CHF-a heart disorder which causes the heart to not pump the blood efficiently, sometimes resulting in leg swelling).During a review of Resident 40's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool) dated 5/16/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 40's cognition (ability to think and reason) was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 40 needed set up assistance when eating and oral hygiene supervision with toileting hygiene and partial assistance (helper does less than the effort to perform task) with showring and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 40's Smoking and Safety, dated 5/13/2025, the document indicated Resident 40 was a smoker.During a review of Resident 40's Order Summary as of 7/17/2025, the summary indicated, starting 7/10/2025, Oxygen at 1-5 liters/minute via nasal canula (device that supplies oxygen through the nose) as needed for shortness of breath. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 1:18 p.m., in the designated smoking patio, Resident 40 was observed with a nasal canula hanging on his chest. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 2:15 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 2, Resident 40's smoking care plan, initiated 5/10/2025, was reviewed. RN 2 stated Resident 40's care plan did not indicate interventions to address Resident 40's oxygen use. RN 2 stated the care plan should have been updated when Resident 40 started using oxygen.During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:30 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the interventions to residents' smoking care plans need to be updated and individualized to prevent risk for fire, for the residents and all the residents in the facility. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, revised 8/24/2023, the P&P indicated a comprehensive, person-centered care plan must be reviewed and revised periodically, based on assessed needs of the resident.
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 ensure one out of three residents (Resident 44) receive...

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 out of three residents (Resident 44) received assistance with toileting hygiene as needed. The deficient practice had the potential increased risk of skin breakdown and loss of dignity.Findings:During a review of Resident 44's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 44 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including weakness, Parkinson's disease (a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremor, muscular rigidity, and slow, imprecise movements), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing).During a review of Resident 44's Minimum Data set ([MDS], A resident assessment tool), dated 6/25/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 44's cognitive skills (functions your brain uses to think, pay attention, process information, and remember things) for daily decision-making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 44 needed moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort to complete the task) with toileting hygiene.During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/15/2025 at 9:45 a.m., with Resident 44 in her room, Resident 44 was observed sitting in bed in her night gown. Resident 44 stated getting help to get cleaned and assistance with toileting hygiene takes a while. Resident 44 stated she has been wet with urine since 5 a.m. and the staff knew about the resident's need for assistance.During an interview on 7/15/2025 at 9:48 a.m. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA)1, CNA 1 stated she was aware Resident 44 needed to be changed. CNA 1 stated she arrived at 6:30 a.m. and was busy with another resident. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 10:00 a.m., with Resident 44, in Resident 44's room, CNA 1 was observed assisting Resident 44 with toileting and personal hygiene.During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:30 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated all residents should be assisted with toileting hygiene because as we age balance and coordination is different, and the residents need supervision. The DON stated not assisting the residents can put residents at risk for falls, infection, poor self-esteem, and skin breakdown. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Grooming, revised 1/1/2012, the P&P indicated the Facility will work with residents to promote hygiene, comfort, self-esteem and dignity by assisting with the appropriate types and amount of assistance.During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Resident Rights - Accommodation of Needs, revised 1/1/2012, the P&P indicated the facility will provide services that meet residents' individual needs.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents with a diagnosis of Diabetes M...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents with a diagnosis of Diabetes Meletus Type II (DM - a condition wherein the body can not regulate consumption and use of sugar which may result in poor wound healing) (Resident 28)'s:a. Physician was notifiedb. Change of condition (COC) was initiatedWhen Resident 28 had repeated hyperglycemic (level of blood sugar is higher are higher than normal [reference range70-99 milligram/deciliter (mg/dL- a unit of measurement used to express blood glucose levels) mg/dl]) events. This failure had the potential to result in delayed interventions, life-threatening emergencies such as diabetic ketoacidosis (a serious complication of diabetes where the body starts breaking down fat for energy instead of sugar at a very fast rate, producing substances that are harmful to the body), resulting in dehydration, potentially life -threatening conditions.Findings: During a review of Resident 28's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 28 on 1/7/2022 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including type two diabetes mellitus (DM- a condition where your blood sugar levels are too high) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a common lung disease that makes it hard to breathe). During a review of Resident 28's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/6/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 28 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 28's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 6/2/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 28 was severely cognitively (to think, pay attention, process information, and remember things) impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 28 was dependent (helper does all the effort) on staff with oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, showering, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 28's Order Summary Report, orders as of 7/15/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated the following physician orders:a. Starting 6/13/2025, Humulin R (a short acting medication used to lower and regulate blood sugar levels) solution 100 unit/milliliter (unit/ml-a measure of a substance) inject subcutaneously (administer under first layer of skin) four times a day for DM as per sliding scale (a tool used to manage diabetes by adjusting insulin doses based on current BS levels) If BS is <60 mg/dL, call MD.If BS is 60-250 mg/dL, give 0 unit of Humulin RIf BS is 251-300 mg/dL, give 2 units of Humulin R.If BS is 301-350 mg/dL, give 3 units of Humulin R.If BS is 351-400 mg/dL, give 4 units of Humulin R.If BS is 401-500 mg/dL, give 5 units of Humulin R and call the physician.b. Starting 6/6/2025, inject Lantus (a long acting medication to treat DM) Solution 20 units subcutaneously at bedtime for DM, rotate injection sites, and hold if BS is less than 100 mg/dL. During a concurrent interview and record review on 07/17/2025 at 12:13 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN)1, Resident 28's Medication Administration Record (MAR) and change of condition (COC) assessment, for the months of May, June and July 2025 were reviewed. RN 1 stated that staff need to call the physician when the blood sugar level is lower than 60mg/dL or above 401mg/dL, as these are considered critical values and a change of condition unless the physician indicates other wise. RN 1 stated if Resident 28 has a hyperglycemic episode, staff must assess Resident 28 and document on the SBAR, notify the physician and RP, and follow up with 72-hour monitoring of Resident 28 to allow for early intervention and prevent a life-threatening emergency. RN 1 stated that Resident 28 had multiple hyperglycemic episodes and staff did not assess the Resident 28 using SBAR form (for the COC), staff did not monitor Resident 28 for 72-hours after the hyperglycemic episodes, and staff did not notify the physician and family on following days of Resident 28's hyperglycemic episodes: On 7/16/2025 at 5:36 a.m., 420mg/dL On 7/16/2025 at 11:17a.m. 471mg/dL On 6/8/2025 at 8:33 p.m. 441mg/dL On 5/1/2025 at 11:21 425mg/dL, at 8:50p.m. 528mg/dL On 5/4/2025 at 9:00 p.m. 489mg/dL On 5/6/2025 at 12:19 p.m. 459mg/dL On 5/11/2025 at12:30 a.m. 474mg/dL, at 4:57p.m. 471mg/dL, at 8:25 p.m. 471mg/dL On 5/15/2025 at 11:54 a.m. 499mg/dL On 5/16/2025 at 11:30 a.m. 457mg/dL On 5/17/2025 at 12:45 p.m. 485mg/dL On 5/18/2025 at 12:22 p.m. 485mg/dLDuring an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:23 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated that staff needed to call the physician when a resident was hyperglycemic episode, when BS is above 400mg/dL, it's a change of condition and the SBAR should be assessed for early intervention and monitoring. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Diabetic Care, revised 1/2012, the P&P indicated that in any case where the resident's blood sugar is less than 70mg/dL or greater than 350 mg/dL, the attending physician must be notified: unless otherwise noted on the Physician's order. A Licensed Nurse must notify the resident and/or the resident's family/representative of blood glucose results beyond the defined parameters. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Change in Condition dated 8/25/2025, the P&P indicated following:1. The Licensed Nurse will assess the change of condition and determine what nursing interventions are appropriate.2. Notification to the Physician will include a summary of the condition change and an assessment of the resident's vital signs and system review focusing on the condition and/or signs and symptoms for which the notification is required utilizing SBAR format (situation, background, assessment, recommendation)3. A Licensed Nurse will document each shift for at least seventy-two (72) hours when there is a change in the residents' condition. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Change of Condition Notification. dated 8/25/2022, the P&P indicated following:1. The Facility will promptly inform the resident, consult with the resident's Physician/APP (advanced practice provider), and notify the resident's legal representative or an interested family member, if known, when the resident endures a significant change in their condition caused by, but not limited to significant change in the resident's physical, mental or psychosocial status. 2. Change of Condition related to Physician/APP notification is defined as when the Physician/APP must be notified when any sudden and marked adverse change in the resident's condition which is manifested by signs and symptoms different than usual denote a new problem, complication or permanent change in status and require a medical assessment, coordination and consultation with the physician and a change in the treatment plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement accident risks and hazard interventions for two of Three ...

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 accident risks and hazard interventions for two of Three sampled residents (Resident 38 and Resident 75) by: 1.Failed to ensure there was no smoking sign for a Resident 38 who is on oxygen.2.Failed to ensure Resident 75's bed was in the lowest position.3.Failing to ensure Resident 75 was placed in a low bed ( a bed frame designed to sit closer to the ground than a traditional bed). This deficient practice had the potential to result in injury . Findings:a.During a review of Resident 38's admission Record, the admission Record indicated, Resident 38 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a long term lung disease that blocks airflow to the lungs making it difficult to breathe), cardiomyopathy (a disease of the heart muscle that makes it harder for the heart to pump blood) and hypertension( high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 38's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 38's cognitive (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) skills were moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 38 was dependent (resident does none of the effort to complete the activity) with toilet hygiene, shower/bathe self, personal hygiene, substantial/maximum assistant ( helper lifts, holds or supports trunk or limbs but provide less than half the effort) with oral hygiene lower and upper body dressing. The MDS indicated, Resident 38 receives oxygen therapy. During a review of Resident 38's Order Summary report (OSR) dated [DATE], the OSR indicated an order for oxygen at 2 liters per minute (the unit used to measure the flow rate of oxygen being delivered to a patient) by nasal cannula( a thin flexible tube with two prongs that are inserted into the nostrils to deliver oxygen ) maintain oxygen saturation (a measure of how much oxygen is carried in your blood) above 94% every shift. During a concurrent observation and interview on [DATE] at 10:24 a.m., Resident 38 was in bed and one tank of oxygen was next to the bedside there was no No Smoking sign present. Licensed Vocational Nurse (9) stated there needed to be a no Smoking Sign on resident 38's door as she was taping the no smoking sign to the wall next to resident's room door. During an interview on [DATE] at 09:30 a.m., with Registered Nurse 2 (RN 2), RN 2 stated when residents are on oxygen there needs to be a sign letting everyone know the resident is on oxygen RN 2 stated this can be dangerous if someone had a flammable object. RN 2 stated it is everyone's responsibility to make sure there is a sign indicating oxygen use. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:30 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated there needs to be a sign so everyone can be aware the resident is on oxygen because oxygen is highly flammable, and this can cause a fire . DON stated it is everyone's responsibility to make sure a sign is on the wall of a resident who is receiving oxygen. b.During a review of Resident 75's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 75 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including encephalopathy (a change in the brain function due to injury or disease) unspecified, Alzheimer's disease (a disease characterized by a progressive decline in mental abilities) unspecified and muscle weakness ( a reduced ability of muscles to generate force, making it harder to perform tasks that require effort, even with a maximal effort) and epilepsy (a brain disorder that causes recurrent seizures), unspecified, not intractable(hard to control), without status epilepticus (prolong or multiple seizures {a disruption of normal brain activity, causing unusual movements) . During a review of Resident 75's history and physical (H&P) dated [DATE], the H&P indicated resident 75 has fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 75's MDS (a residents assessment tool) dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 75 was dependent (resident does none of the effort to complete the activity. Or, the assistance of two or more helpers is required for the resident to complete the activity) on toilet transfer, chair/bed to chair transfer, toilet hygiene, bathing, dressing the upper and lower body , eating, and oral hygiene. During a record review of Resident 75's Care Plan Report (CPR) dated [DATE], the CPR indicated the resident is high risk for falls related to epilepsy, unspecified and potential for injury dated [DATE] with an intervention place personal items within reach , increased monitoring/more frequent checks, low bed , bed at right height, bed alarm bed moves to more observable area for increased supervision. During an observation and interview on [DATE] at 11:00 a.m. with the Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) Resident 75 was in bed, the bed was raised at a high position. CNA stated I was told Resident 75's bed should be in a low position because of his seizures he can fall and be injured. During interview [DATE] at 10:15 a.m. with the Registered Nurse 2 ( RN 2 ), RN 2 stated it is the RN's responsibility to assess the resident for fall risk resident 75 is at risk for seizures and should have been in a low bed which would be at the lowest position to minimize the risk of a fall . RN 2 stated Resident 74's bed was in the highest position, the impact from the fall can be worst. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated if a resident is a fall risk they are to be placed in a low bed and the bed is to be placed in the lowest position. DON stated everyone is at risk of a fall with injury. During a review of the facility policy and procedure titled Oxygen Therapy and revised in [DATE] indicated oxygen is administered under safe and sanitary conditions to meet the residents' needs. Licensed Nursing staff will administer oxygen as prescribed. No smoking signs will promptly displayed wherever oxygen is being stored or administered. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Fall Management Program , revised [DATE] the P&P indicated, the facility will implement a Fall Management Program that supports providing an environment free from fall hazards.
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Facility failed to ensure that the urinary catheter bag (a urine drainage bag is a small bag that collects urine when you have a catheter inserted into your bladder) for one of three sampled residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
Facility failed to ensure that the urinary catheter bag (a urine drainage bag is a small bag that collects urine when you have a catheter inserted into your bladder) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 8) did not touch the floor.This failure had the potential to result in contamination of the catheter system and an increased risk of urinary tract infection (UTI an infection in your urinary system, which includes your kidneys, bladder, and urethra) or other complications for Resident 8.Findings: During a review of Resident 8's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 8 on 3/18/2025 with diagnoses including multiple sclerosis (a chronic, often disabling disease that attacks the central nervous system [brain and spinal cord]), malignant neoplasm (a cancerous tumor) of bladder and Extended- spectrum beta-lactamase (ESBL an antibiotic resistant infectious organism). During a review of Resident 8's History and Physical (H&P), dated 3/19/2025, the H&P indicated, Resident 8 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 8's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 6/24/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 5 required maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort to complete task) with toileting hygiene, showering, lower body dressings, putting on/taking off footwear, personal hygiene, moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort to complete the task) with upper body dressing, supervision assistance (helper provides verbal cues and/ or touching/ steading and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity) with oral hygiene and supervision assistance (helper provides verbal cues and/ or touching/ steading and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity) with eating. During a review of Resident 8's Order Summary Report, orders as of 7/15/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated the following physician orders:a. Starting 3/26/2025, change foley catheter, every day shift starting on the 15th and ending on the 15th of every month.b. Starting 3/26/2025, change urinary catheter bag per schedule when foley is changed and as needed (foley catheter change schedule), set to same date as foley catheter change schedule. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/15/2025 at 10:25 a.m., with licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, in Resident 8's room, Resident 8's urinary catheter bag touched the floor. LVN 3 stated that the urine bag was touching the floor, which could lead to infection. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/16/2025 at 12:37 p.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 8's treatment administration record (TAR), dated July 2025 and June 2025, were reviewed. RN 1 stated Resident 8 was a high risk for getting a UTI. RN 1 stated that staff should make sure the urine bag, including the dignity bag, was not touching the floor to prevent Resident 8 from getting a UTI. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:23 p.m., with the Director or Nursing (DON), the DON stated the urine bag should be kept off the floor for infection control. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Job Description Manual- Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), undated, the P&P indicated that CNA must keep the drainage bag off the floor when resident is in bed or in wheelchair. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Job Description Manual - Charge nurse, undated, the P&P indicated charge nurse must ensures that all safety and infection control practices are followed and supervise to assures that all personnel follow established Infection control practices.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement gastrostomy tube (GT, a surgical opening fi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement gastrostomy tube (GT, a surgical opening fitted with a device to allow feedings to be administered directly to the stomach common for people with swallowing problems) orders, in accordance with physician orders and facility policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Feeding Tube - Medication Administered, for one of five sampled residents (Resident 28) by failing to ensure: (Cross Reference F726, F759 and F760) Resident 28's GT placement was checked by aspiration prior to medication administration via GT Resident 28's GT was flushed with prescribed amount of water before medication administration Resident 28 was administered medication via GT by gravity (utilizing the natural downward pull of gravity to deliver the medication into the stomach through the GT/feeding tube) in accordance with facility's P&P This deficient practices had the potential to increase the risk of medication errors, which could result in Resident 28's GT becoming clogged (blocked), dislodged, causing pain, discomfort, harm, delay in care or hospitalization of the resident. Findings:During a review of Resident 28's admission Record (facesheet) , the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), DM II, epilepsy (is a neurological condition that causes unprovoked, recurrent seizures [is a sudden rush of abnormal electrical activity in the brain]), hypertension (HTN, high blood pressure), blindness, right eye, and gastrotomy status (GT)During a review of Resident 28's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool) , dated 6/2/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 28's cognitive skills for daily decisions making was severely impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 28 was dependent and required two or more staff physical assistance for all ADL.During a review of Resident 28's History and Physical (H&P) dated 6/6/2025, indicated the resident does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions.During a review of an Order Summary with active orders as of 7/16/2025 included the following orders for:1.Enteral Feed Order every shift check for placement (ensures the tube is correctly placed into the stomach), patency (involves verifying the GT's ability to drain stomach contents, flush with water, and assessing for any signs of blockage or dislodgement, where the GT comes out of the stomach) and residual (measuring the amount of stomach contents remaining in the stomach before a feeding or medication administration). If residual is more than 60 milliliters (ml, unit of measurement by volume) or reaches an amount indicated by the physician hold feeding until residual diminishes, order date 6/6/20252.Enteral Feed Order every shift flush tube (GT) with 50 ml water, order date 6/6/20253.Enteral Feed Order every shift flush GT with 10 ml to 15 ml water between medications4.Clopidogrel (used to prevent blood clots) Oral Tablet 75 mg, give one tablet via GT one time a day for cerebrovascular accidents (CVA or stroke), order date 6/6/20255.Gabapentin Capsule 300 mg, give one capsule via GT three times a day for Neuropathic pain (nerve pain), order date 6/6/20256.Losartan Potassium Tablet 50 mg, one tablet via GT one time a day for HTN. Hold if SBP is less than 110 mmHg, or HR is less than 60 bpm, order date 6/6/20257.Oxcarbazepine Oral Suspension 300 mg/ 5ml, give 15 ml via GT two times a day for seizures (900 mg = 15 ml), order date 6/6/20258.Keppra (Levetiracetam) Oral Solution 100 mg.ml, give 15 ml via GT two times a day for seizure, order date 6/6/20259.Dilantin (Phenytoin) Oral Tablet Chewable 50 mg, give four (4) tablets (200 mg) via GT two times a day for seizure disorder, order date 6/24/202510.Aspirin 81 mg Oral Tablet Chewable, give one tablet via GT one time a day for CVA prophylaxis (preventative treatment), order date 6/6/2025During a review of Resident 28's Care Plan (CP) included the following interventions:1.The resident has hypertension (HTN) related to (r/t) inappropriate diet and lifestyle choices. Medication use: Losartan Potassium Tablet 50 mg. Give one tablet by mouth one time a day for HTN hold if systolic blood pressure less than 110 mmhg (unit of pressure), give antihypertensive medications as ordered. Monitor for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension (a sudden drop in blood pressure that occurs upon standing from a sitting or lying down position) and increased heart rate (Tachycardia) and effectiveness. Date initiated: 5/23/2025.2.The resident requires GT feeding r/t Dysphagia, chewing problem.The resident needs the head of the bed (HOB) elevated 45 degrees during and thirty minutes after GT feed. Check for GT placement and gastric contents/residual volume per facility protocol and record.Monitor/document/report as needed (PRN) and signs and symptoms (s/sx) of aspiration, fever, shortness of breath (SOB), GT dislodged, infection at GT site, self-extubation (removal of a GT by a patient/resident), GT dysfunction or malfunction, abnormal breath/lung sounds, abnormal laboratory (lab) values, abdominal pain, distension, tenderness, constipation or fecal impaction, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, or dehydration.The resident is dependent with GT feeding and water flushes.date initiated 5/23/2025.3.The resident has a seizure disorder r/t epilepsy, stroke. Medication prophylaxis, Levetiracetam Oral Solution, Oxcarbazepine Oral Suspension, and Phenytoin Oral Tablet Chewable, interventions indicated, give seizure medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness, date initiated 5/23/2025.During a concurrent medication pass observation and interview, on 7/16/2025 at 9:17 a.m., with LVN 2, at the East Station Medication Cart for Resident 28, LVN 2 was observed preparing the following medications for Resident 28,a. Clopidogrel 75 mg, one tabletb. Gabapentin 300 mg, one capsulec. Losartan 50 mg, one tabletd. Oxcarbazepine 300 mg/ 5 ml, 15 ml (900 mg)e. Aspirin 81 mg chewable, one tabletf. Levetiracetam Oral Solution 100 mg/ml, 15 ml (1500 mg)g. Phenytoin 50 mg chewable, four tablets (200 mg)During a concurrent medication pass observation and interview, on 7/16/2025 between at 9:32 a.m. through 10:01 a.m., with LVN 2 for Resident 28, at the East Station Medication Cart, the following occurred:On 7/16/2025 at 9:32 a.m., LVN 2 stated she had prepared a total of seven morning medications for Resident 28. LVN 2 crushed each tablet individually and placed them into separate medication cupsOn 7/16/2025 at 9:38 a.m., LVN 2 entered Resident 28's room without sanitizing hands with alcohol-based hand sanitizer or washing with soap and water, put on gown and glovesOn 7/16/2025 at 9:40 a.m., LVN 2 stated she poured 15 ml of water into each medication cup that contained crushed medication and mixed. LVN 2 then stated and was observedchecking GT placement by placing a plunger into a GT syringe and pushing air into Resident 28's stomach. LVN 2 stated she used air to check GT placement and was listening for gurgling or stomach sounds to indicate the GT was inplace correctly. LVN 2 was observed and stated: 1. LVN 2 initially pushed 20 cc (cc unit of measurement) of air to check GT placement and stated, she was unable to hear gurgle sound to confirm the GT was in the correct location, the stomach. 2. LVN 2 stated she pushed 30 cc of air and could not hear stomach sounds from Resident 28 3. LVN 2 stated she next pushed 40 cc of air and stated, I cannot hear it (stomach sounds from Resident 28). 4. On 7/16/2025 at 9:47 a.m., LVN 2 called for LVN 3 assistance. LVN 3 entered Resident 28's room and stated he pushed 10 cc of air through the GT to check placement for Resident 28. LVN 3 stated he could not hear gurgling, or stomach sounds after pushing air into Resident 28's stomach and could not confirm GT placement and left the room. 5. On 7/16/2025 at 9:45 a.m., LVN 2 requested for a Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN 1) to assist with confirming GT placement for Resident 28. RN 1 entered Resident 28's room placed a stethoscope on Resident 28's stomach and LVN 2 holding the GT syringe and plunger stated she pushed 45 cc of air, while RN 1 listened through the stethoscope. RN 1 stated, I can hear the gurgling sound, and confirmed GT placement, then left Resident 28's room. RN 1 was not observed checking Resident 28 for aspiration and amount of residual. During an observation on 7/16/2025 at 9:58 a.m., LVN 2 was not observed aspirating or checking Resident 28 for amount of residual. LVN 2 stated she was administering Resident 28's BP medication Losartan. LVN 2 poured Resident 28's BP medication, Losartan into the resident's GT syringe connected to the GT tubing and used a plunger to push the medication (Losartan) into Resident 28's stomach. LVN 2 poured 10 ml of water into the GT syringe and again use the plunger and push the water into Resident 28's stomach. LVN 2 was not observed providing an initial water flush prior to administering the first medication, Losartan. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/16/2025 at 9:59 a.m., LVN 2 stated that Resident 28 was not checked for residual (stomach content) prior to medication administration via GT. LVN 2 checked Resident 28 for residual and stated, she pulled out the medication administered, about 0.5 ml and then used the plunger placed inside of the GT syringe and pushed the medication back into Resident 28's stomach. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/16/2024 at 10:01 a.m., LVN 2 poured the second medication Oxcarbazepine into Resident 28's GT syringe, the medication was observed remaining inside of the GT syringe and not passing through the GT tubbing into Resident 28's stomach. LVN 2 stated she knows that she was supposed to administer Resident 28's medication by gravity. LVN 2 stated at this point she will notify RN 1 because the medication is not going down, through the GT and into the resident's stomach. During a concurrent medication pass and observation on 7/16/2025 at 10:10 a.m., at Resident 28's bedside, with LVN 2, RN 1, and the Director of Nursing (DON), LVN 2 stated for Resident 28, I did not check residual. I pushed the first medication and water flush. the DON checked GT placement for Resident 28 by introducing more air into the resident's stomach as follow:1.DON initially pushed 15 cc of air into the resident's stomach2.DON checked GT placement a second time and pushed 30 cc of air into Resident 28's stomach and confirmed that the GT was in place.The DON continued and stated that Resident 28's stomach was hyper tympanic (belly that sounds hollow or drum-like due to excessive gas buildup), the resident's abdominal wall was distended (noticeable outward swelling or enlargement of the abdomen). DON stated will call Resident 28's doctor and daughter and to hold feeding and all medications.During a concurrent interview and review on 7/17/2025 at 4:02 p.m. with the DON of the facility's P&P titled, Feeding Tube - Medication Administered, was reviewed. The P&P indicated to check GT placement by aspiration. The DON stated the facility's policy do not indicate checking placement of GT by introducing air into the resident's stomach. The DON stated the facility's practice does not correspond with the facility's P&P for checking GT placement and that the facility needs to adjust accordingly for resident safety and nursing standard of practice.During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 2:07 p.m., with Resident 28's physician (MD) 1, in the presence of the DON, MD 1 stated Resident 28 was severely constipated and was ordered to be transferred out to the general acute care hospital on 7/17/2025. MD 1 state the licensed nurse must aspirate the stomach content before administering medications to the resident via GT. MD 1 stated the licensed nurse must listen through the stethoscope and make sure there is no residual and that the GT is in place. MD 1 stated the licensed nurses should not introduce air into the GT to check placement. MD 1 stated when a lot of air is pushed into the resident's (Resident 28) stomach, the resident's stomach would swell up. MD 1 was not aware a large amount of air was pushed into Resident 28's stomach. (Resident 28 total amount of air introduced into the resident's stomach was 190 cc of air.) MD 1 stated there is no reason to introduce air into the resident's stomach at all. MD 1 stated we do not want to push things through the GT it requires surgery to place a GT. MD 1 stated the licensed nurses must aspirate the GT and should not push anything into the stomach. MD 1 stated there is a protocol to follow and if the nurses should be following the protocol for GT treatments.During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 2;11 p.m., with the DON, the DON stated GT must be flushed with 15 ml of water before medication administration. The DON stated she was not aware that any medication was administered to Resident 28 via GT on 7/16/2025. The DON stated assessment of Resident 28 is very important before giving medication via GT. The DON stated seeing a distended stomach the nurse would have to stop and assess the resident before attempting to administer medications to a resident. The DON stated Resident 28's feeding and all medication administrations were stopped on 7/16/2025 and 7/17/2025 and resident 28 was transferred out to the hospital on 7/17/2025 by physician order. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Feeding Tube - Medication Administered, effective date 6/12/2024, the P&P indicated to:-Verify tube placement via aspiration method. Return aspirate to stomach.-Flush tube with 15 cc (unless a different amount is specified by the Physician/Prescriber) of water before administering medication.-Between each medication, the tube (GT) is flushed with 15 ml of water, keeping in mind the patient's fluid volume status (unless a different amount is specified by the Physician/Prescriber).-Administer medication by syringe via gravity into the feeding tube.-Flush tube with 15 ml of water (unless a different amount is specified by the Physician/Prescriber) after administering the medications-After administering medication reestablish feeding as prescribed
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide necessary respiratory care services for two of three sampled residents (Resident 28 and 53) by not following the facility's own policy and procedure. a. For Resident 28, Facility failed to receive the physician's order for the use of oxygen and date on the nasal cannular (NC- a simple device used to deliver oxygen to the nose) while in use. b. For Resident 53, Facility failed to date on the NC while in use. a. During a review of Resident 28's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 28 on 1/7/2022 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD-a common lung disease that makes it hard to breathe). During a review of Resident 28's History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/6/2025, indicated, Resident 28 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 28's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 06/2/2025, indicated Resident 28 was cognitive (functions your brain uses to think, pay attention, process information, and remember things) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 28 was dependent (helper does all the effort) with oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, showering, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 28's Order Summary Report, orders as of 7/15/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated that there was an order from 5/22/2025 administer 2 to 5-liter (L-unit dose)/min (every minute) via (by way of) NC to keep oxygen saturation (the percentage of oxygen carried by hemoglobin in your blood) above 92% (readings between 90% and 94% might be acceptable for some individuals with chronic conditions) and the order was discontinued on 6/6/2025. During a concurrent observation and interview on 07/15/2025 at 1:18 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 in Resident 28's room, observed Resident 28 wearing a NC. LVN 2 stated Resident 28 was receiving one L/min oxygen though the NC. LVN 2 stated that the date written on the NC was after the observation date, written as 7/22/2025 and LVN 2 stated that the date did not make sense, it should be changed once a week and as needed to prevent bacteria collection and prevent infection. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/16/2025 at 2:50 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 28's Order Summary Report, as of 7/15/2025 was reviewed. RN 1 stated that oxygen is a medication requiring the physician's order to use, but there was no oxygen order for the resident to use during the previous observation date. RN 1 stated that COPD residents could receive more oxygen than needed when they received oxygen without the order, which can cause respiratory problems. RN 1 also stated that the NC should be changed weekly and dated to prevent the infection. b. During a review of Resident 53's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 53 on 1/24/2023, and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including chronic pulmonary edema ( along-term buildup of fluid in the lungs, making it hard to breathe, especially during physical activity or when lying down) and pleural effusion (when there's too much fluid buildup in the space between your lungs and your chest wall). During a review of Resident 53's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 5/27/2025, indicated Resident 53 was cognitive (functions your brain uses to think, pay attention, process information, and remember things) was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 53 required supervision assistance (helper provides verbal cues and/ or touching/ steading and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity) with eating, maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort to complete task) with oral hygiene, upper body dressing, personal hygiene, was dependent (helper does all of the effort) with toileting hygiene, showering, lower body dressing, and putting on/ taking off foot wear. During a review of Resident 53's Physician Order Report: active orders as of 7/15/2025, the report indicated the following:1. Starting 5/31/2025, administer oxygen 2-5L/min, titrate via NC to keep oxygen saturation above 92% for shortness of breath related to the pleural effusion diagnosis. 2. Starting 5/31/2025, change oxygen tube every Saturday night shift.During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/15/2025 at 1:13 p.m. with LVN 7 in the hallway by the outside of Resident 53's door, observed Resident 53 sitting in a wheelchair and receiving oxygen via NC. LVN 7 stated that Resident 53 was receiving oxygen 3 L/min, there was no date marked on the NC. LVN 7 stated that the NC should be dated to indicate when to replace it, it could be there for a long time.During a concurrent interview on 07/16/2025 at 2:50 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated that staff should date on Resident 53's NC upon placement to prevent the infection. During an interview on 7/8/2025 at 3:23 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated that oxygen is a medication, staff need to get the physician's order for the use of oxygen and the NC should be replaced every seven days and it should be dated upon placement to residents to know when to change it.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Oxygen Therapy, revised 2017, the P&P indicated that staff must administer oxygen per physician orders, oxygen tubing, mask, and cannulas will be changed no more than every seven (7) days and as needed. The P&P also indicated that the supplies will be dated each time they are changed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three hemodialysis ([HD]a treatment to 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 ensure one of three hemodialysis ([HD]a treatment to cleanse the blood of wastes and extra fluids artificially through a machine when the kidney(s) have failed) residents (Resident 5) received dialysis care and services based on professional standards. The facility failed to:a. Ensure Resident 5's fluid intake was being monitored.b. Ensure Resident 5 was assessed after the resident returned from the dialysis center. These deficient practices had the potential to result in complications from dialysis like fluid overload, infection and low blood pressure. Findings:During a review of Resident 5's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 5 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease (ESRD -irreversible kidney failure) and dependence on renal dialysis.During a review of Resident 5's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a resident assessment tool, dated 6/4/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 5's cognition (ability to think) was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 5 needed supervision with eating and oral hygiene and was dependent (helper does all the effort to complete task) on staff for showering, personal hygiene, and toileting hygiene. During a review of Resident 5's Physician Order Report: active orders as of 7/17/2025, the report indicated the following:1. Starting 6/30/2025, hemodialysis procedure to an outpatient dialysis center Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. 2. Starting 7/15/2025, fluid restriction of 1000 milliliters in 24 hours, dietary to provide 360 milliliters, and Nursing 7 a.m. to 3 p.m. shift to provide 340 milliliters, 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift to provide 200 milliliters, and 11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift to provide maximum of 100 milliliters.During an observation and interview on 7/15/2025 at 11:37 a.m. with Activities staff (AS)1, Resident 5 was noted with a filled water pitcher at Resident 5's bedside table. AS 1 stated confirmed Resident 5 had a pitcher at the bedside. During an interview and record review on 7/15/2025 at 3:10 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN) 2, Resident 5's Dialysis Binder, Post Dialysis Evaluations, and nurse progress notes for 7/2025 were reviewed and Resident 5's assessment after coming back from dialysis on 7/4/2025, 7/7/2025, 7/9/2025, 7/10/2025, 7/11/2025, and 7/14/2025 were not completed. RN 2 stated the residents coming back from dialysis need to be assessed to ensure the resident was stable after dialysis treatment. RN 2 stated Resident 5 should not have a pitcher at the bedside to ascertain fluid intake was being monitored.During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:30 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated residents need to be assessed after returning from dialysis treatment because they go through rigorous fluid removal which makes them high-risk for complications like bleeding or hypotension (low blood pressure). The DON stated if the assessment was not documented it was not done. The DON stated dialysis residents should not have a pitcher at the bedside because staff need to monitor intake to avoid fluid overload (too much fluid in the body). During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Dialysis Management revised 1/25/2024, the P&P indicated the following: 1. The facility should ensure that each resident receives care and services consistent with professional standards of practice. 2. Post dialysis evaluation will be completed by the licensed nurse. 3. Fluid restrictions will be followed as ordered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 was competent in administering medication via a gastrostomy tube (GT and/or Enteral ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 was competent in administering medication via a gastrostomy tube (GT and/or Enteral Feeding Tube, a tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition and/or medication directly to the stomach) in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Administration with Enteral Formulas Competency Validation.This failure had the potential for the facility not to be able to assess the skills necessary to provide services to assure resident safety.Findings:During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025, at 2:54 p.m., with Director of Staff Development (DSD), reviewed Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 employment file. DSD stated new hire staff are followed for hand hygiene. DSD stated she follows staff during competency review for simple medication pass observation with return demonstration. DSD stated GT/Feeding Tube medication administration requires a return demonstration and is documented on a form titled, Medication Administration with Enteral Formulas Competency Validation. DSD stated LVN 2's Medication Administration with Enteral Formulas Competency Validation was not on file and was missing. DSD stated LVN 2 competencies should be in the employee records.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025, at 3:23 p.m., with DSD and the Director of Nursing (DON), inside of the DON's office, reviewed LVN 2 employment file, DON stated for LVN 2 she did not see a Medication Administration with Enteral Formulas Competency Validation, on file. The DSD stated for LVN 2 there was no Medication Administration with Enteral Formulas Competency Validation, inside of LVN 2's employee records and there should have been. The DON stated, she had not looked at LVN 2's employee file and did not know if LVN 2 had complete a Medication Administration with Enteral Formulas Competency Validation. The DSD stated she forgot to document a review date on some of LVN 2's new hire competencies. DSD acknowledged there was no review date on the following initial competencies for LVN 2: - Hand Hygiene (Hand Washing) Competency Validation- Medication Administration Competency Validation- Head to Toe Assessment Competency Validation During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 3:42 p.m., with the DSD and the DON, the DSD stated the facility does not have documentation of which nursing station the new hire nurse (LVN 2) was orientated on. The DON stated the LVNs, including LVN 2 must be orientated for the station she/he will work on to know the diagnoses and the residents she/he are taking care of.During a review of the facility's undated form titled, , Medication Administration with Enteral Formulas Competency Validation, include a spaces for initial, annual, and re-evaluation, date of review, date of hire, and if competency rating was met or not met. Facility's form, Medication Administration with Enteral Formulas Competency Validation, indicated the competency description required the licensed nurse, To be able to pass medications safely and in accordance with the physician order when the resident cannot take medication orally. During a review of facility's P&P titled Personal Protective Equipment, dated 1/2012, the P&P indicated, Facility Staff receive training relative to the use of gloves and other protective equipment prior to being assigned tasks that involve potential exposure to blood or body fluids and when new or modified protective equipment or procedures are introduced into the workplace.During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Hand Hygiene, dated 9/2020, the P&P indicated, Facility staff are trained and regularly in-serviced on the importance of hand hygiene in preventing the transmission of healthcare associated infections (HAI)
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation interview and record review the facility failed to ensureA. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 failed to per...

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 ensureA. Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 failed to perform hand hygiene (hand washing using soap and water, and cleaning hands with waterless or alcohol-based hand sanitizers) for one of five sampled resident (Resident 28) during medication administration observation. This failure placed Resident 28 at risk for the spread of infection between residents and staff and had potential to result in cross contamination (physical movement or transfer of harmful bacteria from one person, object, or place to another). B. One of three residents (Resident 62)'s peripheral intravenous catheter IV ( [IV] a flexible tube inserted into a vein for medication administration) was labeled and dated . This deficient practice had the potential to result in the sterility infection at the IV site. Add to Based on: Findings: A. During a review of Resident 28’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), DM II, epilepsy (is a neurological condition that causes unprovoked, recurrent seizures [is a sudden rush of abnormal electrical activity in the brain]), hypertension (HTN, high blood pressure), blindness, right eye, and gastrotomy status (GT) During a review of Resident 28's Minimum Data Set (MDS a resident assessment tool) dated 6/2/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 28’s cognitive (ability to make decisions of daily living [ADL]) skills were severely impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 28 was dependent and required assistance from two or more staff physical for all ADLs. During a review of Resident 28’s History and Physical (H&P) dated 6/6/2025, the H&P indicated the resident does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a concurrent medication pass observation and interview, on 7/16/2025 between at 9:32 a.m. through 10:01 a.m., with LVN 2, at the East Station Medication Cart, On 7/16/2025 at 9:32 a.m., LVN 2 stated she had prepared a total of seven morning medications for Resident 28. LVN 2 crushed each tablet individually and placed the following medications into separate medication cups: a. Clopidogrel (used to prevent blood clots) 75 mg, one tablet b. Gabapentin (treat nerve pain) 300 mg, one capsule c. Losartan (treat high blood pressure) 50 mg, one tablet d. Oxcarbazepine (used to treat or prevent seizures) 300 mg/ 5 ml, 15 ml (900 mg) e. Aspirin 81 (preventative treatment) mg chewable, one tablet f. Levetiracetam (used to treat or prevent seizures) Oral Solution 100 mg/ml, 15 ml (1500 mg) g. Phenytoin (used to treat or prevent seizures) 50 mg chewable, four tablets (200 mg) On 7/16/2025 at 9:38 a.m., before entering Resident 28's room, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2 failed to perform hand hygiene and proceeded to donning (put on) a new glove and gown. On 7/16/2025 at 9:40 a.m., LVN 2 stated she added 15 ml of water to each cup with crushed medication and mixed. LVN 2 came into contact with Resident 28’s body when she disconnected the feeding tube line and connected a GT syringe to the GT tubing. LVN 2 placed a stethoscope on Resident 28’s stomach and using the GT syringe and a plunger inside of the GT syringe pushed air through the tube to check GT placement. On 7/16/2025 at 9:44 a.m., LVN 2 changed gloves and failed to perform hand hygiene. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 12:23 p.m., with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated when providing care for residents with a GT, the licensed nurse must use hand sanitizer or wash hands with soap and water before entering and after leaving the resident’s room, before putting on gloves and after the removal of gloves. LVN 2 stated the licensed nurse must wear PPE, that includes gown, and gloves when caring for a resident with a GT. LVN 2 stated for Resident 28, she forgot to sanitize her hands. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 2:30 p.m., the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN) stated, prior to performing any high contact activity the facility staff must perform hand hygiene and don (put on) gown and gloves for residents on Enhanced Barrier Precautions ([EBP], involving the use of gowns and gloves during high-contact resident care activities to prevent the spread of multidrug-resistant organisms [MDROs]). IPN stated high contact activity included medication administration via GT, bathing, diaper change, linen change, care for indwelling device, wound care, and lifting and caring for resident. IPN stated the licensed nurse must perform hand hygiene before starting medication pass, before donning PPE (including gowns and gloves) and after doffing (removal) of PPE. IPN stated facility staff must perform hand hygiene between residents by gel in, before entering the resident’s room and gel out upon leaving the resident’s room. IPN stated each staff must complete a PPE competency upon hire and annually. IPN stated licensed nurse must perform hand hygiene before handling and putting on PPE for infection control and to prevent cross contamination to residents and staff. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), titled Hand Hygiene Program, revised 9/2020, the P&P indicated Facility staff follow the hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other staff, Residents, volunteers and visitors - Hand hygiene products and supplies (sinks, soap, towels, alcohol-based hand rub with 60-95% alcohol). - Wearing gloves does not replace the need for hand hygiene - The following situations require appropriate hand hygiene: · Before donning and after doffing Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) · Immediately upon entering and exiting a resident room” During a review of the facility's P&P, titled Enhanced Barrier Precautions, dated 7/2024, the P&P indicated, To reduce the risk of transmission of epidemiologically important microorganisms by direct or indirect contact. Multidrug-resistant organisms (MDRO) transmission is common in long term care (LTC) facilities (i.e., nursing homes), contributing to substantial resident morbidity and mortality and increased healthcare costs. During a review of Resident 62’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 62 was last admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified, congestive heart failure (the isn’t pumping blood as well as it should leading to a buildup of fluid in the body), bacteriuria (bacteria in the urine), and metabolic encephalopathy (a problem in the brain it is caused by a chemical imbalance in the blood). During a review of Resident 62’s MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 62 ‘s cognitive skills were intact. The MDS indicated Resident 62 was dependent on staff for toilet hygiene, chair/bed to chair transfer, toilet hygiene, shower/ bathe self, upper and lower body dressing, and sit to lying . During an observation and interview on 7/17/2025 at 9:30 a.m., with Registered Nurse 2 (RN 2), RN 2 stated an IV site is changed every 7 days to prevent the site from becoming infected. RN 2 stated when inserting an IV it was important to initial, date and time the IV so that we can know when the IV was inserted and when it needs to be replaced. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 2:30 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated a Licensed Registered Nurse (RN) is responsible for, putting their initials, and the date of insertion on a new IV. The DON stated that is important to track how long the IV has been in place, and when it needs to be replaced. During a review of the facility’s P&P titled ” Peripheral Catheter Dressing Change”, dated on March 2023, the P&P indicated to label with date, time, and nurse’s initials.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to:A. Document one dose of Acetaminophen in the July 202...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interview, and record review the facility failed to:A. Document one dose of Acetaminophen in the July 2025 Medication Administration Record ([MAR] - a record of mediations administered to residents) for Resident 1B. Maintain accurate accountability records for controlled medication ([CM]- medications which have a potential for abuse and may also lead to physical or psychological dependence), Tramadol on 7/16/2025 and 7/17/2025 for Resident 4 in one of two inspected medication carts (East Station Medication Cart)C. Ensure one of one resident (Resident 44) received lactulose (medication to treat constipation) as needed for no bowel movement in 48 hours. These failures increased the risk of medication errors for Residents 1, 4, and 44 to receive more or less medications than prescribed, adverse reactions (harmful or unpleasant reaction, resulting from an intervention related to the use of a medication) such as: uncontrolled pain, constipation, harm, and inability to readily identify the loss or drug diversion (illegal distribution of abuse of prescription drugs or their use for unintended purposes) of controlled medications.Findings: A. During a review of Resident 1's admission record (facesheet), the admission record indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including pneumonia (an infection/inflammation in the lungs) and sepsis (a life-threatening blood infection). During a review of Resident 1’s Minimum Data Set (MDS – a resident assessment tool), dated 6/19/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1’s cognition (ability to learn reason, remember, understand, and make decisions) was moderately impaired and was dependent (helper does all of the effort) when eating, toileting, bathing, and dressing. During a review of Resident 1’s Physician Order [NAME], the Order Summary indicated an order starting 5/5/2025 for Acetaminophen (medication to relieve pain or fever) tablet 325 milligram (mg- a unit of measurement), give 2 tablets every six hours as needed for fever, temperature greater than 100.4, not to exceed over 3 grams (G-a unit of measurement) in 24 hours. During a review of Resident 1’s Nursing Progress Note dated 7/16/2025 at 2:24 p.m., the Progress Note indicated Resident 1 had a fever of 101.7 degrees Fahrenheit (F), and was given an as needed (PRN) medication that decreased Resident 1’s temperature to 98.1 degrees F. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 2:45 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4, Resident 1’s July 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) was reviewed. The MAR did not indicate acetaminophen was administered to Resident 4 on 7/16/2025. LVN 4 stated they administered the acetaminophen and forgot to document it. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:30 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it is important to document medication administration to prevent duplicate administration of any medication. The DON stated not documenting the acetaminophen puts Resident 1 at risk for adverse reactions due to excessive acetaminophen. B. During a review of an admission Record (face sheet), the admission Record indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), contractures (the abnormal shortening of muscles, tendons, ligaments, or skin, which restricts the normal range of motion of a joint or body part) of right and both elbows, both knees, and both ankles. During a review of Resident 4’s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 4’s cognitive skills for daily decisions making were severely impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 4 was dependent and required two or more staff physical assistance for all activities of daily living (ADL, include eating, dressing, getting into or out of a bed or chair, taking a bath or shower, and using the toilet). During a review of Resident 4’s History and Physical (H&P) dated 5/19/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 4 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 4’s Order Summary with active orders as of 7/16/2025 included the following orders for: -Tramadol (treat moderate to severe pain) Oral Tablet 50 mg, give 0.5 tablet (25 mg) by mouth two times a day for pain management r/t (related to) osteoarthritis (a form of arthritis in which cartilage that cushions the ends of bones in a joint gradually wears away, causing pain, stiffness, and reduced movement) of left hand and fingers, order date 5/17/2025 During a review of Resident 4’s Care Plan (CP) titled, “High Risk for Pain/Discomfort related to generalized body aches and osteoarthritis”, dated 8/9/2024 and revised 7/16/2025, the CP goals and interventions indicated the following: Order: Tramadol Oral Tablet 50 mg, Black Box Warning: Risk of medication errors. Ensure accuracy when prescribing, dispensing, and administering tramadol … Because the use of tramadol exposes patients and other users to the risks of opioid addiction, abuse, and misuse, which can lead to overdose and death…Accidental ingestion of even one dose of Tramadol, especially by children, can result in a fatal overdose of Tramadol.” During an observation on 7/17/2025 at 2:42 p.m., with a LVN 5, at the East Station Medication Cart, there was a discrepancy in the Individual Narcotic Record or Controlled Drug Record (inventory and accountability record for CM) form and the prescription label on the two bubble packs (a medication packaging system that contains individual doses of medication per bubble) for Resident 4 and the physician order for Tramadol as follow: Resident 4’s first pharmacy prescription label indicated the bubble pack contained Tramadol 50 mg tablets, with an order to administer one-half (1/2 = 25 mg) tablet by mouth 2 (two) times a day, with a fill date of 7/15/25 with a sticker that indicated ‘MORNING’ Resident 4’s first corresponding ‘Individual Narcotic Record,’ which was handwritten indicated, “Tramadol 75 mg,” with instructions to administer 1 (one) tab (tablet) PO (by mouth) “2X/Day,” and documented that Resident 4 was administered a dose of 50 mg twice on 7/16/25 at 9:00 a.m. and on 7/17/2025 at 8:00 a.m. Resident 4’s second pharmacy prescription label indicated the bubble pack contained Tramadol 50 mg tablets, with an order to administer one-half (1/2 = 25 mg) tablet by mouth 2 (two) times a day, with a fill date of 7/15/25 with a sticker that indicated ‘P.M.’ (evening) Resident 4’s second corresponding ‘Individual Narcotic Record,’ which was handwritten indicated, “Tramadol 25 mg,” with instructions to administer 1 tab PO 2X/Day, and documented that Resident 4 was administered a dose of 25 mg once on 7/16/25 at 4:00 p.m. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 2:42 p.m., with LVN 5, Resident 4’s records dated 7/16/2025 and 7/17/2025 were reviewed that include a review of the resident’s Individual Narcotic Record, Bubble Packs containing Tramadol, physician order for Tramadol, and the resident’s Administration Details for the administration on of Tramadol to the resident that included discrepancies between the prescribed dose, prescription label and the hand written Individual Narcotic Record. LVN 5 stated that a different nurse transcribed from the pharmacy label onto Resident 4’s Individual Narcotic Record Tramadol 25 mg because the facility was administering one-half tablet of Tramadol 50 mg even though the prescription label indicated “Tramadol 50 mg” and to give one-half tablet. During an interview on 7/17/2025 at 4:19 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated what is on the Narcotic Count Sheet (Individual Narcotic/Controlled Drug Record) received from the facility’s pharmacy should be exactly the same as it is written when transcribed or rewritten on each resident’s Individual Narcotic Record inside of the book. The DON stated whoever is transcribing must include the exact same information from the pharmacy label. The DON stated using the Narcotic Count Sheet provided by the pharmacy would be more accurate and having nurses transcribe the information increases the risk for medication errors and potential for controlled medication misuse. During a review of the facility’s P&P titled, “Ordering and Receiving Controlled Medications”, dated 4/2008, the P&P indicated Medications included in the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) classification as controlled substances, and medications classified as controlled substances by state law, are subject to special ordering, receipt, and recordkeeping requirements in the facility, in accordance with federal and state laws and regulations. The director of nursing and the consultant pharmacist maintain the facility’s compliance with federal and state laws and regulations in the handling of controlled medications… The pharmacy dispenses medications listed in Schedules II, III, IV, and V in readily accountable quantities and containers designed for easy counting of contents… An individual resident’s-controlled substance record is prepared by the pharmacy or the facility for each controlled substance medication prescribed for a resident. The following information is completed: 1) Name of resident 2) Prescription number 3) Drug name, strength (if designated), and dosage form of medication 4) Date received 5) Name of person receiving the medication supply 6) Dispensing pharmacy information C. During a review of Resident 44’s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 44 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson’s disease (a progressive disease of the nervous system marked by tremor, muscular rigidity, and slow, imprecise movements), type 2 diabetes mellitus (disorder characterized by difficulty in blood sugar control and poor wound healing), major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest) and anxiety disorder (mental health condition characterized by excessive fear and worry). During a review of Resident 44’s MDS 6/25/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 44’s cognitive skills (functions your brain uses to think, pay attention, process information, and remember things) for daily decision-making was intact. The MDS indicated Resident 44 needed moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort to complete the task) with toileting hygiene. During a review of Resident 44’s Order Summary as of 7/17/2025, the order summary indicated, starting 6/28/2025, Lactulose 30 milliliters by mouth every 12 hours as needed for no Bowel movement in 48 hours. During an interview on 7/15/2025 at 9:52 a.m., with Resident 44, Resident 44 stated she has not had a bowel movement in days and does not remember the last one, but it was more than a week. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/17/2025 at 2:18 p.m. with Registered Nurse (RN)2, Resident 44’s Documentation Survey Report, for bowel elimination, 7/2025 and Medication Administration Records for 7/2025 were reviewed. RN 2 stated Resident 44’s last bowel movement was on 7/9/2025 and 5 days later 7/14/2025. RN 2 stated Resident 44 should have been offered lactulose at least once between 7/9/2025 and 7/14/2025 to promote comfort. During an interview on 7/18/2025 at 3:30 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated medications should be administered as ordered. During a review of the facility’s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, “Medication - Administration”, revised 1/1/2012, the P&P indicated medication will be administered.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure it was free of medication error rate of five pe...

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 it was free of medication error rate of five percent or greater, as evidence by the identification of three medication errors out of 25 opportunities, to yield a facility error rate of 12 percent (%) for two of two Residents (Resident 4 and Resident 28) by failing to: 1. Ensure for Resident 4, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, LVN 3, and Registered Nurse (RN) 2 failed to follow facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled, Medication - Administration, by failing to ensure the same nurse that prepared Resident 4's Tylenol (Acetaminophen [APAP], treat mild to moderate pain) Extra Strength Oral Tablet 500 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement by weight) administered the medication, and documented the administration of the medication to ensure the correct resident was administered the correct dose. 2. Ensure for Resident 28, Losartan (a blood pressure medication) was administered to the resident prior to checking the resident's blood pressure. Resident 28's physician's order indicated to hold (not administer) if systolic blood pressure ([SBP] top number in blood pressure; pressure during active contraction of the heart) is less than 110 millimeters of mercury ([mm Hg] unit used to measure BP) or heart rate (HR, beats per minute [BPM]) is less than 60 BPM. 3. Ensure for Resident 28, LVN 2 failed to follow facility's P&P titled, Feeding Tube - Administration of Medication, by failing to check gastrostomy tube (GT, a tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition and/or medication directly to the stomach) placement by aspiration (assessing the contents withdrawn from the GT to help confirm its location in the stomach rather than the lungs or other unintended locations) and failing to flush the GT with 15 milliliters (ml, unit of measurement by volume) of water before administering and/or attempting to administer two medications, Losartan and Oxcarbazepine (a medication to treat and prevent seizures) to Resident 28. These deficient practices of failing to administer medications in accordance with the physician orders and the facility's P&Ps, titled, Medication - Administration, and Feeding Tube - Administration of Medication, increased the risk for Resident 4 and Resident 28 to experience adverse effects (unwanted, uncomfortable, or dangerous effects that a medication may have) related to their medication therapy. (Cross Reference F726, F760)Findings:A. During a review of an admission Record (face sheet), the admission Record indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), Type 2 diabetes mellitus (DM II, when the body cannot use insulin correctly and sugar/glucose builds up in the blood), contractures (the abnormal shortening of muscles, tendons, ligaments, or skin, which restricts the normal range of motion of a joint or body part) of right and both elbows, both knees, and both ankles. During a review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 7/2/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 4's cognitive skills for daily decisions making were severely impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 4 was dependent and required two or more staff physical assistance for all activities of daily living (ADL, include eating, dressing, getting into or out of a bed or chair, taking a bath or shower, and using the toilet). During a review of Resident 4's History and Physical (H&P) dated 5/19/2025, the resident does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions.During a review of Resident 4's Order Summary with active orders as of 7/16/2025 included the following orders for:-Tylenol (Acetaminophen, treat mild to moderate pain) Extra Strength Oral Tablet 500 mg, give two tablets (1000 mg) by mouth every day shift for pain give prior to treatment, order date 5/28/2025-May crush all crushable medications, order date 7/12/2025-Sacral Pressure Injury, monitor for pain using scale 0-10 before, during and after treatment every day shift for 14 days, order date 7/12/2025, with an end date of 7/26/2025.During a review of Resident 4's Care Plan (CP) titled, High Risk for Pain/Discomfort, dated 8/9/2024 and revised 7/16/2025, the CP goals and interventions indicated the following: Tylenol Extra Strength Oral Tablet 500 mg (Acetaminophen) instruction indicated, give 2 (two) tablets by mouth every 6 (six) hours as needed for moderate pain 5-7/10 (pain scale zero to 10, 0 indicates no pain, while 10 represents the worst pain imaginable) not to exceed 3 (three) grams (g, unit of measurement by weight) of APAP in 24 hours from all sources and give 1 (one) tablet by mouth every day shift for pain, give prior to treatment, revision on 7/16/2025.During a concurrent medication pass observation and interview, on 7/16/2025 at 9:12 a.m., with LVN 2, at the East Station Medication Cart, LVN 2 stated Resident 4 needed pain medication before the resident's wound treatment. LVN 2 prepared for Resident 4 - two, 500 mg tablets of Acetaminophen, crushed the tablets, placed the crushed powder into a medication cup and added applesauce to the crushed tablets and mixed them together. LVN 2 stated that Resident 4 has an order to crush the medications. LVN 2 stated she added one-fourth teaspoonful of applesauce to the crushed the Acetaminophen tablets for Resident 4. LVN 2 stated another LVN (LVN 3) will administer the prepared medication (Acetaminophen 500 mg, two tablets = 1000 mg) to Resident 4. LVN 2 handed the cup of medication to LVN 3 as LVN 3 walked up to the East Station Medication Cart after the medication had been prepared by LVN 2. LVN 3 asked LVN 2 which room the resident was in. LVN 2 stated the resident's room number and LVN 3 left with the medication cup to administer the medication to Resident 4.During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 2:38 p.m. with LVN 3, LVN 3 stated, Resident 4 has a routine pain medication order to be administered before wound treatment. LVN 3 stated that LVN 2 gave LVN 3 a cup with crushed medication mixed with applesauce for Resident 4. LVN 3 stated he administered to Resident 4 two tablets of Acetaminophen 325 mg (650 mg), that was given to him crushed and mixed in applesauce by LVN 2. LVN 3 stated, I gave the crushed medication to the resident (Resident 4). LVN 3 stated that he documented the administration of Acetaminophen to Resident 4 on the resident's MAR (an organized record of each medication administered to a resident) on 7/16/2025 after the morning administration. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/16/2025 at 2:56 p.m., with LVN 3, at the [NAME] Station, Resident 4's MAR for 7/16/2025 was reviewed. LVN 3 stated Resident 4 was documented to have been administered two tablets of Acetaminophen 500 mg (1000 mg) and not two tablets of Acetaminophen 325 mg (650 mg) on 7/16/2025 at 9:08 a.m., by a Registered Nurse (RN) 2. LVN 3 stated RN 2 did not administer the Acetaminophen to Resident 4, he did. LVN 3 stated that usually the licensed nurse that prepares the medication is the one to verify the identity of the resident and ensure the right medication is given to the right resident and to document after the medication has been administered. During an interview on 7/16/2025 with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated, LVN 3 was not present when LVN 2 prepared Resident 4's medication, Acetaminophen. LVN 2 stated it was wrong to give the prepared medication, Acetaminophen for Resident 4 to another licensed nurse, LVN 3, to administer to the resident when LVN 3 was not present during the medication preparation.During an interview on 7/16/2025 with LVN 2 and RN 2, RN 2 stated, she was going to be the one originally to administer Acetaminophen to Resident 4 and signed the MAR prior to the medication being administered to the resident. RN 2 stated, I did not see the resident take the medication. LVN 2 stated, she did not see Resident 4 take the medication. LVN 2 stated having different nurse prepare, administered, and documented the administration increases the risk that the wrong resident may be administered the medication, and/or the correct resident (Resident 4) may not have been administered the medication at all. RN 2 stated the licensed nurse that prepares the medication should be the same nurse that administers the medication to the resident and then document the administration on the resident's MAR.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Administered, revised on 1/1/2012, the P&P indicated: 1.Medications must be given to the resident by the Licensed Nurse preparing the medication.2.The Licensed Nurse will verify the resident's identity before administering the medication.3.The licensed nurse will chart the drug, time administered, and initial his/her name with each medication administered.4.The time and dose of the drug or treatment administered to the patient will be recorded in the patient's individual medication record by the person who administers the drug or treatment. B. During a review of Resident 28's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), DM II, epilepsy (is a neurological condition that causes unprovoked, recurrent seizures [is a sudden rush of abnormal electrical activity in the brain]), hypertension (HTN, high blood pressure), blindness, right eye, and gastrotomy status (GT). During a review of a MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 28's cognitive skills for daily decisions making was severely impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 28 was dependent and required two or more staff physical assistance for all ADL.During a review of Resident 28's History and Physical (H&P) dated 6/6/2025, the H&P indicated the resident does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions.During a review of Resident 28's Order Summary with active orders as of 7/16/2025 included the following orders for:1. Enteral Feed Order every shift check for placement (ensures the tube is correctly placed into the stomach), patency (involves verifying the GT's ability to drain stomach contents, flush with water, and assessing for any signs of blockage or dislodgement, where the GT comes out of the stomach) and residual (measuring the amount of stomach contents remaining in the stomach before a feeding or medication administration). If residual is more than 60 milliliters (ml, unit of measurement by volume) or reaches an amount indicated by the physician hold feeding until residual diminishes, order date 6/6/2025.2. Enteral Feed Order every shift flush tube (GT) with 50 ml water, order date 6/6/2025.3. Enteral Feed Order every shift flush GT with 10 ml to 15 ml water between medications.4. Clopidogrel (used to prevent blood clots) Oral Tablet 75 mg, give one tablet via GT one time a day for cerebrovascular accidents (CVA or stroke), order date 6/6/2025.5. Gabapentin Capsule 300 mg, give one capsule via GT three times a day for Neuropathic pain (nerve pain), order date 6/6/2025.6. Losartan Potassium Tablet 50 mg, one tablet via GT one time a day for HTN. Hold if SBP is less than 110 mmHg, or HR is less than 60 bpm, order date 6/6/2025.7. Oxcarbazepine Oral Suspension 300 mg/ 5ml, give 15 ml via GT two times a day for seizures (900 mg = 15 ml), order date 6/6/2025.8. Keppra (Levetiracetam) Oral Solution 100 mg.ml, give 15 ml via GT two times a day for seizure, order date 6/6/2025.9. Dilantin (Phenytoin) Oral Tablet Chewable 50 mg, give four (4) tablets (200 mg) via GT two times a day for seizure disorder, order date 6/24/2025.10. Aspirin 81 mg Oral Tablet Chewable, give one tablet via GT one time a day for CVA prophylaxis (preventative treatment), order date 6/6/2025.During a review of Resident 28's CP titled, Hypertension, related to inappropriate diet and lifestyle choices, dated 5/23/2025, the CP indicated the following:-The resident has hypertension (HTN) related to inappropriate diet and lifestyle choices. Medication use: Losartan Potassium Tablet 50 mg. Give one tablet by mouth one time a day for HTN hold if systolic blood pressure less than 110 mmhg (unit of pressure). To give antihypertensive medications as ordered. Monitor for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension a sudden drop in blood pressure that occurs upon standing from a sitting or lying down position) and increased heart rate (Tachycardia) and effectiveness. Date initiated: 5/23/2025.-The resident requires GT feeding r/t Dysphagia, chewing problem.The resident needs the head of the bed (HOB) elevated 45 degrees during and thirty minutes after GT feed. Check for GT placement and gastric contents/residual volume per facility protocol and record.Monitor/document/report as needed (PRN) and signs and symptoms of aspiration, fever, shortness of breath (SOB), GT dislodged, infection at GT site, self-extubation (removal of a GT by a patient/resident), GT dysfunction or malfunction, abnormal breath/lung sounds, abnormal laboratory (lab) values, abdominal pain, distension, tenderness, constipation or fecal impaction, diarrhea, nausea/vomiting, or dehydration. The resident is dependent with GT feeding and water flushes.date initiated 5/23/2025. -The resident has a seizure disorder r/t epilepsy, stroke. Medication prophylaxis, Levetiracetam Oral Solution, Oxcarbazepine Oral Suspension, and Phenytoin Oral Tablet Chewable, interventions indicated, give seizure medication as ordered by doctor. Monitor/document side effects and effectiveness, date initiated 5/23/2025.During a concurrent medication pass observation and interview, on 7/16/2025 at 9:17 a.m., with LVN 2, at the East Station Medication Cart, LVN 2 was observed preparing the following medications for Resident 28:a. Clopidogrel 75 mg, one tabletb. Gabapentin 300 mg, one capsulec. Losartan 50 mg, one tabletd. Oxcarbazepine 300 mg/ 5 ml, 15 ml (900 mg)e. Aspirin 81 mg chewable, one tabletf. Levetiracetam Oral Solution 100 mg/ml, 15 ml (1500 mg)g. Phenytoin 50 mg chewable, four tablets (200 mg)LVN 2 stated Resident 28's BP was 120/80 (mmHg) and HR 74 (bpm). LVN 2 was not observed checking Resident 28's BP or HR. LVN 2 was observed reviewing a piece of paper with a list that included resident's by room number and bed assign and listed corresponding vital signs (measures temperature, pulse/heart rate, respiration rate [rate of breathing], and blood pressure) documented next to the room numbers, The document reviewed by LVN 2 was undated and did not include residents names or indicate the date and time the vital signs were recorded or by whom. LVN 2 stated another nurse, LVN 3, residents on East Nursing Station vital signs, which included Resident 28's BP and HR. LVN 2 stated that she did not know what time LVN 3 had checked Resident 28's BP or HR. During a concurrent medication pass observation and interview, on 7/16/2025 between 9:32 a.m. through 10:01 a.m., with LVN 2, at the East Station Medication Cart for Resident 28, the following was observed:-On 7/16/2025 at 9:32 a.m., LVN 2 stated she had prepared a total of seven morning medications for Resident 28. LVN 2 crushed each tablet individually and placed them into separate medication cups.-On 7/16/2025 at 9:38 a.m., LVN 2 entered Resident 28's room without sanitizing hands with alcohol-based hand sanitizer or washing with soap and water, put on gown and gloves-On 7/16/2025 at 9:40 a.m., LVN 2 stated she poured 15 ml of water into each medication cup that contained crushed medication and mixed. LVN 2 then stated she pushed 20 cc (cc unit of measurement) of air to check GT placement and stated she was unable to hear gurgle sound to confirm the GT was in the correct location, the stomach. LVN 2 tried pushing air two more times with 30 cc and again with 40 cc of air and stated, I cannot hear it. -On 7/16/2025 at 9:47 a.m., LVN 2 called for LVN 3 assistance. LVN 3 entered Resident 28's room and stated he pushed 10 cc of air through the GT to check placement. LVN 3 stated he could not hear gurgling, or stomach sounds after pushing air into Resident 28's stomach and could not confirm GT placement and left the room.-On 7/16/2025 at 9:51 a.m., LVN 2 requested a Registered Nurse Supervisor (RN) 1 to assist with confirming GT placement.-On 7/16/2025 at 9:45 a.m., RN 1 entered Resident 28's room placed a stethoscope on Resident 28's stomach LVN 2 stated she pushed 45 cc of air, while RN 1 listened through the stethoscope. RN 1 stated, I can hear the gurgling sound, and confirmed GT placement, then left Resident 28's room. RN 1 was not observed checking Resident 28 for aspiration and amount of residual. -On 7/16/2025 at 9:58 a.m., LVN 2 was not observed aspirating or checking Resident 28 for amount of residual. LVN 2 stated she was administering Resident 28's BP medication Losartan. LVN 2 poured Resident 28's BP medication, Losartan into the GT syringe connected to the GT tubing and used a plunger to push the medication into Resident 28's stomach. LVN 2 poured 10 ml of water into the GT syringe and again use the plunger and push the water into Resident 28's stomach. LVN 2 was not observed providing an initial water flush prior to administering the first medication, Losartan.-On 7/16/2025 at 9:59 a.m., it stated that Resident 28 residual was not checked prior to medication administration via GT. LVN 2 checked Resident 28 for residual and stated, she pulled out medication about 0.5 ml and then used the plunger inside of the syringe and pushed the medication back into Resident 28's stomach.-On 7/16/2024 at 10:01 a.m., LVN 2 poured the second medication Oxcarbazepine into Resident 28's GT syringe, the medication was observed remaining inside of the GT syringe and not passing through the GT tubbing into Resident 28's stomach. LVN 2 stated she knows that she was supposed to administer Resident 28's medication by gravity (utilizing the natural downward pull of gravity to deliver the medication into the stomach through the GT/feeding tube). LVN 2 stated at this point she will notify RN 1 because the medication is not going down. During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 10:05 a.m., with LVN 3, LVN 3 stated, I took all the vitals for the residents at 8 a.m., on 7/16/2025. LVN 3 acknowledged providing handwritten paper with multiple resident room numbers and vital signs written down to LVN 2. During a concurrent medication pass and observation on 7/16/2025 at 10:10 a.m., at Resident 28's bedside, with LVN 2, RN 1, and the Director of Nursing (DON), LVN 2 stated for Resident 28, I did not check residual. I pushed the first medication and water flush. The DON checked GT placement for Resident 28 by pushing air into the resident's stomach twice and stated she used 15 cc of air the first time and 30 cc of air the second time and confirmed the GT was in place. The DON stated that Resident 28's stomach was hyper tympanic (belly that sounds hollow or drum-like due to excessive gas buildup), the resident's abdominal wall was distended (noticeable outward swelling or enlargement of the abdomen). The DON stated will call Resident 28's doctor and daughter and to hold feeding and all medications. During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 10:20 a.m., with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated, I was doing everything myself yesterday (7/15/2025) and today (7/16/2025) the DON wanted LVN 3 to tag team and to do the vitals that makes everything confusing and frustrating now.During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 10:30 a.m., with RN 1, RN 1 reviewed the handwritten paper used by LVN 2 to determine when to administer Resident 28's BP medication Losartan. RN 1 stated the paper did not include a date or time to indicate when the vital signs were taken for each resident. RN 1 stated residents BP can fluctuate, and it is better to recheck BP just prior to medication administration for an accurate reading before giving the BP medication that has a parameter to determine when to give or not give the medication.During a concurrent interview and review of the facility's P&P titled, Feeding Tube - Administration of Medication, dated 6/12/2024, the P&P indicated to, Verify tube placement via aspiration method. Return aspirate to stomach. DON stated, the facility's policy did not indicate checking GT placement by introducing air into the resident's stomach. DON stated the licensed nurses are supposed to check GT placement by aspiration. DON stated the facility's practice does not correspond to the facility, Feeding Tube - Administration of Medication, policy. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Feeding Tube - Medication Administered, effective date 6/12/2024, the P&P indicated to:-Verify tube placement via aspiration method. Return aspirate to stomach.-Flush tube with 15 cc (unless a different amount is specified by the Physician/Prescriber) of water before administering medication.-Between each medication, the tube (GT) is flushed with 15 ml of water, keeping in mind the patient's fluid volume status (unless a different amount is specified by the Physician/Prescriber).-Administer medication by syringe via gravity into the feeding tube.-Flush tube with 15 ml of water (unless a different amount is specified by the Physician/Prescriber) after administering the medications.-After administering medication reestablish feeding as prescribed.Bottom of Form
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its policies and procedures (P&P) titled, Medi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow its policies and procedures (P&P) titled, Medication - Administration, to prevent significant medication errors (medication errors that causes the resident discomfort or jeopardizes the resident health and safety) for two of five sampled residents (Residents 28 and Resident 4), by failing to: (Cross Reference F759) 1. Ensure LVN 2, LVN 3 and RN 1 followed facility's P&P titled, Medication - Administration, to ensure accurate administration of medications by making sure the same nurse preparing Resident 4's Tylenol medication for pretreatment for wound care was the same nurse that administered the medication and documented the administration. 2. Ensure LVN 2 followed Resident 28's Physician/Medical Doctor (MD) 1's orders to check the resident's blood pressure (BP) and heart rate (HR) prior to the administration of Losartan (a medication used to treat high blood pressure), as an ordered parameter (used to assess, monitor, and guide treatment decisions) to determine whether to give or not give the medication. These deficient practices resulted in Residents 28 and 4 not receiving medications in accordance with the physicians' orders, and the facility's P&Ps. These failures placed Residents 28 and 4 at risk for significant medical complications including pain, delayed wound healing, uncontrolled blood pressure creating a change of condition, discomfort, and hospitalization.Findings:1. During a review of an admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), and contractures (the abnormal shortening of muscles, tendons, ligaments, or skin, which restricts the normal range of motion of a joint or body part) of right and both elbows, both knees, and both ankles.During a review of a Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 7/2/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 4's cognitive skills for daily decisions making was severely impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 4 was dependent and required two or more staff physical assistance for all activities of daily living (ADL, include eating, dressing, getting into or out of a bed or chair, taking a bath or shower, and using the toilet). During a review of Resident 4's History and Physical (H&P) dated 5/19/2025, the H&P indicated the resident does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of an Order Summary with active orders as of 7/16/2025 included the following orders for:Tylenol (Acetaminophen, treat mild to moderate pain) Extra Strength Oral Tablet 500 mg, give two tablets (1000 mg) by mouth everyday shift for pain give prior to treatment, order date 5/28/2025During a review of Resident 4's Care Plan titled, High risk for pain/discomfort, dated 8/9/2024 and revised on 7/16/2025, the CP interventions indicated, Tylenol Extra Strength Oral Tablet 500 mg (Acetaminophen) instruction indicated, give 2 (two) tablets by mouth every 6 (six) hours as needed for moderate pain 5-7/10 (pain scale zero to 10, 0 indicates no pain, while 10 represents the worst pain imaginable) not to exceed 3 (three) grams (g, unit of measurement by weight) of APAP in 24 hours from all sources and give 1 (one) tablet by mouth every day shift for pain, give prior to treatment, revision on 7/16/2025.During a concurrent medication pass observation and interview, on 7/16/2025 at 9:12 a.m., with LVN 2, at the East Station Medication Cart, LVN 2 stated Resident 4 needed pain medication before the resident's wound treatment. LVN 2 prepared for Resident 4 - two, 500 mg tablets of Acetaminophen, crushed the tablets, placed the crushed powder into a medication cup and added applesauce to the crushed tablets and mixed them together. LVN 2 handed the cup of medication to LVN 3 as LVN 3 walked up to the East Station Medication Cart after the medication had been prepared by LVN 2. LVN 3 asked LVN 2 which room the resident was in. LVN 2 stated the resident's room number and LVN 3 left with the medication cup to administer the medication to Resident 4.During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 2:38 p.m. with LVN 3, LVN 3 stated he administered to Resident 4 two tablets of Acetaminophen 325 mg (650 mg), that was given to him crushed and mixed in applesauce by LVN 2. LVN 3 stated, he administered the crushed Acetaminophen medication to the resident (Resident 4), on 7/16/2025 during the 9 a.m., morning medication pass.During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/16/2025 at 2:56 p.m., with LVN 3, at the [NAME] Station, Resident 4's MAR for 7/16/2025 was reviewed. LVN 3 stated Resident 4 was documented to have been administered two tablets of Acetaminophen 500 mg (1000 mg) and not two tablets of Acetaminophen 325 mg (650 mg) on 7/16/2025 at 9:08 a.m., and Resident 4's MAR was initialed to indicate a Registered Nurse (RN) 2 had administered the medication to the resident. LVN 3 stated RN 2 did not administer the Acetaminophen to Resident 4, he did (LVN 3).During an interview on 7/16/2025 with LVN 2 and RN 2, RN 2 stated, she was going to be the one nurse to administer Acetaminophen to Resident 4 and signed the MAR prior to the medication being administered to the resident. RN 2 stated, I did not see the resident take the medication. LVN 2 stated, she did not see Resident 4 take the medication. LVN 2 stated having different nurses prepare, administered, and documented the administration increases the risk that the wrong resident may be administered the medication. RN 2 stated the licensed nurse that prepares the medication should be the same nurse that administers the medication to the resident and then document the administration on the resident's MAR.During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication Administered, revised on 1/1/2012, the P&P indicated:-To ensure the accurate administration of medications for residents in the Facility.-Medication must be given to the residents by the Licensed Nurse preparing the medication.-The Licensed Nurse will verify the resident's identity before administering the medication.-The licensed nurse will chart the drug, time administered, and initial his/her name with each medication administered.-The time and dose of the drug or treatment administered to the patient will be recorded in the patient's individual medication record by the person who administers the drug or treatment. 2. During a review of Resident 28's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis that included dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and hypertension (HTN, high blood pressure), and gastrotomy status (GT, a tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition and/or medication directly to the stomach).During a review of a MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 28's cognitive skills for daily decisions making was severely impaired (ability to think and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 28 was dependent and required two or more staff physical assistance for all ADL.During a review of Resident 28's History and Physical (H&P) dated 6/6/2025, the H&P indicated the resident does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions.During a review of an Order Summary with active orders as of 7/16/2025 included but was not limited to:Losartan Potassium Tablet 50 mg, one tablet via GT one time a day for HTN. Hold systolic blood pressure ([SBP] top number in blood pressure; pressure during active contraction of the heart) is less than 110 millimeters of mercury ([mm Hg] unit used to measure BP) or heart rate (HR, beats per minute [BPM]) is less than 60 BPM, order date 6/6/2025During a review of Resident 28's CP titled Hypertension, related to inappropriate diet and lifestyle choices, goals and interventions indicated:The resident has hypertension (HTN) related to inappropriate diet and lifestyle choices. Medication use: Losartan Potassium Tablet 50 mg. Give one tablet by mouth one time a day for HTN hold if systolic blood pressure less than 110 mmhg. To give antihypertensive medications as ordered. Monitor for side effects such as orthostatic hypotension a sudden drop in blood pressure that occurs upon standing from a sitting or lying down position) and increased heart rate (Tachycardia) and effectiveness. Date initiated: 5/23/2025.During a concurrent medication pass observation and interview, on 7/16/2025 at 9:17 a.m., with LVN 2, at the East Station Medication Cart, LVN 2 was observed preparing the following medications for Resident 28, a. Clopidogrel 75 mg, one tabletb. Gabapentin 300 mg, one capsulec. Losartan 50 mg, one tabletd. Oxcarbazepine 300 mg/ 5 ml, 15 ml (900 mg)e. Aspirin 81 mg chewable, one tabletf. Levetiracetam Oral Solution 100 mg/ml, 15 ml (1500 mg)g. Phenytoin 50 mg chewable, four tablets (200 mg)LVN 2 stated Resident 28's BP was 120/80 (mmHg) and HR 74 (bpm). LVN 2 was not observed checking Resident 28's BP or HR. LVN 2 was observed reviewing a piece of paper with a list that included resident's by room number and bed assign and listed corresponding vital signs (measures temperature, pulse/heart rate, respiration rate [rate of breathing], and blood pressure) documented next to the room numbers, The document reviewed by LVN 2 was undated and did not include residents names or indicate the date and time the vital signs were recorded or by whom. LVN 2 stated another nurse, LVN 3, residents on East Nursing Station vital signs, which included Resident 28's BP and HR. LVN 2 stated that she did not know what time LVN 3 had checked Resident 28's BP or HR. During on observation on 7/16/2025 at 9:58 a.m., LVN 2 was not observed checking aspiration (assessing the contents withdrawn from the GT to help confirm its location in the stomach rather than the lungs or other unintended locations) or checking Resident 28 for amount of residual (measuring the amount of stomach contents remaining in the stomach before a feeding or medication administration). LVN 2 stated she was administering Resident 28's BP medication Losartan. LVN 2 poured Resident 28's BP medication, Losartan into the GT syringe connected to the GT tubing and used a plunger to push the medication into Resident 28's stomach. LVN 2 poured 10 ml of water into the GT syringe and again use the plunger and push the water into Resident 28's stomach. LVN 2 was not observed providing an initial water flush prior to administering the first medication, Losartan.During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 10:05 a.m., with LVN 3, LVN 3 stated, I took all the vitals for the residents at 8 a.m., on 7/16/2025. LVN 3 acknowledged providing handwritten paper with multiple resident room numbers and vital signs written down to LVN 2. During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 10:20 a.m., with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated, I was doing everything myself yesterday (7/15/2025) and today (7/16/2025) the DON wanted LVN 3 to tag team and to do the vitals that makes everything confusing and frustrating now.During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 10:30 a.m., with RN 1, RN 1 reviewed the handwritten paper used by LVN 2 to determine when to administer Resident 28's BP medication Losartan. RN 1 stated the paper did not include a date or time to indicate when the vital signs were taken for each resident. RN 1 stated residents BP can fluctuate, and it is better to recheck BP just prior to medication administration for an accurate reading before giving the BP medication that has a parameter to determine when to give or not give the medication. RN 1 stated there were between 31 to 32 Residents on East Station that LVN 2 was scheduled to pass morning medicationsDuring a review of the facility's P&P titled, Medication Administered, revised on 1/1/2012, the P&P indicated, Tests and taking of vital signs, upon which administration of medications or treatments are conditioned, will be performed as required and the results recorded. When administering of the drug is dependent upon vital signs or testing, the vital signs/testing will be completed prior to administration of the medication and recorded in the medical record i.e. BP, pulse, finger stick blood glucose monitoring etc. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Feeding Tube - Medication Administered, dated 6/12/2024, the P&P indicated to:-Verify tube placement via aspiration method. Return aspirate to stomach.-Flush tube with 15 cc (unless a different amount is specified by the Physician/Prescriber) of water before administering medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner to prevent growth of infectious organisms that could cause food borne illness (food poisoning...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store food in a sanitary manner to prevent growth of infectious organisms that could cause food borne illness (food poisoning: any illness resulting from the food spoilage of contaminated food) for 81 of the facility's residents who eat food prepared in the kitchen by failing to: 1. Ensure the store prepared 18 cups of juice with a prepared-on date.2. Ensure to place an open-date on a Residents juice that was placed in the fridge. These deficient practices had the potential to result in residents developing foodborne illness (food poisoning) with symptoms including upset stomach, stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and fever and can lead to other serious medical complications and hospitalization. Findings: During an initial visit to the kitchen on 7/15/2025 at 8:15 a.m., with the Dietary supervisor (DS) , there were six glasses of cranberry juice, 5 glasses of apple juice, 3 glasses of milk, and 3 glasses of orange juice without a prepare-on date inside the walk-in refrigerator. During an observation on 7/15/2025 at 08:30 a.m., with the DS, there was 1 large container of juice in the resident's refrigerator with no opened-on date. During an interview on 7/16/2025 at 8:47 a.m., with the DS, the DS stated it is the dietary staff's responsibility to label foods and drinks with prepared-on and opened-on dates. The DS stated it was important to label and date foods and drinks so that we can know when to throw them out. The DS stated juices last for 72 hours then you must throw it out. The DS stated if the juice is kept beyond the 72 hours the juice can be hazardous, and the resident can become sick if they drink it. During a review of the facility's P&P titled Food Storage and Handling revised on 2/9/2024, the P&P indicated label and date all food items.
Apr 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), whose cognition (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) was severely impaired, and who was assessed at risk for elopement (the act of leaving a facility unsupervised and without prior authorization), was monitored to prevent him eloping from the facility. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 eloping from the facility, on 4/1/2025 at approximately 7 p.m. Resident 1 was found by a good Samaritan on 4/2/2025, approximately 14 miles from the facility, he was transferred to a General Acute Care hospital (GACH) for evaluation before being readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 1 to continue to be missing, injury and death. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment tool) dated 3/11/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognition was severely impaired, and he required supervision or touch assistance (when a helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity, assistance may be provided throughout the activity or intermittently) to walk. During a review of Resident 1's Elopement Evaluation dated 3/11/2025, the Elopement Evaluation indicated a score of two which indicated a risk of elopement. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan dated 6/6/2024, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 was at risk for wandering/elopement. Under this Care Plan a goal for Resident 1 was for him not to leave the facility unattended. The Care Plan's interventions included identifying Resident 1's triggers for wandering/eloping. The Care Plan's documentation did not indicate what triggers to look for. During a review of Resident 1's Change in Condition (COC) dated 4/1/2025, the COC indicated Resident 1 was missing at 7 p.m. During an observation on 4/3/2025 at 9:50 a.m., the facility's receptionist desk was observed in a hall to the right of the facility's front door, which was approximately 20 feet from the front door, and when standing directly in front of the receptionist desk, there was no direct view of the front door or the hallway leading to the front door. During an interview on 4/3/2025 at 12:31 p.m., the Receptionist 1 (RC 1) stated she did not have a clear visual line that allowed her to monitor the front door and in order to monitor residents who got near the front door she had to lean to the left to see them when she was sitting at the receptionist desk. During an interview on 4/3/2025 at 2:53 p.m., RC 2 stated one of his job responsibilities was to ensure residents did not go out of the front door and the reception desk should not be left unattended. RC 2 stated on 4/1/2025, he was outside on the main patio from 6 p.m., until 6:15 p.m., with another resident, and did not see Resident 1 outside. RC 2 stated, at approximately 7 p.m., Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1) notified him that Resident 1 was missing. During an interview on 4/3/2025 at 3:58 p.m., RN 1 stated the last time she saw Resident 1 was in the dining room at 6:15 p.m., watching television. RN 1 stated she left Resident 1 alone in the dining room because he was finished eating dinner and he was just watching television. RN 1 stated RC 2 was at the receptionist desk, and she (RN 1) went to the nurses' station, which was down the hall from the dining room, but stated she could not see the dining room from the nursing station. RN 1 stated at approximately 7 p.m., during her rounds, she checked Resident 1's room and bathroom, and he was not there. RN 1 stated when the dining room was checked, Resident 1's wheelchair was there but he was not. During an interview on 4/4/2025 at 12:32 p.m., the Administrator (ADM) stated Resident 1 mostly like eloped through the facility's front door. During an interview on 4/4/2025 at 1:10 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the receptionist when sitting at the front desk, does not have direct view of the front door, and she would have to lean to the left to view the hallway that leads to the front door, and the receptionist could potentially miss a resident who attempted to or walked out of the front door. The DON stated residents should not be left alone in the dining room because anything could happen to the resident, like a fall. The DON stated before 8 p.m., the alarm on the front door is not turned so it was possible for a resident to leave out of the front door undetected before 8 p.m. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) dated 1/31/2023, titled, Wandering and Elopement, the P/P indicated the resident's risk for elopement and preventative interventions will be documented in the resident's medical record and the IDT will develop a plan of care considering the individual risk factors of the resident.
Nov 2024 3 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident, who was transferred by a mechanic...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident, who was transferred by a mechanical lift (a device used to transfer residents from a bed to a chair or between surfaces), did not fall from the lift during transfer and sustained injuries for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). The facility failed to: 1. Ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) did not transfer Resident 1 by herself from a bed to a shower chair (a movable or permanently installed seat for the tub or shower) by using a mechanical lift (a device used to transfer residents from a bed to a chair or between surfaces). 2. Ensure CNA 1 did not use a mechanical lift sling (accessory attached to a mechanical lift [device used to transfer residents from one surface to another]) with worn out straps to transfer Resident 1 from bed to shower chair. 3. Ensure staff followed the mechanical lift Manufacturer ' s User Manual guide dated 2016 and 10/1/2018 which indicated after each laundering the sling must be inspected for wear, tears, and loose stitching. Slings that have been bleached, torn, cut, frayed, or broken are unsafe and could result in injury and should be discarded immediately. These failures resulted in Resident 1 falling from the mechanical lift to the floor and sustaining a bump (swelling) on the right parietal (located near the back and top of the head) area of the head, a right frontal (front) scalp hematoma (discoloration of skin, due to bleeding under the skin) and soft tissue swelling (inflammation and fluid buildup, that can potentially feel tender or painful) in her right elbow. Resident 1 was admitted to the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) for three days for evaluation and treatment. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including morbid obesity (having too much body fat), dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities) and chronic kidney disease (a long-term condition that occurs when the kidney are damaged and can ' t filter blood properly). During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P) dated 5/10/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Sheet (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 8/30/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderately impaired cognitive (thought process) skills for daily decision making and was dependent (helper does all of the effort to complete activities, the assistance of two or more helpers is required) on self-care abilities such as oral hygiene, toileting, shower/bathing, upper and lower body dressing and mobility such as rolling left and right, sitting to lying, lying to sitting and bed to chair transfers. During a review of Resident 1 ' s untitled Comprehensive Care Plan dated 10/5/2022, the Comprehensive Care plan indicated Resident 1 was able to transfer from bed to chair with extensive assistance, requiring two persons assistance. During a review of Resident 1 ' s untitled Comprehensive Care Plan dated 5/16/2023, the Comprehensive Care Plan Indicated Resident 1 was dependent on staff and needed physical assistance with mobility (ability to move freely) and with completion of physical activities such as eating, bathing, and transfers. The Care Plan indicated to use a mechanical lift as indicated for transfer. During a review of the Nurses Progress Notes, dated 10/15/2024, and timed at 10:55 a.m., the Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 had a fall in her room on 10/15/2024. The Nurses Progress notes indicated Resident 1 had a pain level of 6 on a pain scale (a tool for pain rating as follows: 1-4 mild pain, 5-7 moderate pain, 8-10 severe pain) to the occipital (back of the head) area. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was being transferred from bed to shower chair, and as she was being lowered with the mechanical lift at about two feet from the ground, the resident moved, the sling hook broke, and Resident 1 fell to the floor. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Change of Condition (COC), dated 10/15/2024 and timed at 10:40 a.m., the COC indicated Resident 1 had a fall in the resident ' s room on 10/15/2024. The COC indicated Resident 1 was complaining of a pain level of 6 out of 10 (pain scale 0-no pain - 10 excruciating pain) at the back of her head. During a record review of Resident 1 ' s Order Summary Report (Physician ' s orders) dated 10/15/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated a physician ' s order dated 10/15/2024 to transfer Resident 1 to the GACH via 911 (by emergency transportation services) due to a fall. During a record review of Resident 1 ' s GACH H&P Note dated 10/15/2024 and timed at 3:54 p.m., the GACH H&P Notes indicated Resident 1 was admitted for further management due to a mechanical fall with imaging results indicating a mild subarachnoid (brain tissue) hemorrhage and a right frontal scalp hematoma. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Nurses Progress Notes dated 10/18/2024 and timed at 3:03 p.m., the Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was admitted back to the facility. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated that Resident 1 stated her right arm and the right side of her face were tender. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 had discoloration on the right shoulder, right upper arm, right elbow, and a bump with discoloration on the right parietal area of the head. Resident 1 complained of a headache pain level rated 3 out of 10. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Investigation Conclusion Letter, dated 10/19/2024, the Facility Investigation Conclusion Letter indicated CNA 1 was backing up the mechanical lift, with Resident 1 on it, from the bed to place Resident 1 on the shower chair, the upper right side of the sling ripped, and the resident fell on the floor. During a telephone interview on 11/25/2024 at 4:06 p.m., CNA 1 stated on 10/5/2024 she was transferring Resident 1 from the bed to the shower chair by herself with the mechanical lift but halfway to the shower chair, the right upper side of the sling hook latch ripped, and Resident 1 fell to the floor. CNA 1 stated the sling had a blue with green rim and was the correct color sling for the resident ' s body size according to what she was told during in-service education she received. CNA 1 stated she did not check the sling for damage such as wear and tear, or threadbare areas of the sling, because the laundry staff checked the slings for damage before they made them available for use to transfer residents. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/26/2024 at 9:58 a.m., with Resident 1, in her room, Resident 1 stated on the day of the fall, CNA 1 put her on the mechanical lift and did the transfer by herself. Resident 1 stated she fell from the mechanical lift during the transfer and hit her head and arm. Resident 1 pointed to the right side of her head near her forehead where there was a bump. Resident 1 stated her head still hurts sometimes and that her right arm has been hurting after the fall. Resident 1 stated she used to eat independently but now it is harder because of the pain in her right arm. Resident 1 stated she was unable to elevate her right arm up since the fall. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 11:43 a.m., CNA 2 stated he was the CNA that was helping CNA 1 with transferring residents from bed to shower chair using the mechanical lift on that day. CNA 2 stated he was helping CNA 3 transfer Resident 2 from bed to shower chair with the mechanical lift while CNA 1 was getting ready with the supplies needed to transfer Resident 1 from bed to a shower chair. CNA 2 stated he went back to Resident 1 ' s room and saw Resident 1 lying on the floor next to the bed. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 verbalized that her head and right shoulder were hurting. CNA 2 stated when using the mechanical lift to transfer residents, there should be two persons assisting with the mechanical lift. CNA 2 stated the old slings were defective and the facility ordered new slings. The old slings were worn out and ripped. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 1:00 p.m., with the House Keeping Supervisor (HKS) stated that he has worked in the facility for over 10 years, and this was the first time they have replaced the slings in the facility. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 1:16 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) stated Resident 1 required a total care (residents who need help with all their daily activities such as bathing, toileting, eating). LVN 1 stated there could be severe injury when Resident 1 fell from the sling and hit her head on 10/15/2024. LVN 1 stated the situation could have been prevented if the transfer with a mechanical lift was done with two persons assistance and the sling was inspected prior to using it to transfer Resident 1. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 1:40 p.m., Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS 1) stated Resident 1 was totally dependent on staff for shower and bathing. RNS 1 stated on the day of the fall (10/15/2024), she found Resident 1 on the floor and Resident 1 told her the back of her head was hurting. RNS 1 stated Resident 1 complained that her pain level was a 7 or 8 out of 10 on the pain scale. RNS 1 stated the incident could have been prevented if staff had inspected the sling to make sure it was in good condition. RNS 1 stated before CNA 1 transferred Resident 1, CNA 1should have been made sure there was another staff member to assist her transfer Resident 1 with the mechanical lift. RNS 1 stated that if CNA 1 had called for some help, it might have helped to prevent the fall. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 2:05 p.m., the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated staff were in-serviced (trained) on the use of a mechanical lift to use two or three persons transfer assistance. The DSD stated the slings were based on height and weight of the residents and staff were to use the slings associated with the residents ' height and weight. The DSD stated the correct size sling for Resident 1 was a large, which was the sling with the green and blue rim. The DSD stated the slings should be checked prior to using it to transfer the resident to make sure it was in good working condition. The DSD stated new slings were ordered after the incident that happened with Resident 1. The sling used to transfer Resident 1 was worn out and ripped indicating it was old, and the color was faded from multiple washes. The DSD stated the Administrator (ADM) and Central Supply staff ordered new slings after this fall incident. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 4:03 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated on 10/15/2024, Resident 1 fell on the floor from the mechanical lift during transfer. The DON stated Resident 1 was transferred to the GACH because the resident fell with a head injury and the resident complained of pain to the back of her head. The DON stated the incident could have been avoidable if CNA 1 waited for another CNA to help her with Resident 1 ' s transfer via mechanical lift. The DON stated any transfer with the mechanical lifts must be done by two to three persons assistance. The DON stated the sling ripped on the hook that was attached to the black strap that was attached to the sling. The DON stated CNA 1 should have checked the sling before using it to transfer Resident 1. The DON stated all slings used to transfer residents with the mechanical lift were replaced on 10/22/2024 after Resident 1 ' s fall. The DON stated that slings were replaced if there were noted wear and tear, and the nursing staff should have checked to make sure all slings were intact. During an observation and interview on 11/27/2024 at 9:15 a.m., with the Occupational Therapist (OT) in Resident 1 ' s room, Resident 1 ' s OT treatment session was observed. The OT stated Resident 1 was dependent on staff for activities of daily living but was able to eat on her own. The OT stated Resident 1 did have pain with movement in her right arm. Resident 1 stated she was in pain in her head and right arm , and the OT told Resident 1 it was expected for someone who fell. During a record review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P), titled Total Mechanical Lift, revised 4/27/23, indicated mechanical lifts are devices used to assist with transfers and movement of individuals who require support for mobility beyond the manual support provided by nursing staff alone .nursing staff will receive training on how to use the mechanical lift .at least two people are present while resident is being transferred with the mechanical lift. During a record review of the mechanical lift Manufacturer ' s User Manual dated 10/1/2018, the Manufacturer User Manual guide indicated recommends included that two assistants be used for all lifting preparation, transferring from, and transferring to procedures. After each laundering (in accordance with instructions on the sling), inspect sling(s) for wear, tears, and loose stitching. Slings that have been bleached, torn, cut, frayed, or broken are unsafe and could result in injury and should be discard immediately. During a record review of the mechanical lift Manufacturer ' s User Manual dated 2016, the Manufacturer User Manual instructions indicated to not lift a resident unless you are trained and competent to do so, plan your lifting operations before commencing, familiarize yourself with the operating control and safety features of a lift before lifting a patient, do not use a sling unless it is recommended for use with the lift, check the sling is suitable for the particular patient and is of the correct size and capacity and, never use a sling, which is frayed or damaged.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 was competent to use the...

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 Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 was competent to use the mechanical lift (a device used to transfer a resident from one surface to another) to transfer a resident (Resident 1) from bed to shower chair in accordance with professional standards of practice. This failure resulted in Resident 1 falling from the sling and suffering a head injury when CNA 1 transferred Resident 1 from bed to shower chair without assistance from another staff member. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including morbid obesity (having too much body fat), dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities) and chronic kidney disease (a long-term condition that occurs when the kidney are damaged and can ' t filter blood properly). During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P) dated 5/10/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Sheet (MDS- a resident assessment tool), dated 8/30/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderately impaired cognitive (thought process) skills for daily decision making and was dependent (helper does all of the effort to complete activities, the assistance of two or more helpers is required) on self-care abilities such as oral hygiene, toileting, shower/bathing, upper and lower body dressing and mobility such as rolling left and right, sitting to lying, lying to sitting and bed to chair transfers. During a review of Resident 1 ' s untitled Comprehensive Care Plan dated 5/16/2023, the Comprehensive Care Plan Indicated Resident 1 was dependent on staff and needed physical assistance with mobility (ability to move freely) and with completion of physical activities such as eating, bathing, and transfers. The Care Plan indicated to use a mechanical lift as indicated for transfer. During a review of Resident 1 ' s untitled Comprehensive Care Plan dated 10/5/2022, the Comprehensive Care plan indicated Resident 1 was able to transfer from bed to chair with extensive assistance, requiring two persons assistance. During a review of Resident 1 ' s untitled Comprehensive Care Plan dated 5/16/2023, the Comprehensive Care Plan Indicated Resident 1 was dependent on staff and needed physical assistance with mobility (ability to move freely) and with completion of physical activities such as eating, bathing, and transfers. The Care Plan indicated to use a mechanical lift as indicated for transfer. During a review of the Nurses Progress Notes, dated 10/15/2024, and timed at 10:55 a.m., the Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 had a fall in her room on 10/15/2024. The Nurses Progress notes indicated Resident 1 had a pain level of 6 on a pan scale (a tool for pain rating as follows: 1-4 mild pain, 5-7 moderate pain, 8-10 severe pain) to the occipital (back of the head) area. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was being transferred from bed to shower chair, and as she was being lowered with the mechanical lift at about two feet from the ground, the resident moved, the sling hook broke, and Resident 1 fell to the floor. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Change of Condition (COC), dated 10/15/2024 and timed at 10:40 a.m., the COC indicated Resident 1 had a fall in the resident ' s room on 10/15/2024. The COC indicated Resident 1 was complaining of a pain level of 6 out of 10 (pain scale 0-no pain - 10 excruciating pain) at the back of her head. During a record review of Resident 1 ' s Order Summary Report (Physician ' s orders) dated 10/15/2024, the Order Summary Report indicated a physician ' s order dated 10/15/2024 to transfer Resident 1 to the GACH via 911 (by emergency transportation services) due to a fall. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Nurses Progress Notes dated 10/18/2024 and timed at 3:03 p.m., the Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was admitted back to the facility. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated that Resident 1 stated her right arm, and the right side of her face were tender. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 had discoloration on the right shoulder, right upper arm, right elbow, and a bump with discoloration on the right parietal area of the head. Resident 1 complained of a headache pain level rated 3 out of 10. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/26/2024 at 9:58 a.m., with Resident 1, in her room, Resident 1 stated on the day of the fall, CNA 1 put her on the mechanical lift and did the transfer by herself. Resident 1 stated she fell from the mechanical lift during the transfer and hit her head and arm. Resident 1 pointed to the right side of her head near her forehead where there was a bump. During a telephone interview on 11/25/2024 at 4:08 p.m., CNA 1 stated she received in-service education for the mechanical lift, but it was general verbal education and sometimes return demonstration with the mechanical lift, but it was not done often. CNA 1 stated it would have been nice to have more in-services with return demonstration, so the staff can get immediate feedback on what they did well or what they need to improve. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 1:20 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 stated Resident 1 needed help with all transfers. LVN 1 stated two persons need to assist for transfers with the mechanical lift. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 1:43 p.m., RNS 1 stated CNA 1 did not ask for help to transfer Resident 1 with the mechanical lift. RNS 1 stated staff were in-serviced on how to use the mechanical lift for transfers, but a return demonstration was not done for all the staff that participated in the in-service. During a concurrent interview and record review on 11/26/2024 at 2:15 p.m., the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated the last mechanical lift in-service done for the staff was lecture based meaning it was verbal education, and no return demonstration. The DSD stated when CNA 1 used a mechanical lift, CNA 1 did not follow the policy and procedure and call for help. The DSD stated the CNA 1 did not wait for another CNA to come help with the mechanical lift transfer. During an interview on 11/26/2024 at 4:05 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON), stated with a mechanical lift transfer, two staff members need to assist with the transfer. The DON stated during a mechanical lift transfer one person guides the resident when they are being lowered while the other person controls the mechanical remote. The DON stated CNA 1 should not have transferred Resident 1 with a mechanical lift by herself. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/27/2024 at 10:37 a.m., with Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) 1 and RNA 2 a demonstration on how to use the mechanical lift with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) as the willing participant and the DON was observed. The RNAs stated they do not remember the last in-service on the mechanical lift. The MS sat on the mechanical lift sling that had been placed in the wheelchair. RNA 1 put the hook in the yellow and green hook latches on the mechanical lift arms incorrectly. RNA 2 put the hook in the red and green hook latch on the Hoyer lift arms correctly. RNA 1 used the mechanical remote to lift the MS up with the mechanical lift while RNA 2 guided the MS who was sitting in the sling, up and off the wheelchair. RNA 1 and RNA 2 did not engage the brakes after the MS was suspended off the wheelchair and moved away from the wheelchair. The RNAs then repositioned the MS above the wheelchair to lower the MS back down into the wheelchair. The RNAs stated they have never had to do a return demonstration on the mechanical lift during in-services they have received. RNA 1 and RNA 2 stated it would have been better to do the return demonstration to know if they performed the task correctly and if they need to make any changes. During an interview on 11/27/2024 at 10:50 a.m., with the DON, who observed the two RNAs demonstrate how to use the mechanical lift, the DON stated to operate the Hoyer lift, there needs to have 2 persons to check the other ' s work. The DON stated the hook latches need to be placed on the on the correct hook latches. The DON stated the brakes needed to be engaged after lifting the MS up and moving the MS off the wheelchair. During a record review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P/P) titled Transfer of Residents, dated 5/4/23, the P/P indicated residents will be lifted or transferred according to the assessment and needs of residents .residents who require assistance in transferring may be transferred using a gait/transfer belt or with a mechanical lift .nursing staff receive education on good body mechanics, proper procedures for transfers, and use of assistive devices. During a record review of the facility ' s job description, titled Director of Staff Development, no date, indicated coordinates and conducts an effective on going in service plan to all employees .provides and coordinates mandatory annual in-services to all facility employees in accordance with state and federal regulations and company policy .monitor, support, teach and supervise the nursing staff on established procedures, both clinical and theory, on an on-going basis including follow through with one on one teaching techniques as needed .provide annual proficiency evaluations on nurse assistants while supervising nursing skills and procedures as they relate to the nurse assistant ' s duties. During a record review of the facility ' s job description, titled Certified Nursing Assistant, no date, indicated perform all duties as assigned and in accordance with facility ' s established policies and procedures, nursing care procedures and safety rules and regulations .attends in services educational programs, on the job training programs and meeting as directed.
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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

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 maintain and calibrate (the process than ensures the r...

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 maintain and calibrate (the process than ensures the reading and functionality of a device is accurate and in full working order) on 2 of 5 mechanical lifts (a device used to transfer residents from a bed to a chair or other similar places) mechanical lift 1 and mechanical lift 2 for use to transfer residents of the facility from one surface to another in the facility. This deficient practice had the potential to cause injury to any resident if the mechanical lift that was used to determine the weight of the resident was inaccurate. The inaccurate weight of the resident could lead to the wrong sling being used to transfer residents based on the height and weight of the resident. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/27/2024 at 10:30 a.m. with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS), Restorative Nursing Assistant (RNA) 1 and RNA 2 and the Director of Nursing (DON), the RNAs are demonstrating the use of the mechanical lift 1 to weigh the MS and show the lifting procedure. Based off what the MS stated his weight was, the sling with the green trim was chosen. The sling was placed on the wheelchair and the MS sat in the seat. The RNAs calibrated mechanical lift 1 by using a 25 pounds (lbs., unit of measurement) weight to zero the mechanical lift scale. The RNAs lifted the MS off the wheelchair and weighed the MS with mechanical lift 1. The MS weighed 164.4 lbs. on mechanical lift 1. Next the RNAs calibrated the standing scale (weight reading obtained by standing on the base) doing the same method of calibration with mechanical lift 1. The MS stepped onto the standing scale; the weight showed the MS weighed 167.9 lbs. During a concurrent observation and interview on 11/27/2024 at 11:11 a.m., with the MS, RNA 1, RNA 2 and the DON, the RNAs demonstrated the use of mechanical lift 2 to weigh the MS. The RNAs calibrated mechanical lift 2 doing the same method of calibration with mechanical lift 1. The RNAs lifted the MS off the wheelchair with mechanical lift 2 and sling and weigh the MS. The MS weighed 169.4 lbs. The MS stated the Mechanical lifts were calibrated annually with the last calibration date being January 2024, so the next calibration date was January 2025. The MS stated if there were discrepancies, he would call the manufacturer to troubleshoot and calibrate the mechanical lifts but does not know if there were any discrepancies unless the facility weighs each resident multiple times on multiple mechanical lifts that they have in the facility which was not feasible. The MS stated with the three different numbers for weights, the machines were not accurate in determining weight. During an interview on 11/27/2024 at 12:31 p.m., the Administrator (ADM) stated we need to have the correct weight of the resident to use the correct sling. The ADM stated if the weight of the resident was incorrect, the wrong sling would be used to transfer the resident. The ADM stated if the wrong sling was used, the sling could break and there could be injury to the resident. During a record review of the admission Record for Resident 1, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to facility on 9/23/22 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of morbid obesity (having too much body fat), dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities) and chronic kidney disease (a long-term condition that occurs when the kidney are damaged and can ' t filter blood properly). During a record review of the manufacturer's user manual titled mechanical lift User Manual dated 2022, the manual indicated the mechanical lift will be calibrated at the factory with the load cell. Should it be necessary to recalibrate the scale, complete the following instructions. To calibrate the Mechanical lift, when CAL1 was selected, you would need 50 pounds of weight to calibrate the Mechanical lift and when CAL2 was selected, you would need 200 pounds of weight to calibrate the Mechanical lift.
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan indicating two- per...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the comprehensive care plan indicating two- person assist with using a mechanical lift (a device that helps safely transfer people with limited mobility from one place to another) was followed for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 sliding out of the mechanical lift's sling and sustaining a bump on the right parietal (located near the back and top of the head) area of the head. Findings: During a record review of the admission Record for Resident 1, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses of morbid obesity (having too much body fat), dementia (a progressive state of decline in mental abilities) and chronic kidney disease (a long-term condition that occurs when the kidney are damaged and can't filter blood properly). During a record review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H/P) dated 10/19/2024, the H/P indicated that Resident 1 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a record review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Sheet ([MDS], a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 8/30/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 was moderately impaired in cognitive skills (thought process) for daily decision making and was dependent (helper does all of the effort to complete activities, the assistance of 2 or more helpers is required) for self-care activities such as oral hygiene, toileting, shower/bathing, upper and lower body dressing and mobility such as rolling left and right, sitting to lying, lying to sitting and bed to chair transfers. During a concurrent observation and interview on 10/22/2024 at 2:45 p.m., with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated she does not remember the fall; she knew that she fell but does not remember how she fell. During a telephone interview on 10/23/2024 at 9:47 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, CNA 1 stated she was transferring Resident 1 from her bed to her shower chair by herself, using the mechanical lift. CNA 1 stated that halfway to the shower chair, the right upper side of the sling hook latch ripped, and Resident 1 fell to the floor. During an interview on 10/23/2024 at 11:03 a.m., with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS), the RNS stated she went into the room and saw Resident 1 on the floor. The RNS stated Resident 1 was considered a two person assist with transfers. During an interview on 10/23/2024 at 11:45 a.m., with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated Resident 1 was a total assist resident and was dependent on staff for care. CNA 2 stated when using the mechanical lift to transfer residents, there needs to be two staff members assisting, while using the mechanical lift. During an observation and interview on 10/23/2024 at 12:59 p.m., with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated she showed staff how to use the mechanical lift. The DSD stated that the staff must check the sling for wear and tear and get the correct size sling for the resident based on the resident's height and weight. The DSD stated when using the mechanical lift, there must be two or more CNAs but never one CNA to transfer a resident from one surface to another. During a review of the Resident 1's Activities of Daily living (ADL's)comprehensive care plan dated 10/05/22, the comprehensive care plan indicated Resident 1 uses Hoyer lift transfer and that Resident 1 is able to transfer from bed to chair with extensive assistance, 2 person assist. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P), titled Total Mechanical List, revised 4/27/23, indicated mechanical lifts are devices used to assist with transfers and movement of individuals who require support for mobility beyond the manual support provided by nursing staff alone .nursing staff will receive training on how to use the mechanical lift .at least two people are present while resident is being transferred with the mechanical lift.
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled resident's (Resident 1) debit and credi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled resident's (Resident 1) debit and credit cards were documented on their Personal Effects Inventory form, Resident 1 was made aware of the risk involved in keeping her debit and credit cards at her bedside and Resident 1 was offered a place to safely keep her debit and credit cards. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 being unaware of her rights as it pertained to her personal valuables and it had the potential for Resident 1's personal belongings to be lost, stolen and for her funds to be inappropriately used by unauthorized persons. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face sheet), the Face sheet indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE]. During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 9/9/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 was able to make decisions that were reasonable and consistent. During a review of Resident 1's Resident Inventory form dated 9/2/2024, the Resident Inventory form indicated the following items were listed: 1. A debit card (no description or quantity identified) 2. A credit card (no description or quantity identified) During a review of Resident 1's Personal Effects Inventory form dated 9/3/2024 and timed at 2:14 p.m., the Personal Effects Inventory form indicated there was no documentation that Resident 1's debit and credit cards were listed. During a review of Resident 1's clinical records there was no written documentation that Resident 1 was offered a safe place to store her debit and credit cards or that Resident 1's debit and credit cards were put in a safe place. Resident 1's clinical record indicated no documented evidence that Resident 1 was educated on the risks of keeping her debit and credit cards at her bedside. During an interview on 9/18/2024 at 8 a.m., Resident 1 stated there were two nurses who did the inventory of her belongings on the night of her readmission to the facility (9/2/2024). Resident 1 stated the nursing staff did not discuss any risks of keeping her debit and credit cards with her nor did they offer a place to keep the cards. During an interview and record review on 9/18/2024 at 2 p.m., the Social Service Director (SSD) stated the residents Inventory of Belongings must be completed on admission to prevent the risk of loss and/or misappropriation of residents' property. The SSD stated it was the responsibility of the nursing and social services department to ensure the residents' property was properly accounted for and kept safe. During an interview on 9/23/2024 at 11:42 a.m., the Administrator (ADM) stated the facility should strongly encourage safekeeping procedures of the residents' personal items to prevent loss and/or misappropriation of their belongings. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) titled, Personal Property revised 7/2017, the P/P indicated the facility shall take responsible steps to protect the residents' property by: 1. Making every effort to maintain the security of the residents' property while helping to create a home-like environment 2. The certified nursing assistant and/or designee will conduct a personal property inventory 3. A copy of the written inventory shall be provided to the resident or the person acting on the residents' behalf, and 4. Money and other valuables should be taken to the business office for safekeeping.
Sept 2024 5 deficiencies 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident, who had diagnosis of depression (mental health...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident, who had diagnosis of depression (mental health disorder characterized by persistently low mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life ) and a history of suicidal ideation (thinking about or formulating plans for suicide [the act or an instance of ending one's own life voluntarily and intentionally) did not commit suicide for one of three sampled residents out of 38 residents with a diagnosis of depression (Resident 1). The facility failed to: 1. Ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) initiated continuous Resident 1's assessment and closed monitoring of Resident 1's change in behavior, mood, cognition (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember), presence of hallucinations (sights, sounds, smells, tastes, or touches that a person believes to be real but are not real), and delusions (believing things that are not true), and suicidal ideation, when Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) reported to LVN 1 that Resident 1 was observed sobbing (crying spells) and accusing CNA 1 of putting poison in his water pitcher on 9/14/2024 @ 12:15 a.m. 2. Ensure a change of condition ([COC] a sudden, clinically important deviation from a patient's baseline in physical, cognitive, behavioral, or functional status) assessment was completed when Resident 1 was having crying spells, shaking hands, anxious (uneasy or worried), and verbalizing being scared and that someone was trying to kill him. 3. Ensure staff followed Resident 1's care plan titled Resident uses antidepressant (Lexapro- medication for depression) related to depression initiated on 9/12/2024, indicated interventions to monitor, document, and report as necessary changes in Resident 1's behavior, mood, cognition, hallucinations, delusions, and suicidal thoughts, withdrawal (removes themselves from interactions with others), and notify the physician of COC. 4. Ensure Resident 1 primary care physician was notified when Resident 1 experienced a COC, when Resident 1 was observed sobbing (crying) and accusing CNA 1 of putting poison in his water pitcher on 9/14/2024 at 12:15 a.m. 5. Ensure Social Services Director (SSD) reviewed and assessed Resident 1's history of wanting to die on 2/29/2024 as documented in Resident 1's medical record from Resident 1's previous admissions to the facility. 6. Ensure SSD assessed Resident 1 upon admission and gather information to complete Resident 1's Patient Health Questionnaire ([PHQ 9- a validated interview that screens for symptoms of depression) on the 7th day after admission 7. Ensure nursing staff followed the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Safety, which indicated the residents will be evaluated whenever there is a change in condition, to identify circumstances that pose a risk for the safety and wellbeing of the resident. As a result of these failures, Resident 1 was found hanging in the bathroom with a phone charging cord around his neck, on 9/14/2024 at 4:40 a.m. The resident was lowered to the floor, cardiopulmonary resuscitation ([CPR]-an emergency procedure that can save a person life if their breathing or heart stops) was initiated and 911 (emergency services) was called. The Emergency Medical Services ([EMS]- medical professionals providing emergency medical care) arrived at the facility and pronounced Resident 1 dead on 9/14/2024 at approximately 5:25 a.m. On 9/18/2024 at 6:16 p.m., the Immediate Jeopardy ([IJ] a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident) was called in the presence of Administrator (ADM) and the Director of Nursing (DON) due to the facility's failure to assess, monitor and inform Resident 1's primary physician when Resident 1 exhibited changes in behavior. On 9/20/2024 at 6:55 p.m., the facility submitted an acceptable IJ Removal Plan ([IJRP] interventions to immediately correct the deficient practices). After onsite verification of the facility's IJRP implementation through observation, interview, and record review, the IJ was removed on 9/20/2024 at 7:07 p.m., in the presence of the ADM and the DON. The IJRP included the following immediate actions: 1.On 09/18/24-9/19/2024, the DON provided a 1:1 (individualized instruction) education to LVN 1, CNA 1, Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS), LVNs and CNAs that worked on 09/13/24 on 11 p.m. to 7 p.m. shift regarding COC process, with emphasis on the following: a. Assessment and close monitoring of residents with change in behavior, mood, cognition, hallucinations, delusions, and suicidal thoughts, disruptive vocalizations (verbal noises [screaming, yelling, nonsense talking, cursing] which are generally considered unusual, inappropriate or are upsetting to others, and difficulty sleeping. b. Ensuring a COC assessment was completed for residents having a change in behavior; paranoid behavior (distrust and suspicion of others), verbalization of hurting self, hallucinations, delusions, that is disruptive vocalizations, yelling, difficulty sleeping. c. Monitoring, documenting, and reporting as necessary any change in resident's behavior, mood, cognition, hallucinations, delusions, and suicidal thoughts, and notifying the physician of the COC. d. Non-Pharmacological Interventions ( healthcare interventions that do not primarily rely on medication) to care for residents with depression; include removing stressors, offering food and beverages, increasing therapeutic activities of choice/routine, psychosocial (mind and emotions) support, encouraging family involvement, other non-pharmacological interventions to include but not limited to physical comfort (food, activities of daily living (ADL) assistance), environmental (offer soothing activities such as, TV, reading book, music, getting fresh air, offer a walk). Continuously monitoring the resident's mood and adjusting interventions as necessary to ensure the environment is maintained safe. e. Informing physician and responsible party when resident had COC in behavior, mood, delusions, hallucinations, and suicidal thoughts, and recognition of residents who were depressed and have a history of suicidal ideation. f. Behavior management. g. Suicide prevention. 2. On 9/18/24, the Administrator provided a 1:1 in - service education to SSD regarding completion of Assessments, including PHQ-9 following the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI-standardized assessment tool) Manual guidelines. 3. On 9/18/24, the DON/designee conducted an audit of current residents with diagnosis of serious mental illness such as schizophrenia (a serious mental disorder in which people interpret reality abnormally), major depression, bipolar disorders (a mental health condition that causes extreme mood swings that include emotional highs [mania] and lows[depression] that make it difficult to carry out day-to-day tasks and activities), mood disorders, psychotic disorders (severe mental illnesses that cause people to lose touch with reality and have an abnormal thinking) and other psychiatric (mental) diagnoses to determine residents who have had a change in behavior, mood, cognition, hallucinations, delusions, within the last 30 days, and current or history of suicidal ideations or suicide attempt, to ensure that: a. Residents are assessed and closely monitored for changes in mood (that is disruptive vocalizations, yelling, difficulty sleeping, mood, cognition, hallucinations, delusions, and suicidal thoughts). b. A COC is completed as indicated for changes in behavior such as disruptive vocalizations, yelling, difficulty sleeping, mood, cognition, hallucinations, delusions, and suicidal thoughts, i.e. disruptive vocalizations, yelling, difficulty sleeping. c. Care plan initiated, and interventions are implemented to be followed. d. Primary Care Physician is notified of COC, and e. SSD Assessments are completed within 7 days of the resident's admission,quarterly/annually, and based on significant change of condition. PHQ-9 Assessment is completed per assessment reference date schedule following admission, quarterly, and for significant change of condition assessments. 4. On 09/18/2024, SSD conducted an audit of current residents with diagnosis of serious mental illness such as schizophrenia, major depression, bipolar disorders, mood disorders, psychotic disorders, and other psychiatric diagnoses. Out of 99 residents there were 38 residents identified to have a diagnosis of depression. One resident was identified to have exhibited a change in mood and was assessed by licensed nurse, COC was competed, and the attending physician was notified. A PHQ-9 Assessment of other 37 identified residents with diagnosis of depression were completed by the SSD on 9/18/2024 through 9/19/2024. 5. On 9/18/24, the DON/Designees conducted interviews of current interviewable residents to identify any potential changes in behavior or mood. 6.On 9/14/24, the DON/Designee provided an in-service education to the staff on Behavior Management/Suicide Management. 7. On 9/18/24, the DON/Designee initiated an in - service education to the Department heads which consist of Director of Staff Development, Case Manager, Activity Director, Director of Rehab, Infection Preventionist, Dietary Manager, Minimum Data Set Coordinators (MDSC), Maintenance Supervisor, Housekeeping Supervisor, Social Services Director, Social Service Aide, Social Services Assistant, Medical Records Director, Business Office Manager, Business Office Assistant, and admission Coordinator, licensed nurses and CNAs regarding the policies and procedures for: Behavior/Psychoactive (affective the mind or behavior) Medication Management, Change of Condition Notification, Behavior - Threats to Harm Self, and Comprehensive Care Planning. 8. On 9/19/24, the Regional Social Service Consultant provided an in-service education to the Social Service Designee on the Policy and Procedure titled Social Service Assessment and Policy and Procedure titled Social Service Program, emphasizing the importance of completing required Social Service Assessments, including the PHQ-9 within the required timeframe, per regulatory guidelines. 9. The ADM and the DON will present the results of the Admission/Readmission, and Change in Condition Audits, and Resident Interviews to the Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Committee for monthly review and recommendations for three months or until substantial compliance is achieved. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted [DATE]. On 4/2/2024 Resident 1 was discharged home and readmitted back to the facility on 9/10/2024 with diagnoses including depression, cerebral infarction (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply) with right sided hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body and right hemiparesis( weakness of one side of the body), and failure to thrive (a syndrome that describes a decline in an older adult's health that can include weight loss, poor nutrition, and inactivity). During a review of Resident 1's History & Physical (H&P) dated 9/11/2024, the H& P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening stool) dated 3/15/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderate cognitive (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember) impairment for daily decision making and required supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues) with bed mobility, transfer from chair/bed-to-chair transfer (ability to transfer to and from a bed to chair or wheelchair), walking 10 feet (ability to walk at least 10 feet in a room, corridor or similar space once standing) and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 had an active diagnosis of depression and was taking anti-depressant (prescription medications that can help treat depression and other mental health conditions) medication. During a review of Resident 1's baseline care plan (a document that provides instructions for a resident's care in a nursing home), dated 9/10/2024, the baseline care plan indicated, under Social Services, Resident 1 was being monitored for depression, and SSD to complete PHQ-9 assessment. During a review of Resident 1's Informed Consent (the process in which a healthcare provider educated a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure, treatment, or intervention), dated 9/10/2024, the Informed Consent indicated Resident 1 was prescribed Lexapro (medication used to treat depression) for depression and persistent verbalization of sadness. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan titled Resident 1 uses antidepressant medication Lexapro related to depression initiated on 9/12/2024, the Care Plan indicated a goal for Resident 1 was to decrease resident's episodes of signs and symptoms of depression. The Care Plan's interventions included to administer antidepressant medications as ordered by the physician, monitoring, documenting, reporting as needed change in behavior/mood/cognition (mental process involved in knowing, learning, and understanding things), hallucinations (false perception of reality), delusions, social isolation (no relationships with other), suicidal thoughts, and withdrawal. During a review of Resident 1's initial Psychiatric Evaluation (a comprehensive examination of a person's mental, emotional, and behavioral health), dated 9/13/2024, the initial Psychiatric Evaluation indicated Resident 1 was oriented to person, place, and time. The initial Psychiatric Evaluation, under the treatment plan, indicated to observe the resident for deterioration in function, resident was educated to report worsening of symptoms and to report if noted with changes in mood and behavior. Gradual dose reduction ([GDR] a step in tapering a dose of a medication) for Lexapro was contraindicated at this time as it may exacerbate (to make something worse) resident symptoms (not specified). During a review of Resident 1's Nurses Progress Notes, dated 2/8/2024, the Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was on monitoring due to hallucination episode. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 could not sleep because he was experiencing strange things in the room during the night such as pages of a book in his closet flipping by themselves. During a review of Resident 1's PHQ-2-9 questionnaire, dated 2/25/2024, the PHQ 2-9 indicated a score of 10 (a score of 10-14 is moderate depression). During a review of Resident 1's Nurses Progress Notes, dated 2/29/2024, the Nurses Progress Notes indicated a Social Worker met with Resident 1 for verbalization of wanting to die and Lexapro was increased to 20 milligrams ([mg]-unit of measurement). During a review of Resident 1's Nurses Progress Notes, dated 3/3/2024, the Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was being monitored for episodes of verbalization of wanting to die. During a review of Resident 1's Nurses Progress Notes, dated 3/22/2024, the Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was being monitored for panic attacks (a sudden episode of intense fear or discomfort that can cause physical and mental symptoms) and tachycardia (a heart rate that is faster than 100 beats per minute). During a review of Resident 1's Nurses Progress Notes dated 9/14/2024 timed at 12:51 a.m., the Nurses Progress Notes indicated on 9/14/2024 at around 12:15 a.m., CNA 1 called Resident 1's assigned charge nurse (LVN 1) to resident's room. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated LVN 1 entered Resident 1's room and found Resident 1 sitting on the side of his bed appeared worried and stated someone was trying to poison him pointing to his water pitcher/cup. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1's blood pressure ([BP] force of blood pushing against artery [blood vessel] walls when the heart pumps blood throughout the body) was 171/89 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg unit of measurement [reference range for normal blood pressure is less than 120/80], the resident had a headache rated four out of 10 on a pain scale (tool to measure pain intensity by asking patient to rate their pain on a scale of 0 to 10, where zero is no pain and 10 is the worse pain possible ). The Nurses Progress Notes indicated at 12:18 a.m., Resident 1 received Tylenol (medicine used to relieve pain) and at 12:38 a.m. Resident 1 received Clonidine (medicine used to lower blood pressure) for high BP. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated on 9/14/2024, at around 4:40 a.m., CNA 3 entered the Resident 1's bathroom and found Resident 1 kneeling on the floor facing the wall with a red cord around his neck, and the cord was tied around the handrail. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was unresponsive, not breathing and the staff was unable to obtain a blood pressure reading. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1's pulse rate was 186 beats per minute (reference range for adult pulse is 60 to 90 beats per minute). The Nurses Progress Notes indicated a facility staff (unknown) called 911 (emergency services) and initiated CPR. At 5:01 a.m., paramedics (Emergency Medical Services) arrived and continued CPR. Resident 1 was pronounced dead at around 5:25 a.m. During an interview on 9/16/2024 at 2:50 p.m., with Resident 1's roommate (Resident 2), Resident 2 stated on the night of 9/13/2024, he could not sleep well as Resident 1 was not sleeping and crying a lot. Resident 2 stated a staff member (unknown) came into the room to calm Resident 1 down on 9/14/2024 at 3:00 a.m., and after staff member left Resident 1 began crying again. Resident 2 stated around 4 am. he heard Resident 1 struggling to walk to the bathroom, as he was holding onto the walls while walking. Resident 2 stated after that he went back to sleep and did not hear anything until someone told him the next day what happened to Resident 1 (committed suicide). During an interview on 9/17/2024, at 6:25 a.m., CNA 1 stated on 9/14/2024 at 12:00 a.m., Resident 1 was restless standing next to his (Resident 1) bed crying. CNA 1 stated she informed LVN 1 that Resident 1 was restless and crying. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 continues to cry when he was assisted back to bed. CNA 1 stated it was important to report to the charge nurse any changes in a resident's behavior so the charge nurse can check on the resident and assess the behavior. CNA 1 stated she returned to check on Resident 1 at 1:00 a.m. and observed Resident 1 was awake lying in bed. CNA 1 stated at 4 a.m., she saw Resident 1 standing up next to his bed talking with CNA 3 and LVN 1. CNA 1 stated when Resident 1 saw her he pointed at her and stated, that was her, she was trying to kill me, you poisoned the water, while pointing to his water pitcher. During an interview on 9/17/2024, at 6:45 a.m., LVN 1 stated CNA 3 informed her that Resident 1 appeared worried and concerned and was telling CNA 3 someone was trying to poison him. LVN 1 stated she went to assess him, and Resident 1 was alert and oriented and did not appear to be confused. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 calmed down after she explained to him that the CNAs were delivering the new water pitchers and offered to get him a new CNA but Resident 1 declined. LVN 1 stated she felt there was a misunderstanding between her (LVN 1) and Resident 1 and not a change of condition, and that was the reason she did not call Resident 1's doctor to inform of the resident's behavior. During an interview on 9/17/2024, at 7 a.m., with CNA 3 stated when she was passing out water pitchers at approximately 12:00 a.m. on 9/14/2024, Resident 1 verbalized to CNA 3 that another CNA (unknown) was trying to poison him. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 appeared nervous, scared, his hands were shaking, and verbalized repeatedly that a lady was trying to poison him. CNA 3 stated she stayed with Resident 1 to listen to his concerns and then reported his behavior to LVN 1. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/17/2024, at 7:25 a.m., with LVN 1, Resident 1's medication administration record (MAR) was reviewed. LVN 3 stated she gave Resident 1 Tylenol for his headache at 12:18 a.m., and Clonidine at 12:30 a.m. LVN 1 stated it was difficult to obtain Resident 1's blood pressure because he was moving a lot and was pointing at his water pitcher. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had depression and high blood pressure, and when Resident 1 was stating someone was trying to poison him it could have been related to his depression. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was taking Lexapro for his depression for targeted behaviors of persistent verbalization of sadness. LVN 1 stated when she saw Resident 1, he appeared anxious, worried, and had a lot of concerns (not specified). LVN 1 stated she should have done a COC when Resident 1 had changes in his behavior so they could have better monitored him. LVN 1 stated she failed to inform Resident 1's physician when Resident 1 had changes in his behavior. LVN 1 stated they (facility staff) did not do any monitoring but visually checked on him more frequently but did not document it was done. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was exhibiting delusions when he continued to think that someone was trying to poison him. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 suicide could have been prevented if she would have stayed with Resident 1, called his doctor, and placed the resident on 1:1 (a type of care where a patient is constantly observed by a healthcare professional to ensure patient safety) observation/monitoring but because he calmed down, she did not think she needed to do so. During a phone interview on 9/17/2024, at 10:05 a.m., LVN 3 stated on 9/14/2024 approximately 4:40 a.m., she was called by CNA 3 to Resident 1's room and found Resident 1 in the bathroom of his room, on his knees, facing the wall on the right side of the toilet, with a cord around his neck. LVN 3 stated she used scissors to cut the cord around Resident 1's neck. LVN 3 stated Resident 1 was still warm to touch and thought he had a faint carotid (neck) pulse. LVN 3 stated Resident 1 was not breathing so she initiated CPR with CNA 5. During an interview on 9/17/2024, at 11:05 a.m., the Social Services Director (SSD) stated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] and she only saw him once on 9/11/2024. The SSD stated she did not complete Resident 1's required screenings (Brief Interview for Mental Status [BIMS], PHQ9, depression screening, social determinants of health, social service assessments, because she had seven days to complete from the time of Resident 1's admission on [DATE]. During a phone interview on 9/17/2024, at 11:45 a.m., the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner ([PNP] a registered nurse with advanced training who provides mental health care to residents), stated Resident 1's doctor should have been notified immediately of Resident 1's new behavior when he was observed crying and stating someone was trying to poison him. The PNP stated possible interventions to prevent the resident's suicide would have been closed monitoring of the resident for behavioral symptoms. The PNP stated Resident 1's behavior could have been a delusion when he verbalized somebody was putting poison in his water, a symptom of mental illness, or a symptom of another medical illness. During an interview on 9/17/2024, at 12:24 p.m., Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS 2) stated when CNA 1 informed her that Resident 1 verbalized someone was trying to poison him, she thought it was because Resident 1 was confused. RNS 2 stated she failed to do a COC as she thought Resident 1's delusion was because he was confused. RNS 2 stated she was not aware of Resident 1's behavior of crying spells, having hands tremor (shaking), feeling scared, and being anxious. RNS 2 stated she was not told by LVN 1 about Resident 1's change in behavior and if she would have known, she would have placed Resident 1 on 1:1 monitoring to keep him safe, call Resident 1's primary physician, complete a COC, and transfer Resident 1 to a higher level of care. During an interview on 9/18/2024, at 10:10 a.m., the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) stated the SSD was responsible for completing Section D (Mood) of the MDS and should be continuously assessing residents (through observation, interview, and record review) during the Assessment Reference Date ([ARD] marks the end of a seven-day period during which a resident is observed and assessed) from admission. The MDSC stated the SSD should have started Resident 1's assessments upon admission and to have an ongoing resident's assessments during the seven days following admission and not just one visit with the resident. The MDSC stated psychosocial assessments (an evaluation of a resident's mental health, and social well-being) was a part of the residents needs so it was important to conduct the assessments continuously from the time of admission. During an interview on 9/18/2024, at 11:05 a.m., SSD stated knowing a resident's (in general) past medical history was important so you can develop a person-centered care plan. The SSD stated she does not review previous notes for those that were previously admitted to the facility because she prefers to do her own assessment of the resident. The SSD stated she was made aware by staff that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in the past but did not review his previous records. The SSD stated she did not complete the PHQ9 or BIMS for Resident 1 because she was busy and did not have time to complete her assessment after seeing him on 9/11/2024. The SSD stated her progress notes and Resident 1's assessment that she completed on 9/14/2024 was based on one-time interaction with the resident (on 9/11/2024). The SSD stated she started to write a note for Resident 1 assessment on 9/11/2024 but did not submit it until 9/14/2024 because she wanted to include her conversation with Resident 1's son. The SSD stated, she should have reviewed Resident 1's progress notes from previous admission to the facility. The SSD stated moving forward she will incorporate review of records in her assessment. The SSD stated, if she would have reviewed Resident 1's previous SSD notes from previous admission, she would have completed her assessments right away when he was admitted , would initiate plans for monitoring and assessing, and would push for the psychologist (mental health professional who help resident cope with mental health conditions) to see him. During an interview on 9/18/2024, at 12:00 p.m., RNS 3 stated if he had observed Resident 1 crying and stating someone was poisoning his water, he would have done a COC and let the resident's primary care physician know. RNS 3 stated this behavior could have been due to infection or depression. RNS 3 stated a COC was an important monitoring and communication tool to let other staff members aware of what was going on with a resident. RNS 3 stated if he had been Resident 1's nurse, he would have provided 1:1 monitoring for the resident's safety, called the resident's doctor, and completed a COC because the resident's behavior was not his usual/normal behavior for him. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/18/2024, at 12:30 p.m., the DON stated it was important to review the residents (in general) past medical history and past admissions records from the facility prior to seeing the residents upon their admission. The DON stated LVN 1 should have done a COC, notified resident 1's doctor, and maybe transferred Resident 1 to a higher level of care when he was exhibiting behavior manifested by crying spells, shaking his hands, feeling scared anxious, and verbalized that someone was trying to kill him. The DON stated there was no COC completed for Resident 1, but one should have been done because Resident 1 was not at his baseline and his behavior indicated there was a medical problem occurring. The DON stated the COC was a tool to inform the nurses for what to assess, monitor and plan Resident 1's care. The DON stated LVN 1 should have assessed and monitored Resident 1 after he exhibited change in behavior because one time look at the resident does not provide enough information. The DON stated LVN 1 should have read previous admission notes and evaluated more in depth as to why Resident 1 was taking Lexapro. The DON reviewed Resident 1 care plan for Lexapro dated 9/12/2024 and stated one of the interventions was to monitor the resident for changes in behavior, mood, and other adverse reactions to the medication, and Resident 1's change in behavior should have been reported to the doctor but was not done. During an interview on 9/20/2024, at 9:55 a.m., the SSD stated when she assessed Resident 1 on 9/11/2024, Resident 1 was not very talkative, giving brief one-word responses. The SSD stated if she had engaged in more conversation with Resident 1, he might have opened up more and she would have learned more about him. The SSD stated a single interaction was insufficient for her to conduct a thorough behavioral assessment. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/20/2024, at 10:43 a.m., LVN 5 stated the importance of the care plan was to serve as a guideline for caring for Resident 1 and monitoring his progress towards meeting the objectives of the care plan. LVN 5 stated Resident 1 had a personalized care plan reflecting the resident's treatment of his depression with Lexapro. LVN 5 stated staff should adhere with the interventions and to report any changes in the resident's behavior. LVN 5 stated should any changes in the resident's behavior occur including hallucination or delusion, or mood changes like increased crying or expressing fears of being harmed, these signs must be documented and reported to Resident 1's doctor, completed a COC assessment, provide closed monitoring, and transferred to higher level of care. During a review of the facility's Assessment Tool, updated 7/31/2024, the Assessment Tool indicated The purpose of the facility assessment is to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. Using a competency-based approach focuses on ensuring that each resident is provided care that allows the resident to maintain or attain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Services we offer and care we are able to provide is based on the needs of the resident include mental health and behavior: manage the medical conditions and medication, related issues, causing psychiatric symptoms and behavior, identify and implement interventions to help support individuals with issues, such as dealing with anxiety, care of someone with cognitive impairment, care of individuals with depression, trauma/post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD- a mental and behavioral disorder that can develop after experiencing a traumatic event), other psychiatric (mental) diagnosis, intellectual and developmental disabilities. During a review of the facility's Charge Nurse Job Description, undated, the Charge Nurse Job Description indicated, Qualifications: Ability to provide patient care in accordance with applicable standards, policies, and procedures; Possess critical thinking skills to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate clinical data and observations in developing a nursing plan of care; Comprehensive knowledge of applicable nursing principles, practices, and standards of care. Duties: Makes daily rounds to interview physical and e[TRUNCATED]
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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the licensed nurses notified the physician when a resident w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the licensed nurses notified the physician when a resident with diagnosis of depression (mental health disorder characterized by persistently low mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life ) experienced a change of condition ([COC] a sudden, clinically important deviation from a patient's baseline in physical, cognitive behavioral, or functional status) manifested by sobbing (crying spells) and verbalization that someone wants to kill him by putting poison in his water pitcher for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure resulted in Resident 1 committing suicide (the act or an instance of ending one's own life voluntarily and intentionally). On [DATE] at 4:40 a.m. Resident 1 was found hanging in the bathroom with a phone charging cord around his neck. The resident was lowered to the floor, cardiopulmonary resuscitation ([CPR]-an emergency procedure that can save a person life if their breathing or heart stops) was initiated and 911 (emergency services) was called. The Emergency Medical Services ([EMS]- medical professionals providing emergency medical care) arrived at the facility and Resident 1 was pronounced dead on [DATE] at approximately 5:25 a.m. Findings During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted [DATE]. On [DATE] Resident 1 was discharged home and readmitted back to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression, cerebral infarction (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply) with right sided hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body and right hemiparesis( weakness of one side of the body) , and failure to thrive (a syndrome that describes a decline in an older adult's health that can include weight loss, poor nutrition, and inactivity). During a review of Resident 1's History & Physical (H&P) dated [DATE], the H& P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderate cognitive (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember) impairment for daily decision making and required supervision or touching assistance with bed mobility, transfer from chair/bed-to-chair transfer (ability to transfer to and from a bed to chair or wheelchair), walking 10 feet ( ability to walk at least 10 feet in a room, corridor or similar space once standing) and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan titled Resident 1 uses antidepressant medication Lexapro (medication used to treat depression and anxiety) related to depression initiated on [DATE], the Care Plan indicated a goal for Resident 1 was to decrease resident's episodes of signs and symptoms of depression. The Care Plan's interventions included to administering antidepressant medications as ordered by the physician, monitoring, documenting, reporting as needed change in behavior/mood/cognition (mental process involved in knowing, learning, and understanding things), hallucinations (false perception of reality), delusions (having false or unrealistic beliefs), social isolation, suicidal thoughts, and withdrawal (removes themselves from interactions with others). During a review of Resident 1's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 had an active diagnosis of depression and was taking anti-depressant (prescription medications that can help treat depression and other mental health conditions) medication. During an interview on [DATE], at 6:25 a.m., CNA 1 stated on [DATE] at 12:00 a.m., Resident 1 was restless standing up next to his bed crying. CNA 1 stated she informed Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) in charge that Resident 1 was restless and crying. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 continues to cry when he was assisted back to bed. CNA 1 stated it was important to report to the charge nurse any changes in a resident's behavior so the charge nurse can check on the resident and assess the behavior. CNA 1 stated she returned to check on Resident 1 at 1:00 a.m. and observed Resident 1 was awake in bed. CNA 1 stated at 4 a.m. she saw Resident 1 standing up next to his bed talking with CNA 3 and LVN 1. CNA 1 stated when Resident 1 saw her he pointed at her and stated, that was her, she was trying to kill me, you poisoned the water while pointing to his water pitcher. During an interview on [DATE], at 6:45 a.m., LVN 1 stated CNA 3 informed her that Resident 1 appeared worried and concerned and was telling CNA 3 someone was trying to poison him. LVN 1 stated she went to assess him, and Resident 1 was alert and oriented and did not appear to be confused. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 calmed down after she explained to him that CNAs were delivering water pitchers with fresh water and offered to get him another, but Resident 1 declined. LVN 1 stated she felt there was a misunderstanding between her and Resident 1 and not a change in the resident's condition that was the reason she did not call Resident 1's doctor about the resident's worried/anxious behavior and his statement that someone was trying to poison him. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE], at 7:25 a.m., LVN 1 stated she did not informed Resident 1's physician when Resident 1 had change in his behavior. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was exhibiting delusions when he and repeatedly was saying that someone was trying to poison him. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 suicide could have been prevented if she would have stayed with Resident 1, called his doctor, and had done 1:1 monitoring (a type of care where a patient is constantly observed by a healthcare professional to ensure patient safety) but because he calmed down, she did not think she needed to. During a phone interview on [DATE], at 11:45 a.m., with the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner ([PNP] a registered nurse with advanced training who provides mental health care to residents) stated Resident 1's doctor should have been notified immediately of Resident 1's new behavior when he was observed crying and stating someone was trying to poison him. The PNP stated nursing staff should have been closely monitoring Resident 1 for behavioral symptoms. The PNP stated Resident 1's behavior could have been a delusion when he verbalized somebody was putting poison in his water, a symptom of mental illness, or a symptom of another medical illness. During an interview on [DATE], at 12:00 p.m., Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS 3) stated if he had observed Resident 1 crying and stating someone was poisoning his water, he would have done a COC and let the doctor know. RNS 3 stated this behavior could have been due to infection or the resident's depression. RNS 3 stated a COC was an important monitoring and communication tool to let other staff members aware of what was going on with a resident. RNS 3 stated if he had been Resident 1's nurse, he would have provided the resident with 1:1 monitoring for the resident's safety, called the resident's doctor, and done a COC because the resident's behavior was not normal for him. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE], at 12:30 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON) stated LVN 1 should have done a COC, notified Resident 1's doctor, and probably transferred Resident 1 to a higher level of care (an acute general hospital) when the resident was exhibiting behavior manifested by crying spells, shaking his hands, scared, anxious, and verbalizing someone was trying to kill him. Reviewed Resident 1's medical record, the DON stated there was no COC completed for Resident 1, but one should have been done because Resident 1 was not at his baseline and his behavior indicated there was a medical problem occurring. After reviewing Resident 1's care plan for Lexapro, the DON stated one of the care plan interventions was to monitor for changes in Resident 1's behavior and mood and report to the doctor, but it was not done. During a review of the facility's RN Supervisor Job Description, undated, the job description indicated, Duties: Ensure that notification is given to the resident's attending physician, as well as the resident's representative, when the resident has a significant change in condition. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Change in Condition Notification, revised [DATE], the P&P indicated, The facility will promptly inform the resident's Attending Physician and notify the resident's legal representative when the resident endures a significant change in their condition caused by a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status. Change of Condition related to Attending Physician notification is defined as when the Attending Physician must be notified when any sudden and marked adverse change in the resident's condition which is manifested by signs and symptoms different than usual denote a new problem, complication, or permanent change in status and require a medical assessment, coordination, and consultation with the Attending Physician and a change in the treatment plan. The Licensed Nurse will notify the resident's Attending Physician and an appropriate family member when there is a significant change in the resident's physical, mental, or psychosocial status. Cross Reference F740 and F656
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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the licensed nurses (Licensed Vocational Nurse [LVN 1] Regis...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the licensed nurses (Licensed Vocational Nurse [LVN 1] Registered Nurse Supervisor [RNS 2] ) implemented the resident's care plan interventions related to the use of Lexapro (prescription medicine that treats depression [a mental health condition that involves a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest in activities, along with other symptoms that affect daily life] and anxiety ( feeling of worry, nervousness or unease) to prevent the resident from committing suicide (the act or an instance of ending one's own life voluntarily and intentionally) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). The facility failed to: 1. Ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) implemented interventions of Resident 1's care plan titled, Resident 1 uses antidepressant medication Lexapro including assessment, monitoring, and documentation related to Resident 1's change in behavior and mood. On 9/14/ 2024 at 12:15 a.m. Resident 1 was observed having crying spells, shaking his hands, appeared scared, anxious, and verbalized that someone was trying to kill him by poisoning his water pitcher. 2. Ensure the licensed nurses (Licensed Vocational Nurse [LVN 1] Registered Nurse Supervisor [RNS 2]) followed the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning which indicated to address resident specific health and safety concerns to prevent decline or injury and identify needs for supervision, behavioral interventions. These failures resulted in Resident 1 committing suicide on [DATE]. Resident 1, who had diagnosis of depression and a history of suicidal ideation (thinking about or formulating plans for suicide) on [DATE] at 4:40 a.m. was found hanging in the bathroom with a phone charging cord around his neck. The resident was lowered to the floor, cardiopulmonary resuscitation ([CPR]-an emergency procedure that can save a person life if their breathing or heart stops) was initiated and 911 (emergency services) was called. The Emergency Medical Services ([EMS]- medical professionals providing emergency medical care) arrived at the facility and Resident 1 was pronounced dead on [DATE] at approximately 5:25 a.m. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted [DATE]. On [DATE] Resident 1 was discharged home and readmitted back to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including depression, cerebral infarction (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply) with right sided hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and right hemiparesis (weakness of one side of the body), and failure to thrive (a syndrome that describes a decline in an older adult's health that can include weight loss, poor nutrition, and inactivity). During a review of Resident 1's History & Physical (H&P) dated [DATE], the H&P indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated [DATE] , the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderate cognitive (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember) impairment for daily decision making and required supervision or touching assistance with bed mobility, transfer from chair/bed-to-chair transfer (ability to transfer to and from a bed to chair or wheelchair), walking 10 feet ( ability to walk at least 10 feet in a room, corridor or similar space once standing) and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan titled Resident 1 uses antidepressant medication Lexapro related to diagnosis of depression, initiated on [DATE], the Care Plan indicated a goal for Resident 1 to decrease the resident's episodes of signs and symptoms of depression. The Care Plan's interventions included to administer antidepressant medications as ordered by the physician, monitor, document, and report a change the resident's behavior/mood/cognition, presence of hallucinations (false perception of reality), and delusions (having false or unrealistic beliefs), social isolation, suicidal thoughts (thinking about or formulating plans for suicide), and withdrawal (removes themselves from interactions with others). During a review of Resident 1's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 had an active diagnosis of depression and was taking anti-depressant (prescription medications that can help treat depression and other mental health conditions) medication. During a review of Resident 1's Nurses Progress Notes dated [DATE] and timed at 12:51 a.m., the Nurses Progress Notes indicated that on [DATE] at around 12:15 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) called Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) in charge to Resident 1's room. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated LVN 1 entered Resident 1's room and found Resident 1 sitting on the side of his bed. Resident 1 appeared worried and stated someone was trying to kill him by poisoning his water pitcher or cup, pointing at his water pitcher. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1's blood pressure ([BP] a force of blood pushing against artery walls when the heart pumps blood throughout the body) was 171/89 millimeters of mercury (mm/Hg unit of measurement, BP reference range is 120/80 mm/Hg) Resident 1's had a headache rated four out of 10 on a pain scale rating (a tool to measure pain intensity by asking patient to rate their pain on a scale of 0 to10, where a zero represents no pain and 10 represents the worse pain possible). The Nurses Progress Notes indicated at 12:18 a.m. Resident 1 received Tylenol (medicine used to relieve pain) and at 12:38 a.m. Resident 1 received Clonidine (medicine used to lower blood pressure) for high BP. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated on [DATE], at around 4:40 a.m. CNA 3 entered Resident 1's bathroom and found Resident 1 kneeling on the floor facing the wall with a red cord around his neck and tied around the handrail of the bathroom. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was unresponsive, not breathing, and staff was unable to obtain his BP reading. The Nurses Progress Notes indicated the facility staff (unknown) called 911 (emergency services) and CPR was initiated The Emergency Medical Services ([EMS]- medical professionals providing emergency medical care) arrived at the facility and pronounced Resident 1 dead on [DATE] at approximately 5:25 a.m. During a phone interview on [DATE], at 11:45 a.m., the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner ([PNP] a registered nurse with advanced training who provides mental health care to residents), stated the licensed nurses should have monitored Resident 1's behavioral symptoms. The PNP stated Resident 1's crying spells and statement of someone wanted to kill him by placing poison in his water pitcher, could have been manifestation of Resident 1 was experiencing a delusion. During a review of Resident 1's initial Psychiatric Evaluation (a comprehensive examination of a person's mental, emotional, and behavioral health), dated [DATE], the initial Psychiatric Evaluation indicated Resident 1 was oriented to person, place, and time. The initial Psychiatric Evaluation indicated, under the treatment plan, to observe the resident for deterioration in function, resident was educated to report worsening of symptoms and to report, if noted, changes in mood and behavior. Gradual dose reduction ([GDR] a step in tapering a dose of a medication) for Lexapro (medication to treat depression) was contraindicated at this time as it may exacerbate (to make something worse) resident symptoms (not specified). During an interview on [DATE] at 2:50 p.m., with Resident 1's roommate (Resident 2), Resident 2 stated on the night of [DATE], he could not sleep well as Resident 1 was crying a lot. Resident 2 stated a staff member (unknown) came in the room to calm Resident 1 down on [DATE] at 3:00 a.m., and after the staff member left, Resident 1 began crying again. Resident 2 stated on the same night, around 4 a.m., he heard Resident 1 struggling to walk to the bathroom, as he (Resident 1) was holding onto the walls while walking to the restroom. Resident 2 stated after that he went back to sleep and did not hear anything until someone told him the next day what happened to Resident 1 (committed suicide). During an interview on [DATE], at 6:25 a.m., CNA 1 stated on [DATE] at 12:00 a.m., Resident 1 was restless standing up next to his bed crying. CNA 1 stated she informed LVN 1 that Resident 1 was restless and crying. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 continues to cry when he was assisted back to bed on [DATE] (unknown time). During an interview on [DATE], at 7 a.m., CNA 3 stated when she was passing out water pitchers at approximately 12:00 a.m. on [DATE], Resident 1 verbalized to CNA 3 that another CNA (unknown) was trying to poison him. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 appeared nervous, scared, his hands were shaking, and verbalized repeatedly that a lady was trying to poison him. CNA 3 stated she reported Resident' 1s behavior to LVN 1. During an interview on [DATE], at 7:23 a.m. LVN 1 stated she gave Resident 1 Tylenol (medication to treat pain) for his headache on [DATE] at 12:18 a.m. and Clonidine (medication to treat high BP) at 12:30 a.m. LVN 1 stated it was difficult to obtain Resident 1's BP because he was moving a lot and was pointing at his water pitcher. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had depression and a high BP. LVN 1 stated when Resident 1 stated someone was trying to poison him on it could have been related to his depression. LVN 1 stated on [DATE] she observed Resident 1 being anxious, worried, with a lot of concerns (not specified). LVN 1 stated she should have done a COC when Resident 1 had changes in his behavior so nurses could better monitor him. LVN 1 stated after CNA 3's report of Resident 1 change in behavior on [DATE] at approximately 12:00 a.m. they (facility staff) visually checked on him more frequently but did not document it was done. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was exhibiting delusions when he repeatedly verbalized that someone was trying to poison him on [DATE]. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 suicide could have been prevented if she would have called his doctor and placed the resident on 1:1 monitoring (a type of care where a patient is assigned a staff member to provide constant observation and assistance to ensure a patient safety) on [DATE] but because he calmed down, she did not think she needed to do so. During an interview on [DATE], at 12:24 p.m., Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS 2) stated when CNA 1 informed her on [DATE] that Resident 1 verbalized someone was trying to poison him, she thought it was because Resident 1 was confused. RNS 2 stated she failed to do a COC as she thought Resident 1's delusion was due to his confusion. RNS 2 stated she was not aware of Resident 1 having behavior of crying spells, shaking hands, feeling scared and anxious. RNS 2 stated LVN 1 did not inform her about Resident 1's change in behavior and if she has known, she would have placed Resident 1 on 1:1 monitoring/observation to keep him safe, call Resident 1's doctor and family member, complete a COC, and transfer Resident 1 to a higher level of care (a general acute care hospital). During an interview on [DATE], at 10:42 a.m. LVN 5 stated it was important to follow and implement plan of care interventions. LVN 5 stated care plan enables nursing staff to monitor, assess, and inform the doctor when Resident 1 was exhibiting behavioral changes including crying spells and delusions. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 1:06 p.m. with RNS 3, Resident 1's Care Plan for the administration of Lexapro dated [DATE] was reviewed. RNS 3 stated licensed nurses were responsible to initiate, modify and implement the comprehensive care plan of a resident (in general). RNS 3 stated Resident 1's Care Plan for Lexapro required monitoring for any adverse side effects (undesired effect of a drug) of the medication, documenting them, and reporting any changes in Resident 1's behavior, mood, cognition, including delusion and suicidal ideation to Resident 1's doctor. RNS 3 stated the care plan serves as guidelines to address and implement interventions for a particular Resident 1's health condition. RNS 3 stated licensed nurses (LVN 1 and RNS 2) failed to follow a care plan and implement Resident 1's plan of care when he exhibited changes in behavior including crying spells and verbalization of somebody was putting poison in his water and was trying to kill him on [DATE]. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE], at 2:35 p.m. the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the care plan provides a detailed outline of the interventions the staff were to perform for a specific identified physical or psychological problem. The DON stated the care plan served as a checklist for necessary staff actions regarding the resident's issue or problem. The DON reviewed Resident 1's care plan dated [DATE] related to the use of Lexapro , and stated that LVN 1 failed to follow and implement Resident 1's care plan interventions including monitoring and/or recognizing changes in the resident's behavior and reporting to the doctor any change in Resident 1's condition when the resident was observed having crying spells, shaking hands, was feeling scared, anxious, and verbalizing someone was trying to kill him. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning revised 11/2018, the P&P indicated the facility will provide person-centered, comprehensive, care that reflects the best practice standards for meeting health, safety, psychosocial, behavioral needs of the resident to maintain or obtain the highest physical, mental, and psychosocial being. The P&P indicated the Care Plan should address resident specific health and safety concerns to prevent decline or injury and will identify needs for supervision, behavioral interventions, and assistance with activities of daily living. During a review of facility's P&P titled Change of Condition Notification revised 4/2015, the P&P indicated the facility will notify the attending physician when there is any sudden and marked adverse change in the resident's condition manifested by signs and symptoms different than usual denoting a new problem, complication requiring a medical assessment, coordination and consultation with the Attending Physician or a change in the treatment plan. During a review of facility's P&P titled Behavior /Psychoactive Drug Management revised 11/2018, the P&P indicated if a resident manifests a change in his/her mood for behavior symptoms, the licensed nurse will assess the resident's mood and behavior utilizing the change of condition process. Cross Reference F740 and F580
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0741 (Tag F0741)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based an observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure facility staff including, Social Service Direct...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based an observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure facility staff including, Social Service Director, (SSD), Registered Nurses (RNs), Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs) and certified nursing assistants (CNAs) had competencies needed to care for residents with mental disorders and psychosocial disorders) for 38 sampled residents (Resident 1). The facility failed to: 1. Intervene when Resident 1 was observed sobbing (crying spells) and was accusing CNA 1 of putting poison in his water pitcher on 9/14/2024 at 12:15 a.m. This deficient practice resulted in a lack of care plan interventions to address Resident 1's symptoms of depression and Resident 1 did not receive the necessary care, services, and interventions to address Resident 1's emotional, behavioral, and psychosocial (support given to help meet the mental, emotional, social, and spiritual needs of patients) needs. Resident 1 had delusional thoughts and was crying and upset. Four hours later, Resident 1 committed suicide by hanging himself in the bathroom with a phone charging cord wrapped around his neck and was pronounced dead on 9/14/2024, at 5:25 a.m. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted [DATE]. On 4/2/2024 Resident 1 was discharged home and readmitted back to the facility on 9/10/2024 with diagnoses including depression, cerebral infarction (damage to the brain from interruption of its blood supply) with right sided hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body and right hemiparesis( weakness of one side of the body) , and failure to thrive (a syndrome that describes a decline in an older adult's health that can include weight loss, poor nutrition, and inactivity). During a review of Minimum Data Set (MDS, a federally mandated resident assessment tool) dated 3/15/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderate cognitive (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember) impairment and required supervision or touching assistance with bed mobility, transfer from chair/bed-to-chair transfer (ability to transfer to and from a bed to chair or wheelchair), walking 10 feet ( ability to walk at least 10 feet in a room, corridor or similar space once standing) and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 1 had an active diagnosis of depression and was taking anti-depressants (prescription medications that can help treat depression and other mental health conditions). During a review of Resident 1's informed consent (the process in which a healthcare provider educated a patient about the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a given procedure, treatment, or intervention), dated 9/10/2024, informed consent indicated Resident 1 was prescribed Lexapro (anti-depressant medication) for depression and persistent verbalization of sadness. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan titled Resident 1 uses antidepressant medication Lexapro (medicine used to treat depression) related to depression initiated on 9/12/2024, the Care Plan indicated a goal to decrease resident's episodes of signs and symptoms of depression. The Care Plan's interventions included to administering antidepressant medications as ordered by the physician, monitoring, documenting, reporting as needed change in behavior/mood/cognition (mental process involved in knowing, learning, and understanding things), hallucinations (false perception of reality), delusions (having false or unrealistic beliefs), social isolation, suicidal thoughts, and withdrawal. During a review of Resident 1's initial Psychiatric evaluation (a comprehensive examination of a person's mental, emotional, and behavioral health), dated 9/13/2024, the initial Psychiatric evaluation indicated Resident 1 was oriented to person, place, and time. The initial Psychiatric evaluation indicated under the treatment plan indicated to observe for deterioration in function, resident was educated to report worsening of symptoms and to report if noted with changes in mood and behavior. Gradual dose reduction ([GDR] a step in tapering a dose of a medication), was contraindicated at this time as it may exacerbate (to make something worse) resident symptoms (not specified). During an interview on 9/17/2024, at 6:25 a.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 stated on 9/14/2024 at 12:00 a.m., Resident 1 was restless standing up next to his bed crying. CNA 1 stated she informed LVN 1 that Resident 1 was restless and crying. CNA 1 stated Resident 1 continues to cry when he was assisted back to bed. CNA 1 stated it was important to report to the charge nurse any changes in a resident's behavior so the charge nurse can check on the resident and assess the behavior. CNA 1 stated she returned to check on Resident 1 at 1:00 a.m. and observed Resident 1 was awake laying in bed. CNA 1 stated at 4 a.m. she saw Resident 1 standing up next to his bed talking with CNA 3 and LVN 1. CNA 1 stated when Resident 1 saw her, (CNA 1) he pointed at her and stated, that is her, she is trying to kill me, you poisoned the water while pointing to his water pitcher. During an interview on 9/17/2024, at 6:45 a.m., with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated CNA 3 informed her that Resident 1 appeared worried and concerned and was telling CNA 3 someone was trying to poison him. LVN 1 stated she went to assess him, and Resident 1 was alert and oriented and did not appear to be confused. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 calmed down after she explained to him that the CNAs were delivering the new water pitchers and offered to get him a new CNA but Resident 1 declined. LVN 1 stated she medicated Resident 1 with Clonidine (medication to treat high blood pressure {the force of your blood pushing against the walls of your arteries}) for his elevated blood pressure of 179/81 and Tylenol (medication to treat pain) for his headache. LVN 1 stated she felt there was a misunderstanding between her and Resident 1 and not a change of condition that was the reason she did not call Resident 1's doctor for his behavior. During an interview on 9/17/2024, at 7 a.m., with CNA 3, CNA 3 stated when she was passing out water pitchers at approximately 12:00 a.m. on 9/14/2024, Resident 1 verbalized to CNA 3 that another CNA (unknown) was trying to poison him. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 appeared nervous, scared, his hands were shaking, and verbalized repeatedly that a lady was trying to poison him. CNA 3 stated she stayed with Resident 1 to listen to his concerns and then reported his behavior to LVN 1. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/17/2024, at 7:25 a.m., with LVN 1, reviewed Resident 1's medication administration record (MAR). LVN 3 stated she gave Resident 1 Tylenol (medication to treat pain) for his headache at 12:18 a.m. and Clonidine (medication to treat high blood pressure at 12:30 a.m. LVN 1 stated it was difficult to obtain Resident 1's blood pressure because he was moving a lot and was pointing at his water pitcher. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had depression and high blood pressure and when Resident 1 was stating someone was trying to poison him it could have been related to his depression. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was taking Lexapro for his depression for targeted behaviors of persistent verbalization of sadness. LVN 1 stated when she saw Resident 1, Resident 1 was anxious, worried, and had a lot of concerns (not specified). LVN 1 stated she should have done a COC when Resident 1 had changes with his behavior so they could better monitor him. LVN 1 stated she failed to informed Resident 1's physician when Resident 1 had changes with his behavior. LVN 1 stated they did not do any monitoring but visually checked on him more frequently but did not document it was done. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was exhibiting delusions when he continued to think that someone was trying to poison him. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 suicide could have been prevented if she would have stayed with Resident 1, called his doctor, and had done 1:1 monitoring (provide one to one nursing or observation care to an individual resident for a period of time) but because he calmed down, she did not think she needed to. During an interview on 9/18/2024, at 11:05 a.m., with SSD, SSD stated knowing a resident's (in general) past medical history was important so you can develop a person-centered care plan. SSD stated she does not review previous notes for those that were previously admitted to the facility because she prefers to do her own assessment of the resident. SSD stated she was made aware by the staff that Resident 1 was admitted to the facility in the past but did not review his previous records. SSD stated she did not complete the PHQ9 or BIMS for Resident 1 because she was busy and did not have time to complete her assessment after seeing him on 9/11/2024. SSD stated her progress note and assessment that she did complete on 9/14/2024 for Resident was based on a one-time interaction (on 9/11/2024). SSD stated she started a note for Resident 1 on 9/11/2024 but did not submit it until 9/14/2024 because she wanted to include her conversation with Resident 1's son. The SSD stated, she should have reviewed Resident 1's progress notes from previous admission to the facility. The SSD stated moving forward she will incorporate review of records to her assessment. The SSD stated, if she would have reviewed Resident 1's previous SSD notes from previous admission, she would have completed her assessments right away when he was admitted , initiated plans for monitoring and assessing, and pushed more for the psychologist to see him. During an interview on 9/17/2024, at 12:24 p.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) 2, RNS 2 stated when CNA 1 informed her that Resident 1 verbalized someone was trying to poison him, she thought it was because Resident 1 was confused. RNS 2 stated she failed to do a COC as she thought Resident 1's delusion was because he was confused. RNS 2 stated she was not aware of Resident 1's behavior of crying spells, shaking his hands, scared, and anxious. RNS 2 stated she was not told by LVN 1 about Resident 1's change in behavior and if she would have known, she would have placed Resident 1 with 1:1 monitoring to keep him safe, call Resident 1's doctor, complete a COC, and transfer Resident 1 to a higher level of care. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/18/2024, at 12:30 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was important to review the resident (in general) past medical history and past admissions records from the facility prior to seeing the resident upon their admission. The DON stated LVN 1 should have done a COC, notified his doctor, and maybe transferred Resident 1 to a higher level of care when he was exhibiting behavior manifested by crying spells, shaking his hands, scared, anxious, and verbalized someone was trying to kill him. The DON stated there was no COC completed for Resident 1, but one should have been done because Resident 1 was not at his baseline and his behavior indicated there was a medical problem occurring. The DON stated the COC was a tool to inform the nurses for what to assess, monitor and plan of care for Resident 1. The DON stated LVN 1 should have assessed and monitor Resident 1 after he exhibited change of behavior because one look at the resident does not provide enough information. The DON stated LVN 1 should have reviewed Resident 1 care plan for Lexapro dated 9/12/2024, which indicated interventions to monitor for changes in behavior, mood, and other adverse reactions to the medication. The DON stated LVN 1should have competencies to implement care plan interventions. During a review of the facility's facility assessment tool, updated 7/31/2024, indicated The purpose of the facility assessment is to determine what resources are necessary to care for residents competently during both day-to-day operations and emergencies. Using a competency-based approach focuses on ensuring that each resident is provided care that allows the resident to maintain or attain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Services we offer and care we are able to provide is based on the needs of the resident include mental health and behavior: manage the medical conditions and medication, related issues, causing psychiatric symptoms and behavior, identify and implement interventions to help support individuals with issues, such as dealing with anxiety, care of someone with cognitive impairment, care of individuals with depression, trauma/post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD- a mental and behavioral disorder that can develop after experiencing a traumatic event), other psychiatric (mental) diagnosis, intellectual and developmental disabilities. During a review of the facility's Charge Nurse Job Description, undated, the job description indicated, Qualifications: Ability to provide patient care in accordance with applicable standards, policies, and procedures; Possess critical thinking skills to analyze, synthesize, and evaluate clinical data and observations in developing a nursing plan of care; Comprehensive knowledge of applicable nursing principles, practices, and standards of care. Duties: Makes daily rounds to interview physical and emotional status and to implement any requires nursing interventions. During a review of the facility's RN Supervisor Job Description, undated, the job description indicated, Duties: Assure that residents have a clean, safe, orderly, and comfortable environment; Ensure that notification is given to the resident's attending physician, as well as the resident's representative, when the resident has a significant change in condition. Supervision: Make resident rounds to ensure appropriate care is being rendered, identifying, and making corrections as necessary; Meet with nursing personnel to assist in identifying and correcting problem areas and/or the improvement of resident care. During a review of the facility's Social Services Coordinator Job description, undated, the job description indicated, Principal Responsibilities: Ensure the residents' psychosocial and concrete needs are identified and met; Assess the psychosocial, mental and emotional needs of residents; Timely and accurate completion of the MDS. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Safety, revised 4/15/2021, the P&P indicated, Residents will be evaluated on admission, quarterly, and whenever there is a change in condition to identify circumstances that pose a risk for the safety and wellbeing of the resident. Any facility staff member who identifies an unsafe situation, practice, or environmental risk factors should immediately notify their supervisor or charge nurse. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Staff Competency Validation, revised 2024, the P&P indicated, The purpose is to protect the health, safety, and well-being of the residents in care facilities. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Social Services Assessment, revised 12/1/2013, the P&P indicated, To assist Social Services Staff in obtaining information about the resident in an effort to develop a plan to address psychosocial, concrete and discharge planning needs. The Social Services Assessment will address the resident's physical and psychosocial needs that should be considered in developing the resident's plan of care. The SSD will complete the assigned sections of the Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Assessment. For new admissions, the medical record review should include a review of the transfer records and history and physical. Cross Reference F740
CONCERN (F) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

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's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI, a data driven proactive ap...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review the facility's Quality Assurance Performance Improvement (QAPI, a data driven proactive approach to improvement used to ensure services are meeting quality standards) failed to identify resident care issues, develop, implement appropriate plans of action, and evaluate measures necessary to provide behavioral health care and services for the treatment of the resident's emotional and mental condition by ensuring: 1.Resident 1 who had a diagnosis of depression and history of suicidal thoughts from previous admission on [DATE] was assessed, monitored closely and primary care physician notified after observed having crying spells, anxiety (feeling of uneasy and worried), fear and verbalized Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA )1 put poison in his water pitcher on 9/14/2024 at 12:15 a.m. This failure resulted in Resident 1 not receiving the necessary care and services to address Resident 1's mental and emotional health needs and led to Resident 1's death by committing suicide (the act or an instance of ending one's own life voluntarily and intentionally) on 9/14/2024. Findings: During an interview on 9/18/2024, at 11:05 a.m. with Social Services Director (SSD), SSD stated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] and she only saw him once on 9/11/2024. SSD stated she did not review Resident 1's previous admission documents from the facility and based her assessment on the current admission date. SSD stated she did not document the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9, is a depression screening tool) for Resident 1 because she had 7 days to complete the assessment. SSD stated she should have completed her assessment and do frequent checks on Resident 1 behavior, and emotional condition because it could help meet his psychosocial needs. During a review of Resident 1's Nurses Progress Notes, dated 2/8/2024, the Nurses Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was on monitoring due to hallucination episode, could not sleep because he was experiencing strange things in the room during the night such as pages of a book in his closet flipping by themselves. During a review of Resident 1's PHQ-2-9 questionnaire, dated 2/25/2024, the PHQ 2-9 indicated a score of 10 (a score of 10-14 is moderate depression). During a review of Resident 1's Nurses Progress Notes, dated 2/29/2024, the Nurses Progress Notes indicated a Social Worker met with Resident 1 for verbalization of wanting to die and Lexapro was increased to 20 milligrams ([mg]-unit of measurement). During an interview on 9/18/2024, at 10:10 a.m., the Minimum Data Set Coordinator (MDSC) stated the SSD was responsible for completing Section D (Mood) of the MDS and should be continuously assessing residents (through observation, interview, and record review) during the Assessment Reference Date ([ARD] marks the end of a seven-day period during which a resident is observed and assessed) from admission. The MDSC stated the SSD should have started Resident 1's assessments upon admission and to have an ongoing resident's assessments during the seven days following admission and not just one visit with the resident. The MDSC stated psychosocial assessments (an evaluation of a resident's mental health, and social well-being) was a part of the residents needs so it was important to conduct the assessments continuously from the time of admission. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/17/2024, at 7:25 a.m., with LVN 1, Resident 1's medication administration record (MAR) was reviewed. LVN 3 stated she gave Resident 1 Tylenol for his headache at 12:18 a.m. and Clonidine at 12:30 a.m. LVN 1 stated it was difficult to obtain Resident 1's blood pressure because he was moving a lot and was pointing at his water pitcher. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 had depression and high blood pressure, and when Resident 1 was stating someone was trying to poison him it could have been related to his depression. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was taking Lexapro for his depression for targeted behaviors of persistent verbalization of sadness. LVN 1 stated when she saw Resident 1, he appeared anxious, worried, and had a lot of concerns (not specified). LVN 1 stated she should have done a COC when Resident 1 had changes in his behavior so they could have better monitored him. LVN 1 stated she failed to informed Resident 1's physician when Resident 1 had changes in his behavior. LVN 1 stated they (facility staff) did not do any monitoring but visually checked on him more frequently but did not document it was done. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was exhibiting delusions when he continued to think that someone was trying to poison him. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 suicide could have been prevented if she would have stayed with Resident 1, called his doctor, and placed the resident on 1:1 (a type of care where a patient is constantly observed by a healthcare professional to ensure patient safety) observation/monitoring but because he calmed down, she did not think she needed to do so. During an interview on 9/17/2024, at 12:24 p.m., Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS 2) stated when CNA 1 informed her that Resident 1 verbalized someone was trying to poison him, she thought it was because Resident 1 was confused. RNS 2 stated she failed to do a COC as she thought Resident 1's delusion was because he was confused. RNS 2 stated she was not aware of Resident 1's behavior of crying spells, having hands tremor (shaking), feeling scared, and being anxious. RNS 2 stated she was not told by LVN 1 about Resident 1's change in behavior and if she would have known, she would have placed Resident 1 on 1:1 monitoring to keep him safe, call Resident 1's primary physician, complete a COC, and transfer Resident 1 to a higher level of care. During a phone interview on 9/17/2024, at 11:45 a.m., the Psychiatric Nurse Practitioner ([PNP] a registered nurse with advanced training who provides mental health care to residents), stated Resident 1's doctor should have been notified immediately of Resident 1's new behavior when he was observed crying and stating someone was trying to poison him. The PNP stated possible interventions to prevent the resident's suicide would have been closed monitoring of the resident for behavioral symptoms. The PNP stated Resident 1's behavior could have been a delusion when he verbalized somebody was putting poison in his water, a symptom of mental illness, or a symptom of another medical illness. During a review of Resident 1's initial Psychiatric Evaluation (a comprehensive examination of a person's mental, emotional, and behavioral health), dated 9/13/2024, the initial Psychiatric Evaluation indicated Resident 1 was oriented to person, place, and time. The initial Psychiatric Evaluation, under the treatment plan, indicated to observe the resident for deterioration in function, resident was educated to report worsening of symptoms and to report if noted with changes in mood and behavior. Gradual dose reduction ([GDR] a step in tapering a dose of a medication), was contraindicated at this time as it may exacerbate (to make something worse) resident symptoms (not specified). During an interview on 9/20/2024, at 2:30 pm with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated facility were working on fall, pressure injury (damage to the skin or soft tissue caused by prolonged or severe pressure) , and Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT] team members from different departments working together with a common purpose to set goals and make decisions that ensure residents receive the best care) were part of their QAPI program. During a review of QAPI Committee Minutes dated from 6/26/2024 up to 8/28/2024 indicated fall, pressure injury and IDT were being addressed but nothing about the behavioral, psychosocial needs and assessment of residents who have diagnosis of depression and exhibiting change in mood and behavior. During a review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program, the P&P indicated the five elements of the facility QAPI are utilized to implement and sustain the QAPI program by the following: 1.Design and scope of the plan will address the full range of services offered by the facility and includes all departments. 2.Guidance and leadership of the facility will seek input from staff, residents, and families. 3.Feedback, data systems and monitoring will be accomplished using performance indicators for a wide range of care processes and findings. The P&P indicated the facility will implement and maintain an ongoing, facility wide Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement Program designed to monitor and evaluate residents' care and methods to improve quality of care.
Sept 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a competency and skill set review on four of five sampled staff employees were completed according to the facility ' s policy a...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that a competency and skill set review on four of five sampled staff employees were completed according to the facility ' s policy and procedure. This failure had the potential to put residents at risk for not receiving care in a safe and competent manner. Findings: During a review of Certified Nursing Assistant ' s (CNA1) Employee Performance Review ( formal assessment of an employee ' s work performance by identifying strengths, weaknesses , helping set goals and assist with skill development) , the Performance Evaluation Review indicated CNA1 was evaluated on 3/29/2022. During a review of CNA 2 ' s Employee Performance Review, the Employee Performance Review indicated CNA 2 was evaluated on 3/29/2022. During a review of CNA 3 ' s employment file, the employment file indicated employee performance review was not done. During a review of CNA 4 ' s Employee Evaluation, the Employee Evaluation indicated CNA 4 was evaluated on 10/21/2011 and was not signed by CNA 4. During a subsequent interview and record review on 9/3/2024, at 1:00 p.m. and at 1:51 p.m. with Director of Staff Development (DSD) , DSD confirmed CNA 1 ' s and CNA 2 ' s Employee Performance Review were done on 3/29/2022. DSD validated CNA 3 had no Employee Performance Review since CNA 3 was hired five months ago. DSD stated CNA 4 ' s Employee Performance Review indicated the cna was evaluated on 10/2011. DSD stated it is usually done yearly and on the anniversary of the employee ' s hire date. DSD stated Employee Performance Review is important so the employee would know what their weaknesses, strengths, and what areas in their job need improvement. DSD stated not checking or evaluating staff ' s performance annually could affect residents ' care and could lead to neglect and poor quality of care. During an interview on 9/3/2024, at 2:53 p.m., with CNA 4 stated she had her last Employee Performance review last 2022 and was waiting to be called by facility ' s DSD to get evaluated. CNA 4 stated evaluation of her performance is important because it will help her on how to improve herself. During an interview on 9/3/2024, at 1:52 p.m. with RN Supervisor (RNS 1), RNS 1 stated Employee Performance Review is performed annually to ensure weakness and strengths are identified which could help and improve job performance. During an interview on 9/3/2024, at 3:48 p.m. with Administrator (ADM), ADM stated they conduct Employee Performance Review every year but not after an employee finished their probationary period (a time to assess whether a new hire or newly promoted employee is a good fit for the position). ADM stated Employee Performance Review is an overall summary of individuals ' performance and a system the facility needed to have so they can determine the weaknesses and strengths of staff. ADM stated based on the result of Employee Performance Review , the facility would conduct and provide training and in-services for the employees. During a review of facility ' s policy and procedure (P/P) titled Staff Competency Assessment revised 3/17/2022, the P/P indicated competency assessment will be performed upon hire during the employee ' s 90-day employment period, annually, or anytime new equipment or a procedure is introduced. The P/P indicated all staff are required to have competency assessments by the Director of Staff Development or department manager based on their job description or assigned duties within the first 90 days of employment. The P/P indicated the purpose of completing competency assessments is to determine knowledge and performance of assigned responsibilities based on standard of practice, policy and procedure and regulatory requirement.
Aug 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 2) did not receive Se...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two sampled residents (Resident 2) did not receive Seroquel (a psychotropic medication [drug that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior] used for mental and mood disorders) without a diagnosis and indication of used. These failures resulted in Resident 2 to received Seroquel without diagnosis from Resident 2 ' s physician and had the potential for increased risk for Residents 2 to experienced serious adverse effects (unwanted, uncomfortable, or dangerous effects that a drug may have) of Seroquel including dizziness, drowsiness and irregular heartbeat, that can lead to an overall negative impact on their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings: During a review of Resident 2 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated, Resident 2 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnoses including dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities), mania (a state of extremely heightened energy), metabolic encephalopathy (damage or disease that affects the brain) and hypertension. During a review of Resident 2 ' s H&P, dated 3/22/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 2 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 6/25/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 2 did not have delusions (belief or altered reality) or hallucinations (sights, sounds, smells, tastes, or touches that a person believes to be real but are not real). The MDS indicated Resident 2 needed setup or clean up assistance with eating and oral hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 2 needed supervision and touching assistance with walking. The MDS indicated Resident 2 needed partial and moderate assistance with toileting, showering, dressing, putting on and taking off footwear, personal hygiene, rolling from left to right, sitting, lying, and standing. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/22/2024 at 12:23 pm with the Director of Nursing (DON), Resident 2 ' s Initial Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 8/1/2024 was reviewed. The Initial Psychiatric Evaluation indicated Resident 2 had a diagnosis of dementia. The DON stated Resident 2 was [AGE] years old with paranoid schizophrenia (serious mental health condition that affects how people think, feel and behave)and taking Seroquel. The DON stated Resident 2 was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia at the General Acute Care hospital (GACH) on 8/6/2024 and was started on Seroquel. The DON stated Resident 2 ' s diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia and Seroquel was continued when she was discharged back to the facility. The DON stated paranoid schizophrenia was a wrong diagnosis. The DON stated she should have questioned the diagnosis with Resident 2 ' s physician and would not have given Resident 2 ' s Seroquel. The DON stated she will call Resident 2 ' s physician to discontinue Resident 2 ' s Seroquel because there was no diagnosis or history of paranoid schizophrenia. The DON stated Seroquel has a lot of side effects (effect of a drug in addition to or beyond its desired effect) and could cause problem with the lungs, and kidneys that can lead to dehydration. During an interview on 8/22/2024 at 12:52 pm with Minimum data Set Coordinator (MDSC), MDSC stated Resident 2 ' s diagnosis of schizophrenia was not coded in Resident 2 ' s MDS. MDSC stated Resident 2 had a psychiatric evaluation (thorough examination to determine whether an individual has a mental health condition) and was not diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia. MDSC stated paranoid schizophrenia usually was diagnosed early in life. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure titled Alert!!! Schizophrenia Coding Question #2, undated, the P&P indicated, Schizophrenia is a serious mental disorder that may interfere with a person ' s ability to think clearly, manage emotions, make decision and relate to others. It is uncommon for schizophrenia to be diagnosed in a person younger than 12 or older than 40. Schizophrenia must be diagnosed by a qualified practitioner, using evidence-based criteria and professional standards, such as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth edition (DSM-5), and documented in the resident ' s medical record.
Aug 2024 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to meet the residents needs for two ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to meet the residents needs for two of three sampled residents (Resident 1 and 2) when: a. The facility failed to ensure Registered Nurse (RN) 1 did not document in Resident 1 ' s Medication Administration Record (MAR) that Methadone (strong medicine used to treat heroin [an illegal substance] dependence) was administered on 7/27/2024 to Resident 1 because it was not given to Resident 1. b. The facility failed to ensure Resident 1 ' s physician order for Methadone on 7/17/2024 at 12:29 p.m. indicated the medication should not be administered on the day Resident 1 will visit the methadone clinic on Mondays. c. The facility failed to ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 6 and 7 documented the administration of Norco (a combination medication of Hydromorphone and Acetaminophen used to manage moderate to severe pain) in Resident 1 and 2 ' s MAR. The deficient practice of Resident 1 ' s missed dose of Methadone on 7/27/2024 resulted in Resident 1 having an extra dose of methadone in the inventory and had the potential to result in Resident 1 experiencing drug withdrawals (negative physical and mental symptoms that occur after stopping or reducing intake of a drug). The deficient practice of the physician order not indicating to not give Resident 1 ' s Methadone dose on Mondays when Resident 1 goes to the Methadone clinic resulted in Resident 1 receiving 55 milligrams of Methadone on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. and Resident 1 received an extra dose of Methadone in the clinic on 7/29/2024 and had the potential to result in increased adverse drug reactions. The deficient practice of not having the Norco documented in Resident 1 and 2 ' s MAR placed Resident 1 and 2 at risk for mismanagement of their medication regimen which can negatively affect the residents ' health. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including osteomyelitis (bone infection) of vertebra (back bone) and post laminectomy syndrome (pain after a prior back surgery). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 7/22/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had intact cognition (ability to think and reason). During a review of Resident 1 ' s physician order, dated 7/17/2024 at 12:29 p.m. the order indicated Methadone Hydrochloride 55 milligram one time a day for opioid (class of drugs that derive from, or mimic, natural substances found in the opium poppy plant) withdrawal, mix with 30 milliliters of water, Methadone Clinic will dispense medication to our SNF 1 to 2-week supply. During a review of Resident 1 ' s MAR for 7/2024, the MAR indicated Methadone Hydrochloride 55 milligram one time a day for opioid withdrawal, was administered on 7/27/2024 at 9 a.m. by RN 1 and again on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. by LVN 1. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Individual Narcotic (a drug or other substance that is tightly controlled by the government because it may be abused or cause addiction and may cause significant risk to patient safety) Record 10 for Methadone 55 milligrams, the record indicated on 7/27/2024 no methadone dose was removed from the inventory. During an interview with RN 1 on 8/7/2024 at 9:56 a.m., RN 1 stated he (RN 1) accidentally charted he gave Methadone 55 milligrams on 7/27/2024 to Resident 1 but RN 1 did not actually give it; that ' s why it was not removed from the Individual narcotic Record. RN 1 stated Resident 1 did not receive a methadone dose on 7/27/2024. RN 1 stated Resident 1 should have received the dose because Resident 1 might have a withdrawal if he does not receive it. During a record review and an interview with the Quality Assurance nurse (QA nurse) on 8/7/2024 at 10:55 a.m., Resident 1 ' s methadone order dated 7/17/2024 was reviewed. The order did not indicate to NOT administer the medications on Mondays when Resident 1 goes to the methadone clinic where Resident 1 receives a dose of Methadone. The QA nurse stated the order should have specified to hold the medications on Mondays so the nurse will not administer it. The QA nurse stated that ' s why the next methadone order was changed to indicate to give Methadone daily only from Tuesday to Sunday, the original order should have specified that. The order did not specify to hold the Methadone on Monday so, Resident 1 received a Methadone dose on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. and Resident 1 received another one in the clinic. During a review of Resident 1 ' s SBAR Communication Form 7/29/2024, the form indicated Resident 1 stated he received 2 doses of methadone, one dose at the facility in the morning and another one in the Methadone clinic. The form indicated Resident 1 does not get his Methadone dose every Monday at the facility because Resident 1 goes to the Methadone clinic to get his Monday Methadone Dose and his week supply of methadone. Resident 1 was observed and was clinically stable. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/7/2024 at 11:10 a.m. the DON stated the missed dose of methadone can cause the resident to have withdrawals. The DON stated receiving double dose of methadone can be lethal, so the physician was informed, and the resident was monitored for three days. The DON stated Resident 1 should not have received the Methadone dose on Monday 7/29/2024. b. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Order Summary Report, active orders as of 8/7/2024, the report indicated an order for Norco oral tablet 5-325 milligrams, starting on 7/23/2024, one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Individual Narcotic Record 7, the record indicated LVN 6 removed one tablet of Norco 5/325 milligrams tablet on 7/20/2024 at 10:30 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 9:00 a.m. During a review of Resident 1 ' s MAR for July and for August 2024, the MARs indicated no documented evidence Norco 5/325 milligrams tablets were administered to Resident 1 on 7/20/2024 at 10:30 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 9:00 a.m. C. During a review of Resident 8 ' s admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including low back pain and generalized osteoarthritis (occurs when the flexible, protective tissue at the ends of bones, called cartilage, wears down). During a review of Resident 8 ' s Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 8 ' s cognition was moderately impaired. During a review of Resident 8 ' s Order Summary Report, active orders as of 7/23/2024, the report indicated Resident 8 had an order for Norco tablet 5-325 milligrams one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for severe pain. During a review of Resident 8 ' s Individual Narcotic Record 17, the record indicated LVN 6 removed one tablet of Norco 5/325 milligram tablet on 8/4/2024 at 4:30 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 5:30 p.m. The Record also indicated LVN 7 removed one tablet of Norco 5/325 milligrams tablet on 8/4/2024 at 11 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 11:30 p.m. During a review of Resident 8 ' s MAR for August 2024, the MARs did not indicate documented evidence Norco 5/325 milligrams tablets were administered to Resident 8 on 8/4/2024 at 4:30 p.m. and at 11 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 5:30 p.m. and at 11:30 p.m. During an interview and record review on 8/8/2024 at 7:44 a.m. with RN 2, Resident 8 ' s Narcotic Record 17 and Resident 8 ' s MAR for 8/2024 were reviewed. RN 2 confirmed documentation that one tablet of Norco 5/325 milligram was removed from the count on 8/4/2024 at 4:30 p.m. and 11 p.m., and on 8/5/2024 at 5:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. RN 2 confirmed Resident 8 ' s MAR does not reflect Norco was administered to Resident 8 on 8/4/2024 at 4:30 p.m. and 11 p.m., and on 8/5/2024 at 5:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. RN 2 stated the nurses should have documented in the MAR so subsequent nurse would know when the medication was administered so resident will not receive an extra dose. During an interview and record review on 8/8/2024 at 10 a.m. with the QA nurse, Resident 1 ' s Narcotic Record 7 and MAR for 7/2024 and 8/2024 were reviewed. The QA nurse confirmed documentation that one tablet of Norco 5/325 milligrams was removed from the count on 7/20/2024 at 10:30 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 9 a.m. The QA nurse confirmed Resident 1 ' s MAR does not reflect Norco was administered to Resident 1 on 7/20/2024 at 10:30 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 9 a.m. The QA nurse stated LVN 6 should have documented in the MAR and not just the Individual Narcotic Record. During a phone interview on 8/8/2024 at 10:14 a.m., LVN 6 stated she remembers those shifts and remembers signing the narcotic record for Resident 1 and 2 and forgetting to document on the MAR. LVN 6 stated she will make sure to document in the MAR next time. During an interview and record review on 8/8/2024 at 11:11 a.m., with the DON, the DON stated administered medications need to be documented in the MAR because if it was not documented it was not done. The DON stated there was a risk of medication errors and that the resident might get under or over medicated if errors happen. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P/P) titled, Medication-Administration, revised 1/1/2012, the P/P indicated the P/P was to ensure accurate medication administration for residents in the facility. The P/P indicated medication will be administered directed by a Licensed Nurse and upon the order of a physician or licensed independent practitioner. Medications will be administered as prescribed to ensure compliance with dose guidelines. The nursing staff will keep in mind the seven rights of medications when administering the medication. One of the seven rights include the right time and right amount. The P/P indicated the time, the date and dose of the drug administered to the patient will be recorded in the patient's individual medication record by the person who administers the drug. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services to meet the residents needs for two of three sampled residents (Resident 1 and 2) when: a. The facility failed to ensure Registered Nurse (RN) 1 did not document in Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR) that Methadone (strong medicine used to treat heroin [an illegal substance] dependence) was administered on 7/27/2024 to Resident 1 because it was not given to Resident 1. b. The facility failed to ensure Resident 1's physician order for Methadone on 7/17/2024 at 12:29 p.m. indicated the medication should not be administered on the day Resident 1 will visit the methadone clinic on Mondays c. The facility failed to ensure Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 6 and 7 documented the administration of Norco (a combination medication of Hydromorphone and Acetaminophen used to manage moderate to severe pain) in Resident 1 and 2's MAR. The deficient practice of Resident 1's missed dose of Methadone on 7/27/2024 resulted in Resident 1 having an extra dose of methadone in the inventory and had the potential to result in Resident 1 experiencing drug withdrawals (negative physical and mental symptoms that occur after stopping or reducing intake of a drug). The deficient practice of the physician order not indicating to not give Resident 1's Methadone dose on Mondays when Resident 1 goes to the Methadone clinic resulted in Resident 1 receiving 55 milligrams of Methadone on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. and Resident 1 received an extra dose of Methadone in the clinic on 7/29/2024 and had the potential to result in increased adverse drug reactions. The deficient practice of not having the Norco documented in Resident 1 and 2's MAR placed Resident 1 and 2 at risk for mismanagement of their medication regimen which can negatively affect the residents' health. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including osteomyelitis (bone infection) of vertebra (back bone) and post laminectomy syndrome (pain after a prior back surgery). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 7/22/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had intact cognition (ability to think and reason). During a review of Resident 1's physician order, dated 7/17/2024 at 12:29 p.m. the order indicated Methadone Hydrochloride 55 milligram one time a day for opioid (class of drugs that derive from, or mimic, natural substances found in the opium poppy plant) withdrawal, mix with 30 milliliters of water, Methadone Clinic will dispense medication to our SNF 1 to 2-week supply. During a review of Resident 1's MAR for 7/2024, the MAR indicated Methadone Hydrochloride 55 milligram one time a day for opioid withdrawal, was administered on 7/27/2024 at 9 a.m. by RN 1 and again on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. by LVN 1. During a review of Resident 1's Individual Narcotic (a drug or other substance that is tightly controlled by the government because it may be abused or cause addiction and may cause significant risk to patient safety) Record 10 for Methadone 55 milligrams, the record indicated on 7/27/2024 no methadone dose was removed from the inventory. During an interview with RN 1 on 8/7/2024 at 9:56 a.m., RN 1 stated he (RN 1) accidentally charted he gave Methadone 55 milligrams on 7/27/2024 to Resident 1 but RN 1 did not actually give it; that's why it was not removed from the Individual narcotic Record. RN 1 stated Resident 1 did not receive a methadone dose on 7/27/2024. RN 1 stated Resident 1 should have received the dose because Resident 1 might have a withdrawal if he does not receive it. During a record review and an interview with the Quality Assurance nurse (QA nurse) on 8/7/2024 at 10:55 a.m., Resident 1's methadone order dated 7/17/2024 was reviewed. The order did not indicate to NOT administer the medications on Mondays when Resident 1 goes to the methadone clinic where Resident 1 receives a dose of Methadone. The QA nurse stated the order should have specified to hold the medications on Mondays so the nurse will not administer it. The QA nurse stated that's why the next methadone order was changed to indicate to give Methadone daily only from Tuesday to Sunday, the original order should have specified that. The order did not specify to hold the Methadone on Monday so, Resident 1 received a Methadone dose on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. and Resident 1 received another one in the clinic. During a review of Resident 1's SBAR Communication Form 7/29/2024, the form indicated Resident 1 stated he received 2 doses of methadone, one dose at the facility in the morning and another one in the Methadone clinic. The form indicated Resident 1 does not get his Methadone dose every Monday at the facility because Resident 1 goes to the Methadone clinic to get his Monday Methadone Dose and his week supply of methadone. Resident 1 was observed and was clinically stable. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/7/2024 at 11:10 a.m. the DON stated the missed dose of methadone can cause the resident to have withdrawals. The DON stated receiving double dose of methadone can be lethal, so the physician was informed, and the resident was monitored for three days. The DON stated Resident 1 should not have received the Methadone dose on Monday 7/29/2024. b. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, active orders as of 8/7/2024, the report indicated an order for Norco oral tablet 5-325 milligrams, starting on 7/23/2024, one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. During a review of Resident 1's Individual Narcotic Record 7, the record indicated LVN 6 removed one tablet of Norco 5/325 milligrams tablet on 7/20/2024 at 10:30 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 9:00 a.m. During a review of Resident 1's MAR for July and for August 2024, the MARs indicated no documented evidence Norco 5/325 milligrams tablets were administered to Resident 1 on 7/20/2024 at 10:30 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 9:00 a.m. C. During a review of Resident 8's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including low back pain and generalized osteoarthritis (occurs when the flexible, protective tissue at the ends of bones, called cartilage, wears down). During a review of Resident 8's Minimum Data Set, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 8's cognition was moderately impaired. During a review of Resident 8's Order Summary Report, active orders as of 7/23/2024, the report indicated Resident 8 had an order for Norco tablet 5-325 milligrams one tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for severe pain. During a review of Resident 8's Individual Narcotic Record 17, the record indicated LVN 6 removed one tablet of Norco 5/325 milligram tablet on 8/4/2024 at 4:30 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 5:30 p.m. The Record also indicated LVN 7 removed one tablet of Norco 5/325 milligrams tablet on 8/4/2024 at 11 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 11:30 p.m. During a review of Resident 8's MAR for August 2024, the MARs did not indicate documented evidence Norco 5/325 milligrams tablets were administered to Resident 8 on 8/4/2024 at 4:30 p.m. and at 11 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 5:30 p.m. and at 11:30 p.m. During an interview and record review on 8/8/2024 at 7:44 a.m. with RN 2, Resident 8's Narcotic Record 17 and Resident 8's MAR for 8/2024 were reviewed. RN 2 confirmed documentation that one tablet of Norco 5/325 milligram was removed from the count on 8/4/2024 at 4:30 p.m. and 11 p.m., and on 8/5/2024 at 5:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. RN 2 confirmed Resident 8's MAR does not reflect Norco was administered to Resident 8 on 8/4/2024 at 4:30 p.m. and 11 p.m., and on 8/5/2024 at 5:30 p.m. and 11:30 p.m. RN 2 stated the nurses should have documented in the MAR so subsequent nurse would know when the medication was administered so resident will not receive an extra dose. During an interview and record review on 8/8/2024 at 10 a.m. with the QA nurse, Resident 1's Narcotic Record 7 and MAR for 7/2024 and 8/2024 were reviewed. The QA nurse confirmed documentation that one tablet of Norco 5/325 milligrams was removed from the count on 7/20/2024 at 10:30 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 9 a.m. The QA nurse confirmed Resident 1's MAR does not reflect Norco was administered to Resident 1 on 7/20/2024 at 10:30 p.m. and on 8/5/2024 at 9 a.m. The QA nurse stated LVN 6 should have documented in the MAR and not just the Individual Narcotic Record. During a phone interview on 8/8/2024 at 10:14 a.m., LVN 6 stated she remembers those shifts and remembers signing the narcotic record for Resident 1 and 2 and forgetting to document on the MAR. LVN 6 stated she will make sure to document in the MAR next time. During an interview and record review on 8/8/2024 at 11:11 a.m., with the DON, the DON stated administered medications need to be documented in the MAR because if it was not documented it was not done. The DON stated there was a risk of medication errors and that the resident might get under or over medicated if errors happen. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) titled, Medication-Administration, revised 1/1/2012, the P/P indicated the P/P was to ensure accurate medication administration for residents in the facility. The P/P indicated medication will be administered directed by a Licensed Nurse and upon the order of a physician or licensed independent practitioner. Medications will be administered as prescribed to ensure compliance with dose guidelines. The nursing staff will keep in mind the seven rights of medications when administering the medication. One of the seven rights include the right time and right amount. The P/P indicated the time, the date and dose of the drug administered to the patient will be recorded in the patient's individual medication record by the person who administers the drug.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) was free from significant medication error when: a. The facility failed to ensure Resident 1 received Methadone (strong medicine used to treat heroin [an illegal substance] dependence) 55 milligrams on 7/27/2024 at 9 a.m. as ordered. b. The facility failed to ensure Resident 1 ' s physician order for Methadone on 7/17/2024 at 12:29 p.m. indicated the medication should not be administered on the day Resident 1 will visit the methadone clinic on Mondays because Resident 1 will receive a dose in the clinic. The deficient practice of not receiving the methadone on 7/27/2024 placed Resident 1 at risk for drug withdrawals (negative physical and mental symptoms that occur after stopping or reducing intake of a drug). The deficient practice of the physician order not indicating to not give Resident 1 ' s Methadone dose on Mondays when Resident 1 goes to the Methadone clinic resulted in Resident 1 receiving 55 milligrams of Methadone on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. and Resident 1 received an extra dose of Methadone in the clinic on 7/29/2024 and had the potential to result in increased adverse drug reactions. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including osteomyelitis (bone infection) of vertebra (back bone) and post laminectomy syndrome (pain after a prior back surgery). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 7/22/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had intact cognition (ability to think and reason). During a review of Resident 1 ' s physician order, dated 7/17/2024 at 12:29 p.m. the order indicated Methadone Hydrochloride 55 milligram one time a day for opioid (class of drugs that derive from, or mimic, natural substances found in the opium poppy plant) withdrawal, mix with 30 milliliters of water, Methadone Clinic will dispense medication to our Skilled Nursing Facility 1 to 2-week supply. During a review of Resident 1 ' s MAR for 7/2024, the MAR indicated Methadone Hydrochloride 55 milligram one time a day for opioid withdrawal, was administered on 7/27/2024 at 9 a.m. by RN 1 and again on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. by Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Individual Narcotic (a drug or other substance that is tightly controlled by the government because it may be abused or cause addiction and may cause significant risk to patient safety) Record 10 for Methadone 55 milligrams, the record indicated on 7/27/2024 no methadone dose was removed from the inventory. During a review of Resident 1 ' s SBAR Communication Form 7/29/2024, the form indicated Resident 1 stated he received 2 doses of methadone, one dose at the facility in the morning and another one in the Methadone clinic. The form indicated Resident 1 does not get his Methadone dose every Monday at the facility because Resident 1 goes to the Methadone clinic to get his Monday Methadone Dose and his week supply of methadone. Resident 1 was observed and was clinically stable. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 on 8/7/2024 at 9:56 a.m., RN 1 stated he (RN 1) accidentally charted he gave Methadone 55 milligrams on 7/27/2024 to Resident 1 but RN 1 did not actually give it; that ' s why it was not removed from the Individual narcotic Record. RN 1 stated Resident 1 did not receive a methadone dose on 7/27/2024. RN 1 stated Resident 1 should have received the dose because Resident 1 might have drug withdrawals if Resident 1 does not receive it. During a record review and an interview with the Quality Assurance nurse (QA nurse) on 8/7/2024 at 10:55 a.m., Resident 1 ' s methadone order dated 7/17/2024 was reviewed. The order did not indicate to NOT administer the medications on Mondays when Resident 1 goes to the methadone clinic where Resident 1 receives a dose of Methadone. The QA nurse stated the order should have specified to hold the medications on Mondays so the nurse will not administer it. The QA nurse stated that ' s why the next methadone order was changed to indicate to give Methadone daily only from Tuesday to Sunday, the original order should have specified that. The order did not specify to hold the Methadone on Monday so Resident 1 received a Methadone dose on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. and Resident 1 received another Methadone dose in the clinic. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/7/2024 at 11:10 a.m. the DON stated the missed dose of methadone can cause the resident to have withdrawals. The DON stated receiving double dose of methadone can be lethal, so the physician was informed, and the resident was monitored for three days. The DON stated Resident 1 should not have received the Methadone dose on Monday 7/29/2024. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P/P) titled, Medication-Administration, revised 1/1/2012, the P/P indicated medication will be administered directed by a Licensed Nurse and upon the order of a physician or licensed independent practitioner. Medications will be administered as prescribed to ensure compliance with dose guidelines. The nursing staff will keep in mind the seven rights of medications when administering the medication. One of the seven rights include the right time and right amount. Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) was free from significant medication error when: a. The facility failed to ensure Resident 1 received Methadone (strong medicine used to treat heroin [an illegal substance] dependence) 55 milligrams on 7/27/2024 at 9 a.m. as ordered. b. The facility failed to ensure Resident 1's physician order for Methadone on 7/17/2024 at 12:29 p.m. indicated the medication should not be administered on the day Resident 1 will visit the methadone clinic on Mondays because Resident 1 will receive a dose in the clinic. The deficient practice of not receiving the methadone on 7/27/2024 placed Resident 1 at risk for drug withdrawals (negative physical and mental symptoms that occur after stopping or reducing intake of a drug). The deficient practice of the physician order not indicating to not give Resident 1's Methadone dose on Mondays when Resident 1 goes to the Methadone clinic resulted in Resident 1 receiving 55 milligrams of Methadone on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. and Resident 1 received an extra dose of Methadone in the clinic on 7/29/2024 and had the potential to result in increased adverse drug reactions. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including osteomyelitis (bone infection) of vertebra (back bone) and post laminectomy syndrome (pain after a prior back surgery). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 7/22/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had intact cognition (ability to think and reason). During a review of Resident 1's physician order, dated 7/17/2024 at 12:29 p.m. the order indicated Methadone Hydrochloride 55 milligram one time a day for opioid (class of drugs that derive from, or mimic, natural substances found in the opium poppy plant) withdrawal, mix with 30 milliliters of water, Methadone Clinic will dispense medication to our Skilled Nursing Facility 1 to 2-week supply. During a review of Resident 1's MAR for 7/2024, the MAR indicated Methadone Hydrochloride 55 milligram one time a day for opioid withdrawal, was administered on 7/27/2024 at 9 a.m. by RN 1 and again on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. by Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1. During a review of Resident 1's Individual Narcotic (a drug or other substance that is tightly controlled by the government because it may be abused or cause addiction and may cause significant risk to patient safety) Record 10 for Methadone 55 milligrams, the record indicated on 7/27/2024 no methadone dose was removed from the inventory. During a review of Resident 1's SBAR Communication Form 7/29/2024, the form indicated Resident 1 stated he received 2 doses of methadone, one dose at the facility in the morning and another one in the Methadone clinic. The form indicated Resident 1 does not get his Methadone dose every Monday at the facility because Resident 1 goes to the Methadone clinic to get his Monday Methadone Dose and his week supply of methadone. Resident 1 was observed and was clinically stable. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 on 8/7/2024 at 9:56 a.m., RN 1 stated he (RN 1) accidentally charted he gave Methadone 55 milligrams on 7/27/2024 to Resident 1 but RN 1 did not actually give it; that's why it was not removed from the Individual narcotic Record. RN 1 stated Resident 1 did not receive a methadone dose on 7/27/2024. RN 1 stated Resident 1 should have received the dose because Resident 1 might have drug withdrawals if Resident 1 does not receive it. During a record review and an interview with the Quality Assurance nurse (QA nurse) on 8/7/2024 at 10:55 a.m., Resident 1's methadone order dated 7/17/2024 was reviewed. The order did not indicate to NOT administer the medications on Mondays when Resident 1 goes to the methadone clinic where Resident 1 receives a dose of Methadone. The QA nurse stated the order should have specified to hold the medications on Mondays so the nurse will not administer it. The QA nurse stated that's why the next methadone order was changed to indicate to give Methadone daily only from Tuesday to Sunday, the original order should have specified that. The order did not specify to hold the Methadone on Monday so Resident 1 received a Methadone dose on 7/29/2024 at 9 a.m. and Resident 1 received another Methadone dose in the clinic. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/7/2024 at 11:10 a.m. the DON stated the missed dose of methadone can cause the resident to have withdrawals. The DON stated receiving double dose of methadone can be lethal, so the physician was informed, and the resident was monitored for three days. The DON stated Resident 1 should not have received the Methadone dose on Monday 7/29/2024. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) titled, Medication-Administration, revised 1/1/2012, the P/P indicated medication will be administered directed by a Licensed Nurse and upon the order of a physician or licensed independent practitioner. Medications will be administered as prescribed to ensure compliance with dose guidelines. The nursing staff will keep in mind the seven rights of medications when administering the medication. One of the seven rights include the right time and right amount.
Jul 2024 11 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 391) received treatmen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 391) received treatment in accordance with the physician`s order. This deficient practice has the potential for Resident 391 not be free from infection. Findings: During a review of Resident 391's Face Sheet (admission record), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 391 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including osteomyelitis (inflammation that occurs in the bone) of vertebra (irregular bone that make up the column or spine), endocarditis (inflammation of the inner lining of the heart's chambers and valves), opioid dependence (feeling withdrawal symptoms when not taking the medication). During a review of Resident 391's Minimum Data Set [(MDS) a standardized assessment and care screening tool], dated 7/22/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 391's cognitive skills (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) were intact. The MDS indicated Resident 391 required moderate assistance for bathing, transferring in the shower and lower body (legs and hips) dressing, required supervision for chair/bed to chair transfer and toilet hygiene, and required set up assistance for eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 391 did not have any impairments on both the upper and lower extremities (arms and legs) and utilized a walker. During a review of the Order Summary Report (Physician Order), the order summary indicated an active order date of 7/15/2024 Cefepime Hydrochloride every eight (8) hours for osteomyelitis for 20 days with a start date of 7/16/2024 and end date 8/4/2024. and Daptomycin (an antibiotic used to treat serious bacterial infection) 500mg intravenously one time a day for osteomyelitis for 20 days with an order date of 7/15/2024, start date of 7/16/2024, and end date 8/5/2024. During a review of the progress notes the progress note indicated: 1. On 7/15/2024 at 2:46p.m., Resident 391 was admitted to the facility with an IV line on the right forearm. 2. On 7/16/2024 at 9:05a.m., the progress note indicated the Daptomycin zero-point nine (0.9mg)/50mL for osteomyelitis was not on hand and was waiting for the pharmacy to deliver the antibiotic. 3. On 7/17/2024 at 8:35a.m, Resident 391's IV line came out and due to unsuccessful attempts to reinsert an IV, a PICC line was requested by Resident 391. 4. On 7/17/2024 at 2:28p.m., the change in condition evaluation (document initiated when the resident has a change from their baseline) indicated the PICC line is ready to use. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 391's orders on 7/25/2024 at 4:27p.m. with RNS 2, Per RNS 2, Resident 391 is receiving Cefepime 2 mg/100ml every 8 hours for osteomyelitis and indicated the IV medications in a bag is running for an hour at midnight, 8:00a.m., and 4:00p.m. RNS 2 stated Cefepime 2 mg/100ml was ordered on 7/15/2024. RNS 2 stated upon admission on [DATE], Daptomycin-Sodium 500-0.9mg/50ml% 500mg one time a day for 20 days was ordered with a scheduled administration time at 5:00p.m. so the resident will be able to have a break in between the two antibiotics. RNs 2 stated the window for medication administration time is one hour before and after the scheduled time. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 391's progress notes on 7/25/2024 at 4:49p.m. with RNS 2, RNS 2 stated on 7/17/2024, Resident 391's IV blew, and he personally requested for the PICC line. RNS 2 stated Resident 391 should have gotten the medication for the antibiotic in the afternoon, and the pharmacy can take time to bring the medications or if they do not have any in stock, follow up with pharmacy or get it from the emergency medical kit (eKit: a kit that includes prescription only medications needed for emergencies). RNS 2 stated since the Daptomycin medication was not available until 5:00p.m., the administration time was changed from 9:00a.m. to 5:00p.m. one time a day. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/25/2024 at 5:00p.m. with RNS 2, RNS 2 stated: a. 7/19/24 medication was given at 2:36a.m. instead of midnight 12:00a.m. b. 7/20/24 medication scheduled at of midnight 12:00a.m. but was given at 6:01a.m. c. 7/22/24 medication scheduled at of midnight 12:00a.m but was given at 5:04a.m. d. 7/23/25 medication scheduled at of midnight 12:00a.m but was given at 7:16a.m. e.7/25/24 medication scheduled at of midnight 12:00a.m but was given at 5:19a.m. RNS 2 stated based on the IVT administration record, the antibiotic was not given at the appropriate time. RNS 2 stated antibiotics should be given at the right time to ensure the therapeutic range for the antibiotic is kept consistently and not disrupted. During an interview on 7/26/2024 at 10:46a.m. with Pharmacist 1 (PharmD 1), PharmD 1 stated the IV medication should be administered within four hours once the facility receives the medication PharmD 1 stated if a resident missed two days of antibiotics, the doctor should be notified and may order to continue giving the medication or may extend the duration of the time the antibiotic is given to ensure the full effeteness of the medication. During an interview on 7/26/2024 at 4:33p.m. with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated Cefepime is given every eight hours, and the medication comes from the pharmacy via vile and a normal saline bag. DON stated the IV medication and tubing will all come together in separate bags. During a concurrent interview and record review of the IVT administration record for July and progress notes on 7/26/2024 at 4:43p.m. with DON, DON stated Resident 391 was admitted on [DATE] and should have received his antibiotics on 7/16/2024. DON stated if the medication is administered it should reflect as code one and there is a check mark, that indicates the medication was acknowledged as given and signed. DON stated Daptomycin was not on hand on the morning of 7/16/2024 and antibiotics do not take two days for the facility to receive it. DON stated since Resident 391 is a hard stick (individual who have veins that are difficult to find), Resident 391 got a PICC line on 7/17/2024. DON stated Cefepime is in the eKit, but Daptomycin will have to be delivered as it is expensive. DON stated she is not sure what happened as the IVT administration record does not indicate the antibiotic was given on 7/16/2024 and indicated it if it not documented, it was not done. DON stated the nurse should have made a note and notify the doctor for any adverse reaction since the resident did not receive any antibiotics based on the document. DON stated medications are administered one hour before and after the medication scheduled time and the IVT administration record on 7/18/2024 indicated Cefepime was administered at 4:13a.m. that was scheduled at 12:00a.m. DON stated Cefepime was given on time but was documented late. DON stated RNS 3 has a habit of documenting late, however the IVT administrator record indicated the medication was not given on time. DON stated if an antibiotic is given close to another antibiotic, the resident can overdose, and if labs may need to be drawn, it may not be accurate, so it is important to give the medication on time. DON stated if the antibiotic is not given, it can alter the effectivity of the medication and the resident's recovery time will prolong and missing a dose of the antibiotic gives the bacteria more opportunities to multiple. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, General Policies for IV Therapy, dated June 2018, the P&P indicated the initial antibiotic dose is to be given within 4 hours from the time the physician's order is obtained or at the next scheduled dose. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Completion & Correction, revised January 1, 2012, the P&P indicated entries will be recorded promptly as the events or observations occur. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Medication Administration, revised January 1, 2012, the P&P indicated medication will be administered directed by a licensed Nurse and upon the order of a physician or licensed independent practitioner. Medications and treatments will be administered as prescribed to ensure compliance with dose guidelines.
CONCERN (D)

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

Tube Feeding (Tag F0693)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure feeding tube formula, tubing, administration s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure feeding tube formula, tubing, administration syringe, and water flush bags were changed within 24 hours for one of three sampled residents (Resident 85). This failure had the potential to result in Resident 85's Gastrostomy tube ([G-tube] - tube that is placed directly into the stomach through an abdominal wall incision for administration of food, fluids, and medications) getting clogged and placed Resident 85 at risk for developing foodborne illness (food poisoning) with symptoms including upset stomach, stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and fever and can lead to other serious medical complications and hospitalization. Findings: During a review of Resident 85's admission Record, the admission Record indicated, Resident 85 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last re-admission was on 7/16/2024 with diagnosis including gastrostomy malfunction (Obstructed G-tube not responding to traditional unclogging measures such as flushing with water), gastroenteritis (Inflammation of the lining of the stomach and the intestines), and dysphagia (swallowing difficulties). During a review of Resident 85's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]-a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 6/8/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 85 required dependent assistance (Helper does all the effort) from two or more staff for oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, upper body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, personal hygiene, roll left and right, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to stand, chair/bed to chair transfer. The MDS indicated, eating was not attempted due to medical condition or safety concern. During a review of Resident 58's Order Summary Report (OSR), dated 7/25/2024, the OSR indicated, change G-Tube feeding syringe and tubing daily by night shift daily. During a review of Resident 58's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated from 7/1/2024 to 7/24/2024, the MAR indicated, G-tube feeding syringe and tubing changes were done 7/22/2024 and 7/23/2024 by night shift (11 p.m. to 7 a.m. shift) per documentation. During an observation on 7/23/2024, at 2:36 p.m., in Resident 85's room, Resident 85 was receiving tube feeding via pump at 35 milliliter(ml) per hour. The tube feeding formula label indicated, it was started on 7/22/2024, at 2:30 a.m. Syringe for medication administration, feeding pump tubing, and water flush bag were dated 7/22/2024, at 2:30 a.m. During an interview on 7/23/2024, at 2:40 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2, LVN 2 stated, he believed tube feeding formula was good up to 24 hours, but he was not sure. LVN 2 stated, tubing system, syringe, and water flush bag should be changed every 24 hours. LVN 2 stated, he would have to check with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) or Director of Nursing (DON). LVN 2 stated, there would be safety risk to consume expired formula. LVN 2 stated, there would be clogging G- tube issue if the tubing was not replaced. LVN 2 stated, he did not read the policy and procedure for G- tube care. During an interview on 7/23/2024, at 2:47 p.m., with RNS 2, RNS 2 stated, she would consider Resident 58's formula and tubing as expired because they were hanging more than 24 hours and should have discarded. RNS 2 stated, tube feeding formula, tubing, syringe, water flushing bag should be changed every 24 hours to prevent clogging of G-tube and food poisoning per policy and procedure. RNS 2 stated, all staff should make every effort to protect vulnerable residents. During an interview on 7/26/2024, at 12:11 p.m., with DON, DON stated, tube feeding systems including formula, syringe, water flush bag, tubing should be changed every 24 hours per the facility's policy and procedure to prevent food borne illness and clog of G-tube. All staff should be familiar with policy and reflected in their practice. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Enteral Feedings, revised 8/24/2024, the P&P indicated, Label bag and tubing with date and time hung. Hang time is for no more than 24 hours. Change feeding bag and tubing every 24 hours.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician responded to the consultant pharmacist's recom...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician responded to the consultant pharmacist's recommendation from 6/4/24 to obtain a valproic acid level (a lab value used to ensure certain medications are used safely and effectively) related to the use of divalproex sodium (a medication used to treat seizures) in one of five sampled residents (Resident 5.) The deficient practice of failing to ensure the physician evaluated and responded to medication irregularities (potential issues with a resident's medication regimen) identified by the consultant pharmacist during the Medication Regimen Review (MRR - a monthly report from the consultant pharmacist identifying any medication irregularities in a resident's current medication regimen) increased the risk that Resident 5 could have experienced adverse effects (unwanted, uncomfortable, or dangerous effects that a drug may have) related to their medication therapy possibly leading to impairment or decline in their mental or physical condition or functional or psychosocial status. Findings: During a review of Resident 5's admission Record (a document containing diagnostic and demographic information), dated 6/6/24, indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and most recently readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including psychosis (a mental condition characterized by the inability to determine reality from non-reality.) During a review of Resident 5's History and Physical (H&P - a record of a comprehensive physician's assessment), dated 4/4/24, indicated she had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 5's Order Summary Report (a summary of all currently active physician orders), dated 7/25/24, indicated on 3/31/24, Resident 5 was prescribed divalproex sodium 500 milligrams (mg - a unit of measure for mass) by mouth two times a day for poor impulse control manifested by getting agitated easily leading to verbal and physical aggression. During a review of the consultant pharmacist's recommendation, dated 6/4/24, indicated the consultant pharmacist asked the physician to consider monitoring Resident 5's valproic acid levels related to the use of divalproex sodium. During a review of Resident 5's clinical record indicated there was no physician response to the pharmacist's recommendation to monitor Resident 5's valproic acid level related to the use of divalproex sodium and no laboratory monitoring of valproic acid levels had been ordered or conducted. During an interview on 7/25/24 at 11:01 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the facility failed to respond to the pharmacist's request to monitor the valproic acid level for Resident 5's divalproex sodium use. The DON stated the facility failed to monitor the valproic acid level at any other time to ensure the medication was effective and not toxic. The DON stated failure to monitor the valproic acid level for a resident with divalproex sodium therapy could cause the medication to be ineffective at controlling behaviors if the level is too low or could be toxic if the level is too high possibly leading to medical complications requiring hospitalization. During a review of the facility's policy Medication Regimen Review (monthly report), dated June 2021, indicated The consultant pharmacist performs a comprehensive medication regimen review (MRR) at least monthly. The MRR includes evaluating the resident's response to medication therapy to determine that the resident maintains the highest practicable level of functions and prevents or minimizes adverse consequences related to medication therapy . Recommendations are acted upon and documented by the facility staff and/or the prescriber . Physician accepts and acts upon suggestion or rejects and provides an explanation for disagreeing by the next physician visit . During a review of the facility's policy Laboratory Monitoring Guidelines, revised November 2017, indicated serum drug levels of divalproex sodium should be monitored 7-10 days after initiation or dosage change then every 6 months . (cross reference F756)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

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 monitor valproic acid levels (a laboratory test used to ensure medi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor valproic acid levels (a laboratory test used to ensure medications used to treat seizures are present at a safe and effect level in the blood) related to the use of divalproex sodium (a medication used to treat seizures) in one of five residents sampled for unnecessary medications (Resident 5.) The deficient practices of failing to monitor valproic acid levels related to the use of divalproex increased the risk that Resident 5 could have experienced adverse effects (unwanted, uncomfortable, or dangerous effects that a drug may have) or seizures related to valproic acid levels being too high or too low leading to medical complications possibly resulting in hospitalization. Findings: During a review of Resident 5's admission Record (a document containing diagnostic and demographic information), dated 6/6/24, indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and most recently readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including psychosis (a mental condition characterized by the inability to determine reality from non-reality.) During a review of Resident 5's History and Physical (H&P - a record of a comprehensive physician's assessment), dated 4/4/24, indicated she had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 5's Order Summary Report (a summary of all currently active physician orders), dated 7/25/24, indicated on 3/31/24, Resident 5 was prescribed divalproex sodium 500 milligrams (mg - a unit of measure for mass) by mouth two times a day for poor impulse control manifested by getting agitated easily leading to verbal and physical aggression. During a review of the consultant pharmacist's recommendation, dated 6/4/24, indicated the consultant pharmacist asked the physician to consider monitoring Resident 5's valproic acid levels related to the use of divalproex sodium. During a review of Resident 5's clinical record indicated there was no physician response to the pharmacist's recommendation to monitor Resident 5's valproic acid level related to the use of divalproex sodium and no laboratory monitoring of valproic acid levels had been ordered or conducted. During an interview on 7/25/24 at 11:01 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the facility failed to respond to the pharmacist's request to monitor the valproic acid level for Resident 5's divalproex sodium use. The DON stated the facility failed to monitor the valproic acid level at any other time to ensure the medication was effective and not toxic. The DON stated failure to monitor the valproic acid level for a resident with divalproex sodium therapy could cause the medication to be ineffective at controlling behaviors if the level is too low or could be toxic if the level is too high possibly leading to medical complications requiring hospitalization. During a review of the facility's policy Medication Regimen Review (monthly report), dated June 2021, indicated The consultant pharmacist performs a comprehensive medication regimen review (MRR) at least monthly. The MRR includes evaluating the resident's response to medication therapy to determine that the resident maintains the highest practicable level of functions and prevents or minimizes adverse consequences related to medication therapy . Recommendations are acted upon and documented by the facility staff and/or the prescriber . Physician accepts and acts upon suggestion or rejects and provides an explanation for disagreeing by the next physician visit . During a review of the facility's policy Laboratory Monitoring Guidelines, revised November 2017, indicated serum drug levels of divalproex sodium should be monitored 7-10 days after initiation or dosage change then every 6 months .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to discard and replace one expired fluticasone/salmeterol inhaler (a medication used to treat breathing problems) affecting Resi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to discard and replace one expired fluticasone/salmeterol inhaler (a medication used to treat breathing problems) affecting Resident 22 in one of two inspected medication carts (East Medication Cart.) The deficient practice of failing to remove expired medications from the medication carts increased the risk that Resident 22 could have received medication that had become ineffective or toxic due to improper storage possibly leading to health complications resulting in hospitalization or death. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/24/24 at 12:56 AM of East Medication Cart with the licensed vocational nurse (LVN 6), the following medications were found either expired, stored in a manner contrary to their respective manufacturer's requirements, or not labeled with an open date as required by their respective manufacturer's specifications: 1. One opened fluticasone/salmeterol inhaler for Resident 22 was found labeled with an open date of 5/4/24. According to the manufacturer's product labeling, fluticasone/salmeterol inhalers should be used or discarded within 30 days after removal from the protective foil pouch. LVN 6 stated Resident 22's fluticasone/salmeterol inhaler was opened on 5/4/24 and expired around 6/4/24 based on the manufacturer's instructions. LVN 6 stated the facility failed to remove this inhaler from the medication cart once it expired. LVN 6 stated it should have been removed 30 days after opening and replaced for the resident whether it still had doses of medication or not. LVN 6 stated this medication is used to treat breathing problems which may get worse if the medication is less effective possibly causing the resident to be hospitalized . During a review of the facility's policy Storage of Medications, dated April 2008, indicated Medications and biologicals are stored safely, securely, and properly, following manufacturer's recommendations of those of the supplier . Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications . are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0847 (Tag F0847)

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 assess mental capacity (ability to make decisions) and provide info...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to assess mental capacity (ability to make decisions) and provide information to one of three sampled residents (Resident 85) and their responsible parties before signing arbitration agreement (a way of resolving a dispute without filing a lawsuit and going to court). This failure had the potential to result in Resident 85 not fully understanding their right to limit opportunity to initiate judicial proceedings that challenge unfavorable decisions. Findings: During a review of Resident 85's admission Record, the admission Record indicated, Resident 85 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnosis including gastrostomy (surgical opening made into the stomach to introduce food), dementia (progressive loss of memory), bilateral age-related cataract (cloudy area in the lens (the clear part of the eye that helps to focus light) of your eye, and altered mental status. During a review of Resident 85's History and Physical (H&P), dated 7/21/2024, the H&P indicated, Resident 85 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions due to cerebral vascular disease (group of condition affection blood flow to brain). During a review of Resident 85's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]-a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 6/8/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 85's cognitive skills (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) were moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 85 had impairment on both of her upper (arms and shoulders) extremities and is dependent on all aspects of activities of daily living (ADL: bathing, toileting, transfer, hygiene). During a review of Resident 85's Arbitration Agreement (AA), dated 5/17/2024, the AA indicated, Resident 85's family member (FM)1 signed the arbitration agreement on 5/17/2024. During an interview on 7/26/2024 at 3:37p.m. with Resident 85's FM 1 via phone with the assistance of Registered Nurse Supervisor 2 (RNS 2)FM 1 stated she did not remember signing the Arbitration and did not understand the Arbitration that was written in English. FM 1 stated she thought she signed the admission packet, and no one explained to her what the arbitration was. FM 1 stated no one told her that she could rescind the Arbitration within 30 days of the signed date. During an interview on 7/26/2024 at 4:10p.m. with admission Coordinator (AC), AC stated she is responsible for the Arbitration and indicated the Arbitration is an agreement between the family and facility. AC stated the Arbitration is provided with the admission packed and indicated since she speaks fluent Spanish, she did not need a witness. AC stated she realized the family and resident may not understand and it is important to ensure the representative and/or resident understand the Arbitration Agreement content. it with admission packet. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Arbitration Agreements, revised date 5/25/2023, the P&P indicated if the facility presents an arbitration agreement to a resident, the person presenting the arbitration agreement will explain the agreement to the resident in a form and manner that they understand, including in a language the resident understand and confirm that the resident understands the agreement.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the nursing staff member failed to provide reasonable accommodation to meet t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the nursing staff member failed to provide reasonable accommodation to meet the resident's needs for five of five sampled residents (Resident 442, Resident 19, Resident 441, Resident 32, and Resident 192 by: A. Failing to adjust the side rails as resident requested on 3/2024 for Resident 442. B. Failing to place call light within reach for Resident 442, 19, 32 and 192. These failures had the potential to resulted in residents not being able to summon staff for assistance with care, and negatively impacting the psychosocial well-being of the residents or result in delayed provision of services. Findings: A. During a review of Resident 442's admission Record, the admission Record indicated, Resident 442 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last readmission was on 4/25/2024 with diagnosis including paraplegia (an impairment in motor or sensory function of the lower extremities), muscle weakness, and wedge compression fracture of lumbar vertebra (This fracture usually occurs in the front of the vertebra, collapsing the bone in the front of the spine and leaving the back of the same bone unchanged, which results in the back bone taking on a wedge shape). During a review of Resident 442's History and Physical (H&P), dated 5/5/2023, the H&P indicated, Resident had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 442's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]-a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 4/21/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 442 required dependent assistance (Helper does all of the effort) from two or more staff for shower/bathe self, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, lying to sitting on side of bed, toilet transfer, tub/shower transfer, maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) from one staff for toileting hygiene, upper body dressing, roll left and right, sit to lying, and setup or clean-up assistance (Helper sets up or cleans up, resident complete activity) from one staff for eating, oral hygiene, personal hygiene. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/23/2024, at 3:07 p.m., with Resident 442 in her room, Resident 442 was observed in her bed, and she was trying to reposition herself by using side rails. Resident 442 stated her upper body was stronger than lower and she was able to grab side rails to adjust her position. Resident 442 stated, the side rails were placed too high, and her shoulders and arms had to be in an awkward position to use them. Resident 442 stated, she's been requesting to adjust the siderails. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/25/2024, at 3:06 p.m. with Maintenance Supervisor (MS), the facility's Maintenance Request Log (MRL), dated from 1/8/2024 to 7/25/2024 was reviewed. The MRL indicated, there was no maintenance request on 3/2024. MS stated, he did not recall anyone having complained about side rails. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/25/2024, at 3:14 p.m., with MS in the Resident 442's room, MS stated, he totally forgot about Resident 442's complaint regarding side rails. MS stated, he should have documented in Maintenance Log and follow up, but he forgot after dealing with other maintenance issues. MS stated, Resident 442 did remind him few weeks ago, but he forgot again. MS stated, it was his responsibility to accommodate resident's need as soon as possible. During an interview on 7/26/2024, at 12:11 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, she agreed side rails were placed high and it should be lower to prevent straining the resident 's arms and back. DON stated, MS should have kept his log and follow up with requests daily. DON stated, all staff should accommodate residents' needs. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Rights-Accommodation of Needs, revised 1/2012, the P&P indicated, The Facility's environment is designed to assist the resident in achieving independent functioning and maintaining the resident's dignity and well-being. Facility Staff will assist residents in achieving these goals . Ill. Residents' individual needs and preferences, including the need for adaptive devices and modifications to the physical environment, are evaluated upon admission and reviewed on an ongoing basis . to accommodate residents' individual needs and preferences, Facility Staff attitude and behavior are directed towards assisting the residents in maintaining independence, dignity and well-being to the extent possible according to residents' wishes. B. During a review of Resident 19's admission Record, the admission Record indicated, Resident 19 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last readmission was on 4/16/2024 with diagnosis including dementia ( the impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities), generalized muscle weakness, metabolic encephalopathy (a condition in which brain function is disturbed either temporarily or permanently due to different diseases or toxins in the body) and glaucoma (a group of eye diseases that can cause vision loss and blindness by damaging a nerve in the back of the eyes). During a review of Resident 19's History and Physical (H&P), dated 4/16/2024, the H&P indicated, Resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 19's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 19 required dependent assistance from two or more staff for oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, personal hygiene, lying to sitting on side of bed, toilet transfer, tub/shower transfer, sit to stand, maximal assistance from one staff for upper body dressing, moderate assistance) from one staff for roll left and right, sit to lying, and setup or clean-up assistance (from one staff for eating). During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/23/2024, at 2:29 p.m., with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 6 in Resident 19's room, call light was wrapped around the right side of siderail tightly. Resident 19 's siderails were above Resident 19's head. CNA 6 stated, Resident 6's siderails were placed high and call light would be hard to reach if it was wrapped around the siderails. CNA 6 stated, call light should be within reach all time for emergency. C. During a review of Resident 441's admission Record, the admission Record indicated, Resident 441` was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including displaced fracture of left femur (broken left thigh bone that the trauma moves the bone fragments out of alignment), pain in left hip, and history of falling. During a review of Resident 441's History and Physical (H&P), dated 7/18/2024, the H&P indicated, Resident had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 441 required dependent assistance) from two or more staff for oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, personal hygiene, roll left and right, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to stand, chair /bed to chair transfer, and setup or clean up assistance from one staff for eating. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/23/2024, at 11:28 a.m., with Resident 441 in Resident 441's room, call light was placed top of the metal frame of the head of the bed. Resident 441 stated, she could not see where it was placed, and she could not reach it. Resident 441 stated, she felt like staff did intentionally place the call light where she could not reach and use it. Resident 441 stated, this made her feel unwanted. During an interview on 7/23/2024, at 11:32 a.m., with CNA 7, CNA 7 stated, Resident 441's call light was out of reach, and it should be placed within reach for getting help and emergency. d. During a review of Resident 32's admission Order, the admission Record indicated Resident 32 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), essential hypertension (high blood pressure), and abnormalities of gait and mobility. During a review of Resident 32's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 32 had severe cognitive impairment (ability to learn, understand, and make decisions) and requires assistance for all activities of daily living. e. During an observation on 07/23/2024 at 10:49 a.m., and 11:58 a.m., observed Resident 32's call light hanging at the side of the bed and Resident 32 cannot reach it. During a review of Resident 192's admission Order, the admission Record indicated Resident 192 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty of swallowing), muscle weakness and essential hypertension. During a review of Resident192's MDS dated [DATE] Indicated Resident 192 had severe cognitive impairment and requires assistance for all activities of daily living. During an observation on 07/23/2024 at 10:51 a.m., and 11:59 a.m., observed Resident 192's call light hanging at the side of the bed and Resident 192 cannot reach it. During an interview on 07/25/2024 at 10:12 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 3) stated call light must be within reach to be able to call for help so that needs can be provided, if resident will try to reach the call light, it makes the resident high risk for fall and injury. During an interview on 07/25/2024 at 12:22 p.m., CNA 4 stated call light should be within reach to prevent fall and injury and Resident 32 and 192's needs will be provided in a timely manner. During an interview on 6/11/2024 at 2:50 p.m., the Registered Nurse (RN 1) stated if resident cannot reach the call light to ask for help, it will frustrate them and affect their psychosocial wellbeing and may feel like less important and unwanted and can lead to fall and injury. During an interview on 7/26/2024, at 11:20 a.m., with Director of Staff Development (DSD), DSD stated, call light should be within reach, and within a reach means where residents could easily reach. DSD stated the reason that call light should be within reach of residents was to accommodate their needs and emergency. During an interview on 7/26/2024, at 12:11 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, call light considered unreachable if the resident could not use or reach it even though it placed near the bed or on the bed. DON stated, call light should be within reach of resident to accommodate their needs and emergency. DON stated, all staff should ensure call light was accessible to residents. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Communication-Call System, revised 1/1/2012, the P&P indicated, provide a mechanism for residents to promptly communicate with Nursing Staff .Procedure . II. Call cords will be placed within the resident's reach in the resident's room.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** b. During a review of Resident 193's admission Order, the admission Record indicated Resident 193 was admitted to the facility o...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** b. During a review of Resident 193's admission Order, the admission Record indicated Resident 193 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus, dysphagia (difficulty of swallowing), and epilepsy. During a review of Resident 193's Physician Order Summary Report dated 07/26/2024, indicated to give acetaminophen extra strength (a drug used to treat mild to moderate pain) tablet 500 milligram (mg unit of measurement) by mouth every six hours as needed for moderate pain between 5-7 out of ten (pain rating scale). During a review of Resident 193's Physician Order Summary Report dated on 07/23/2024, indicated to give gabapentin (a class of medications called anticonvulsants to treat seizures by decreasing abnormal excitement in the brain) capsule 300 mg two capsule by mouth three times a day for nerve pain. During a review of Resident 193's Physician Order Summary Report started date on 07/23/2024, it indicated to give Tylenol oral tablet 325 mg one tablet by mouth in the morning for pain management 30 minutes prior to wound treatment. During a review of Nursing Progress Notes dated 07/23/2024 at 8:05 a.m. indicated to give morphine sulfate (narcotic pain medication) oral tablet 15 mg one tablet by mouth two times a day for severe pain of 8-9 out of ten pain scale. During a review of Resident 193's care plan titled The resident has osteoporosis/osteoarthritis (condition in which bones become weak and brittle) and at risk for pain and immobility indicated it was not developed until 07/26/2024. During a review of Resident 193's care plan titled The resident has high risk for pain/discomfort related to osteoarthritis and osteoporosis indicated it was not developed until 07/26/2024. During a review of Resident 193's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 07/2024, indicated that pain medication was not given until 07/23/2024 at 11:39 a.m. During an observation on 07/23/2024 at 8:49 a.m., Resident 193 complained of lower back pain and both hips area. During an interview on 07/26/2024 at 12:16 p.m., the MDS coordinator stated when resident was admitted to the facility, baseline care plan must be generated right away or within forty-eight hours upon admission so that it does not delay provision of care to the resident. During a concurrent interview and record review on 07/26/2024 at 12:19 p.m., with MDS coordinator, reviewed Resident 193's baseline care plan, MDS coordinator confirmed that baseline care plan for pain and discomfort was developed on 07/26/2024 and Resident 193 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. During the review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Nursing Manual-General revised on 01/25/2024, indicated: The facility will initiate a plan of care based on the resident's needs. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, revised November 2018, the P&P indicated The baseline care plan summary will be developed and implemented using the necessary combination of problem specific care plans .since the baseline care plan is developed before the comprehensive assessment, goals and interventions may change. If the comprehensive assessment and the comprehensive care plan identified a change in the resident's goals, or physical, mental or psychosocial functioning, which was not previously identified on the problem specific care plans used for the baseline care plan those changes must be updated on each specific care plan used and incorporated, as applicable, into the initial and/or updated baseline care summary. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement the care plan interventions for two of three sampled residents (Resident 293 and Resident 193). The facility failed to: 1.Implement interventions for smoking for Resident 293. 2.Treat and provide pain medication for Resident 193. These deficient practices had the potential for delayed provision of necessary care and services. a. During a review of the Resident 293's Face Sheet (admission Record), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including osteomyelitis (inflammation or swelling in the bone) of the right ankle and foot, type 2 diabetes mellitus (a condition in which the body fails to metabolize (process) glucose (sugar) correctly with foot ulcer (open sore or lesion that has difficulty healing), difficulty in walking, peripheral vascular disease ([PVD] circulatory condition that is caused by the narrowing of the blood vessels) and hypertension (high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 293's History and Physical (H&P) dated 7/12/2024, indicated Resident 293 has the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 293's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/17/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 293's cognitive skills (ability to think, understand, learn, and remember) were intact. The MDS indicated Resident 293 utilizes a wheelchair and required moderate assistance for toilet hygiene, sit to lying, bathing, and dressing the lower body, required set up for oral hygiene and dressing the upper body, and is dependent on transferring from chair/bed-to-chair. During a record review of Resident 293's Smoking Safety Evaluation dated 7/15/2024, the smoking and safety evaluation indicated supervision was provided when Resident 293 was smoking. During a record review of Resident 293's care plan untitled, initiated on 7/15/2024, the care plan indicated Resident 293 was a smoker. The care plan interventions included observing resident for unsafe smoking behaviors or practices, storage of cigarettes, lighter, and matches as designated, and supervision provided during smoking schedule. During an observation on 7/24/2024 at 2:15p.m. in the rear entrance of the facility, Resident 293 was sitting in his wheelchair close to gate. Resident 293 was observed smoking in a non-smoking area with no staff present. During an interview on 7/26/2024 at 9:47 a.m. with Resident 293, Resident 293 stated he was independent and can smoke on his own, keeps his own cigarettes, and goes smoking out in the back. During an interview on 7/26/2024 10:00 a.m. with Activities Director (AD), AD stated upon admission, if a resident smoke, they will show them the smoking patio and instructed that they cannot keep their smoking paraphernalia. AD stated the Activity staff will keep it in a safe box with the resident's name on it. AD stated there was only one smoking patio and facility staff was always present. AD stated when Resident 239 was informed of where he could smoke, he responded that he was not a child and will smokes in an area that was a non-smoking area. AD stated the risks and benefits of smoking were explained to Resident 293, however, he was noncompliant and carries his cigarettes with himself. AD stated Resident 293 does not have to be supervised as he can light a cigarette and does not have any issues with his hands. During a concurrent interview and record review of the smoking assessment on 7/26/2024 at 10:09 a.m. with AD, AD stated the smoking assessment dated [DATE] indicated supervision was provided during smoking. AD stated despite Resident 293 having the ability to hold cigarettes, he still needs to be supervised as there was a potential to drop ashes to himself. AD stated Resident 293 prefers to smoke in the rear end patio which was nonsmoking area, and no one will be there to supervise Resident 293. During an interview on 7/26/2024 at 1:07 p.m. with AD, AD stated Resident 293 prefers to keep his smoking paraphernalia with himself and facility allows him to keep his items even though that was not the standard practice of the facility. During an interview on 7/26/2024 at 2:52p.m. with Registered Nurse 2 (RNS 2), RNS 2 stated allowing smokers to smoke wherever they want may cause the facility to burn and it was important for residents who smoke to be supervised and smoke in the designated area.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure effective pain management for two of five sam...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record reviews, the facility failed to ensure effective pain management for two of five sampled resident (Resident 441 and Resident 193), by failing to: a. Obtain a physician order for pain medication for moderate pain (pain scale rating from zero to ten [pain screening tool using numerical value to assess the level of pain ranging from 0 to 3-mild pain, from 4 to 6- moderate pain, and from 7 to 9-severe pain, and 10- the worse pain possible]). This deficient practice had the potential to result in insomnia (a sleep disorder with trouble falling asleep, staying asleep, or getting good quality sleep) for Resident 441 b. Administer pain medication in a timely manner as ordered by Resident 193 physician. This failure resulted in Resident 193's to experience unnecessary pain. Findings: During a review of Resident 441's admission Record, the admission Record indicated, Resident 441` was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including displaced fracture (broken bone) of left femur (left thigh bone), pain in left hip, and history of falling. During a review of Resident 441's History and Physical (H&P), dated 7/18/2024, the H&P indicated, Resident had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 441's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]-a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 7/22/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 441 required dependent assistance (helper does all of the effort) from two or more staff for oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, upper body dressing, lower body dressing, putting on/taking off footwear, personal hygiene, roll left and right, sit to lying, lying to sitting on side of bed, sit to stand, chair /bed to chair transfer, and setup or clean up assistance (helper sets up or cleans up and resident completes activity) from one staff for eating. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/23/2024, at 11:28 a.m., with Resident 441 in Resident 441's room, Resident 441 was grimacing (facial expression usually suggesting pain or disgust). Resident 441 stated, she had a fall incident recently and had a surgical procedure on her left hip. Resident 441 stated, she did not have pain if she did not move, but she did have pain when she tried to move her left side. Resident 441 stated, she had high tolerance for pain. Resident 441 stated, pain did not bother her during the daytime, but she could not sleep well because of pain at night at times. Resident 441 stated, she was having left hip pain of six out of ten pain scale, but the night shift nurse did not give her medication. During a review of Resident 441's Physician Order Summary Report, dated 7/25/2024, indicated, to assess for pain every shift and chart intensity of pain using 1-10 numeric pain scale (1-4 = mild pain, 5-7 = moderate pain, 8-9 = severe pain, 10 = excruciating pain) ordered on 7/15/2024. The Physician Order Summary Report indicated, Acetaminophen (over the counter medication for mild pain relieve) 325 milligrams (mg- unit of measurement) two tablets by mouth every six hours as needed for mild pain (0-4 pain, ordered 7/15/2024) and Tramadol HCL (pain medication to treat severe pain and inflammation) 50 mg one table by mouth every 12 hours as needed for severe pain (8-9 pain) ordered on 7/23/2024. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/26/2024, at 10:01 a.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) 2, Resident 441's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated 7/2024 was reviewed. The MAR indicated, pain level of zero was documented from 7/15/2024 to 7/25/2024. The MAR indicated, Acetaminophen was given on 5/17/2024 and 5/23/2024 for pain scale of four (mild pain) and documented it was effective. The MAR indicated, Toradol was not given from 7/15/2024 to 7/25/2024. RNS 2 stated, Resident 441 had complained about left hip pain scale of eight out of ten on 7/23/2024 and Toradol was offered but refused. RNS 2 stated, Resident 441 took Acetaminophen instead. RNS 2 stated, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) should have documented as refused and documented the reason of refusal. RNS 2 stated, LVN should have documented pain level of eight instead of four. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/26/2024, at 10:55 a.m., with RNS 2, a copy of text message between RNS 2 and primary physician, dated 7/23/2024 was reviewed. The text message indicated, RNS 2 reported Resident 441 was having pain scale of eight out of ten and only Acetaminophen for mild pain was available to give. The text message indicated, RNS 2 stated, Acetaminophen was not effective and primary physician ordered Tramadol for sever pain (pain scale of 8-9). RNS 2 stated, she should have documented in the note regarding this text message between her and the physician, but she did not. RNS 2 stated, she should have asked the physician for pain medication for moderate pain to cover all level of pain for effective pain management. RNS 2 stated, if the pain was not managed effectively, it would affect resident's quality of life negatively because the resident's activity of daily living (ADL) would decline and quality of sleep at night would decline, also. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/26/2024, at 11:20 a.m., with Director of Staff Development (DSD), Resident 441's Care Plan (CP), dated 7/16/2024 was reviewed. The CP Focus indicated, The resident is on pain medication therapy related to left hip fracture (broken bone). The CP interventions including Administer Analgesic (medication to relieve pain) medications as ordered by physician. Monitor and document side effects and effectiveness every shift. Review (every four hours) for pain medication efficacy. Assess whether pain intensity is acceptable to resident, no treatment regimen or change in regimen required. DSD stated, staff should have provided pain medication as ordered and there was no need to offer both medications because they had different parameters to follow. DSD stated, RNS 2 should have documented her communication with physician in progress note and obtained the order for pain medication for moderate pain. DSD stated pain management was important because it affects all aspects of resident's daily life. During an interview on 7/26/2024, at 12:11 p.m., with Director of Nursing (DON), DON stated, effective pain management was important to improve and maintain quality of life for residents because it affects all aspects of their lives. DON stated, all levels of pain should be covered by different pain medications for effective pain management. b. During a review of Resident 193's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 193 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), dysphagia (difficulty of swallowing), and epilepsy. During a review of Nursing Progress Notes dated 07/23/2024 at 8:05 a.m. indicated to give morphine sulfate (narcotic pain medication) oral tablet 15 mg one tablet by mouth two times a day for severe pain of 8-9 out of ten pain scale. During an observation on 07/23/2024 at 8:49 a.m., Resident 193 complained of lower back pain and both hips area. During an interview on 07/23/2024 at 9:13 a.m., the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 1) stated the pain medication did not arrive yet and still waiting for physician to approve it. LVN 1 stated that emergency kit (a small supply of medications that can be dispensed when pharmacy services are not available) medication can be utilize if available. During an interview on 07/25/2024 at 12:26 p.m., the Registered Nurse (RN 1) stated that pain medications must be given before it gets worst so that it would take effect right away. During an interview on 07/26/2024 at 11:35 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated pain medication must be given if it was available in the emergency kit and must be documented. During a review of Resident 193's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for 07/2024, indicated that pain medication was not given until 07/23/2024 at 11:39 a.m. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Pain Management, revised 5/25/2023, the P&P indicated, 1. Pain Assessment: a. A pain assessment will be completed for each resident upon admission, quarterly, when there is a new onset of pain, exacerbation of pain, or when there is a significant change in status .2. Pain Management: a. The Licensed Nurse will administer pain medication as ordered and document medication administered on the Medication Administration Record (MAR) . d. If there is a new onset of pain, if the pain has changed in nature, or the pain has not been relieved with current medication, the Licensed Nurse will notify the Attending Physician. In addition: i. The IDT will review the residents Pain Management and make changes to the care plan as needed. ii. The Licensed Nurse will notify the resident/responsible party regarding new pain medication orders.
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

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were dated, properly sealed, refrigerate...

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 foods were dated, properly sealed, refrigerated after opening per manufacturer's recommendation, and discarded before the used by date (expiration dates) for 91 out 93 total residents. This failure placed residents at risk for developing foodborne illness (food poisoning: any illness resulting from the food spoilage from contaminated food with germs) which can cause symptoms including upset stomach, stomach cramps, nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and fever, and can lead to other serious medical complications and hospitalization. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/23/2024, at 8:22 a.m., with Dietary Manager (DM), in dry storage room [ROOM NUMBER], there were food items that were not dated, properly sealed, refrigerated after opening per manufacturer's recommendation, and discarded before the used by date as follows: a. Opened and used lemon juice in a plastic bottle with Receiving Date (RD- the day of delivery) of 7/5/2024, no Open Date (OD), and no Used By (UB). It should be refrigerated after opening per manufacturer's recommendation. b. Opened and used sesame oil in a bottle with RD of 3/1/2024, OD 3/13/2024, and no UB. c. Opened and used Italian dressing in a plastic bottle with RD of 7/19/2024, OD 7/22/2023, and no UB. It should be refrigerated after opening per manufacturer's recommendation. d. Opened and used penne pasta with no RD, OD of 7/15/2024, UB of 7/17/2024. It was expired according to its label. e. Opened and used orzo pasta in an unsealed zip lock bag with no RD, OD of 7/15/2024, UB 7/17/2024. It was expired according to its label. f. Opened and used marshmallows in an unsealed bag with RD 3/1/2024, no OD, and no UB. g. Opened and used soy source in a bottle with no RD, OD of 7/15/2024, UB 7/17/2024. It was expired according to its label, and it should be refrigerated after opening per manufacturer's recommendation. DM stated, all food items should have been labeled with receiving date when the facility got delivery from vendors. DM stated, all food items should have open date and used by date (expiration date). DM stated, it was all dietary staff (including herself) responsibility to check all food items for labels, dates, properly stored and sealed. DM stated, all expired items should have been discarded. DM stated these practices were important to make sure all food items were in good condition because the residents consumed these food items. DM stated, she would provide in-service for dry food storage guidelines, because once the food items were opened, there should be different shelf life (a time limit on how long a product can be stored before it becomes unsuitable for consumption or use). DM stated, all staff should refer Dry Goods Storage Guidelines for shelf life after opening and labeled UB date on food items. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/23/2024, at 8:44 a.m., with DM, in the kitchen, there was opened and used liquid coffee creamer in a plastic bottle with no RD, no OD, and UB of 7/23/2024 in the refrigerator #1. DM stated, all food items should be dated, and dietary staff should follow Refrigerated Storage Guide to ensure safety of perishable items that required refrigeration. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/23/2024, at 8:52 a.m., with DM, in the kitchen, there was opened and used hash browns in a bag with RD of 7/8/2024, no OD, and UB of 7/8/2025 in the freezer #1. DM stated, dietary staff should follow Freezer Storage Guideline to ensure safety of perishable (spoil quickly and therefore have a short shelf life) items in freezer. DM stated, all items should be dated per policy and procedure. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Food Storage, revised 7/25/2019, the P&P indicated, Policy: Food items will be stored, thawed, and prepared in accordance with standard sanitary practices. All items will be correctly labeled and dated .13. Dry Storage Area .g. Place opened products in storage containers with tight fitting lids. h. Label and date all storage products. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Dry Goods Storage Guidelines, dated 2023, the P&P indicated, lemon juice should be refrigerated after opening. The P&P indicated, shelf life (the period during which a material may be stored and remain suitable for use) for sesame oil was three months after opening. The P&P indicated, bottled salad dressing should be refrigerated after opening. The P&P indicated, shelf life for dry pasta was one year after opening. The P&P stated shelf life for marshmallows were one month after opening. The P&P indicated that soy source should be refrigerated after opening. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Refrigerated Storage Guide, dated 2023, the P&P indicated, liquid coffee creamer should be used by three weeks after delivery. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Freezer Storage Guidelines, dated 2023, the P&P indicated, length of time in freezer for hashbrowns was one year.
CONCERN (F)

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

Deficiency F0947 (Tag F0947)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all facility staff were provided with five hours of dementia (diseases that affect memory and thinking) training annual...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure all facility staff were provided with five hours of dementia (diseases that affect memory and thinking) training annually. This failure had the potential to result in residents with dementia being neglected and not provided with resident centered, comprehensive care. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/26/2024 at 11:54 a.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated, all facility staff are to be in-serviced on dementia training two hours upon hire and six hours annually to prevent residents with dementia from being neglected or abused. During an interview on 7/26/2024 at 3:24 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated it was important to provide dementia training to all facility staff to prevent nurse burnout and to educate staff on how to care for residents who are at a higher risk of being started on unnecessary medications. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Dementia Care revised on October 2017, indicated, all staff will complete the two-hour dementia specific training within the first (40) hours of employment. All staff will complete a minimum of 5 hours of Dementia specific in-service training per year, as part of the facility's ongoing staff education program. a. Attendance at the in-service will be documented and maintained in each employee's personal file. b. The 2 hours of dementia specific training that is completed as part of orientation is not included in the five (5) hours off annual dementia- specific training.
May 2024 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of seven sampled residents (Resident 6) was treated with dignity and respect by assisting Resident 6 to use the toilet in a time...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of seven sampled residents (Resident 6) was treated with dignity and respect by assisting Resident 6 to use the toilet in a timely manner. This failure left Resident 6 feeling frustrated because she had to crawl her way to the toilet to prevent herself from having an incontinence in her bed. Findings: During a review of Resident 6's admission Record (Face sheet), the Face sheet indicated Resident 6 was admitted at the facility on 3/26/2024 with a diagnosis including asthma (a condition in which the airways narrow and swell, produce extra mucus that can result to difficulty in breathing/ shortness of breath, trigger coughing and a wheezing or whistling sound during breathing out), diabetes mellitus (a serious condition when the blood glucose, also known as blood sugar is too high) and morbid obesity (a condition in which a person's weight is higher than what is healthy for their height and can increase the risk of the person's risk for many health problems). During a review of Resident 6's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 4/2/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 6 was able to make decisions that were reasonable despite periods of disorientation, was dependent to two- persons assist to complete her activities of daily living such as dressing, bathing, hygiene, toileting, and was occasionally incontinent (loss of control) of her bladder and bowel functions. During a review of Resident 6's SBAR (Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation) dated 5/6/2024, the SBAR indicated Resident 6 she crawled out of bed on a Saturday morning (5/4/2024) at 1 a.m., to go to the bathroom. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 11:38 a.m., Resident 6 stated she pressed the call light and was waiting for the nurses to assist her to the toilet. Resident 6 stated she had to lower down her bed, crawl her way to the restroom and she was scared that she could have hurt or fell in the bathroom. Resident 6 stated she did not want to wet herself and although she felt ashamed and frustrated, she had to do what she had to do. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 1:19 p.m., Certified Nursing Assistant 6 (CNA 6) stated Resident 6 was always patient to wait for her turn to be assisted with her activities of daily living. CNA 6 stated Resident 6 must have waited for a while for assistance that she decided to crawl to use the toilet and that was undignified. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 1:30 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 7 (LVN 7) LVN 7 stated there was a lack of assistance for Resident 6 to decide to crawl to use the toilet and such can cause Resident 6 to feel frustrated and humiliated. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 1:52 p.m., Registered Nurse Supervisor 1 (RNS 1) stated Resident 6 must have felt helpless, shamed, and undignified crawling to use the toilet. During an interview and record review on 5/28/2024 at 2:10 p.m., Social Service Director (SSD) confirmed Resident 6 filed a grievance about the lack of assistance from the nursing staff and her decision to crawl to use the toilet. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 3:23 p.m., the Administrator (ADM) stated it must be an unpleasant and undignified experience for Resident 6 to crawl to use the toilet and should never have happened. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) on Resident Rights revised 1/1/2012, the P/P indicated all residents must be treated with respect and dignity. During a review of the facility' Policy and Procedure (P/P) on Resident Rights-Accommodation of Needs revised 1/1/2012, the P/P indicated the facility must provide an environment and services that meet the residents' needs to assist the resident in achieving independent functioning and maintaining the residents' dignity and well-being.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to supervise two of seven sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 6...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to supervise two of seven sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 6). A. The facility failed to ensure Resident 1 did not leave the facility premises unsupervised and without the staff knowledge and this failure had the potential for Resident 1 to be exposed to elements of extreme weather conditions, traffic accident, safety/ fall incident and/or be subjected to any forms assault (physical attack) which could be detrimental to her health and well-being. B. The facility failed to ensure Resident 6 was assisted to use the toilet in a timely manner. This failure left Resident 6 feeling frustrated because she had to crawl her way to the toilet to prevent herself from having an incontinence in her bed. Findings: A. During a review of Resident 1's admission record (Face sheet), the Face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted at the facility on 4/13/2023 with a diagnosis including diabetes mellitus (a disease that occurs when the blood glucose, also known as the blood sugar, is too high), osteoporosis (a disease in which the bones become fragile and more likely to break), hypertension (a condition of a high or raised blood pressure when the blood is pumping with more force than normal through the arteries) and dementia (the loss of cognitive functioning such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning to such extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 5/14/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had able to make decisions despite periods of disorientation (forgetfulness) and uncooperativeness to care and required supervision with one- person assist to complete her activities of daily living such as dressing, bathing, hygiene, toileting, bed mobility (turning and repositioning) and transferring from chair/bed to chair. During a review of Resident 1's care plan (CP) on The Resident has Diabetes Mellitus undated, the CP indicated a goal for Resident 1 to be free from signs and symptoms of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar level) and hypoglycemia (low blood sugar level) and complications related to diabetes. The CP indicated the following interventions for Resident 1 avoid exposure to extreme heat or cold. During a review of Resident 1's undated care plan (CP) on The Resident has impaired cognitive function/dementia or impaired thought processes the CP indicated a goal for Resident 1 to develop skills to cope with cognitive decline and maintain safety. The CP interventions indicated for Resident 1to be supervised, as needed. During a review of Resident 1's Progress Notes dated 5/21/2024 at 5 a.m., the Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was nowhere to be found at 4:18 a.m. in the dining room. The Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was alert to self and her situation and was confused, and she left the facility unwitnessed. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 5:58 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant 3 (CNA 3) stated Resident 1, who was disoriented and was confused at times, has been up in her wheelchair in the dining room since 10:30 p.m. and she checked on Resident 1 every 40 minutes. CNA 3 stated at 3 a.m. on 5/21/2024, Resident 1 was nowhere to be found and Resident 1 left her wheelchair in the dining room. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 was ambulatory. CNA3 stated she did not hear any door alarming that night. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 6:17 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 (LVN 3) stated Resident 1 was ambulatory, alert to self and her situation but had periods of forgetfulness. LVN 3 stated Resident 1 likes to stay up in the dining room watching television and usually goes to sleep at 3 a.m. LVN 3 stated Resident 1 was allowed to stay in the dining room by herself because the CNA checks on her every hour and the alarm system was working; therefore, Resident 1 was safe. LVN 3 stated she did not hear any door alarming that night and she was concerned of how Resident 1 was able to leave the facility premises because it was dangerous for Resident 1 to be out there by herself. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 8:48 a.m., Dietary Supervisor (DS) stated he and another facility staff found Resident 1, approximately 7 miles away from the facility, sitting under a tree wearing her personal clothes and a pair of socks. DS stated Resident 1 stated she was hungry, and a restaurant gave her something to eat, and she refused to go back to the facility. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 9:01 a.m., Assistant Director of Rehab (DAR) stated he was with DS when they both saw Resident 1 was looking more confused than usual, sitting by a tree wearing only a pair of socks and her personal clothes. DAR stated Resident 1 was not in a safe situation because she was exposed to weather elements and could also step on sharp objects and get injured. DAR stated Resident 1 was not in her right mind and could have been assaulted or could have unsafely cross a busy street. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 10:34 a.m., Minimum Data Set Registered Nurse (RN MDS) stated Resident 1 cognition was moderately impaired and needed supervision to complete her activities of daily living. RN MDS stated Resident 1, given her diagnosis, should have been often supervised and checked for safety reasons. RN MDS stated with all of Resident 1's preexisting conditions and her being out of the facility by herself, she could have suffered complications from fluctuations of blood sugar levels and blood pressure, accidents such as a fall and/or motor vehicular demise which she could have incurred an injury, extreme cold and extreme heat, and subjected to any forms of assault. RN MDS stated the residents' safety was a must. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 11:20 a.m., the Administrator (ADM) stated Resident 1 could have been unsafe out there because of her diagnosis and her vulnerability. The ADM stated the facility was responsible of all the residents' safety. B. During a review of Resident 6's admission Record (Face sheet), the Face sheet indicated Resident 6 was admitted at the facility on 3/26/2024 with a diagnosis including asthma (a condition in which the airways narrow and swell, produce extra mucus that can result to difficulty in breathing/ shortness of breath, trigger coughing and a wheezing or whistling sound during breathing out), diabetes mellitus (a serious condition when the blood glucose, also known as blood sugar is too high) and morbid obesity (a condition in which a person's weight is higher than what is healthy for their height and can increase the risk of the person's risk for many health problems). During a review of Resident 6's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 6 was able to make decisions that were reasonable despite periods of disorientation, was dependent to two- persons assist to complete her activities of daily living, such as dressing, bathing, hygiene, toileting, and transferring from chair/bed to chair and was occasionally incontinent (loss of control) of her bladder and bowel functions. During a review of Resident 6's SBAR (Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation), dated 5/6/2024, the SBAR indicated Resident 6 she crawled out of bed on a Saturday morning (5/4/2024) at 1 a.m., to go to the bathroom. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 11:38 a.m., Resident 6 stated she pressed the call light and was waiting for the nurses to assist her to the toilet. Resident 6 stated she had to lower down her bed, crawl her way to the restroom and she was scared that she could have hurt or fell in the bathroom. Resident 6 stated she did not want to wet herself and although she felt ashamed and frustrated, she had to do what she had to do. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 1:19 p.m., Certified Nursing Assistant 6 (CNA 6) stated Resident 6 was always patient to wait for her turn to be assisted with her activities of daily living. CNA 6 stated Resident 6 needed assistance to get up from the bed to use the Front Wheel [NAME] (a mobility aid to help a person to walk steadily) to use the toilet. CNA 6 stated Resident 6 must have waited for a while for assistance that she decided to crawl to use the toilet unsupervised. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 1:30 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 7 (LVN 7) LVN 7 stated there was a lack of assistance for Resident 6 to decide to crawl to use the toilet. LVN 7 stated the nursing staff at all shifts, whether there are call lights or not, must perform resident rounds as frequently as possible to identify residents' safety risks, changes in condition, anticipate the residents' needs and prevent complications. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 1:52 p.m., Registered Nurse Supervisor 1 (RNS 1), the nursing staff must assist the residents with their activities of daily living to prevent a fall and/or other injuries. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 3 p.m., the Director of Nursing Services (DON) stated Resident 6 was a high risk for fall and the nursing staff should have aided Resident 6 in a timely manner. The DON stated the facility staff were advocates of the residents' safety and well-being. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 3:23 p.m., the Administrator stated there was no excuse for Resident 6 to be unsupervised with her needs because the facility is operating 24 hours and the nursing staff are skilled and trained to render timely and quality care to the residents. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) on Resident Safety, revised 4/15/2021, the P/P indicated the facility should provide a safe environment for the residents and to ensure the safety and well-being of the residents, the staff must perform a resident check every 2 hours around the clock or more frequent safety checks depending on the person- centered care plan to prevent an unsafe situation. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) on Communication- Call System revised 1/1/2012, the P/P indicated the call system is a mechanism for residents to promptly communicate with the nursing staff and the nursing staff are expected to promptly answer the residents call lights.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0745 (Tag F0745)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of seven sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 6) w...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of seven sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 6) were provided psychological (emotional and mental state) assessment and follow-up when: a. Resident 1 left the facility unnoticed and was found by facility staff under a tree with bare minimum clothes and no shoes, and b. Resident 6 crawled on the floor to use the toilet when there was no supervision provided for Resident 6. This failure had the potential to result in the residents' unmet psychosocial needs and concerns which could potentially affect their quality of life. Findings: A. During a review of Resident 1's admission record (Face sheet), the Face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted at the facility on 4/13/2023 with a diagnosis including diabetes mellitus (a disease that occurs when the blood glucose, also known as the blood sugar, is too high), osteoporosis (a disease in which the bones become fragile and more likely to break), hypertension (a condition of a high or raised blood pressure when the blood is pumping with more force than normal through the arteries) and dementia (the loss of cognitive functioning such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning to such extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 5/14/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had able to make decisions despite periods of disorientation (forgetfulness) and uncooperativeness to care and required supervision with one- person assist to complete her activities of daily living such as dressing, bathing, hygiene, toileting, bed mobility (turning and repositioning) and transferring from chair/bed to chair. During a review of Resident 1's Progress Notes dated 5/21/2024 at 5 a.m., the Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was nowhere to be found at 4:18 a.m. in the dining room. The Progress Notes indicated Resident 1 was alert to self but was confused, and she left the facility unwitnessed. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 8:48 a.m., Dietary Supervisor (DS) stated he and another facility staff found Resident 1, approximately 7 miles away from the facility, sitting under a tree wearing her personal clothes and a pair of socks. DS stated Resident 1 stated she was hungry, and a restaurant gave her something to eat, and she refused to go back to the facility. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 9:01 a.m., Assistant Director of Rehab (DAR) stated he was with DS when they both saw Resident 1 was looking more confused than usual, sitting by a tree wearing only a pair of socks and her personal clothes. DAR stated Resident 1 was not in a safe situation because she was exposed to weather elements and could also step on sharp objects and get injured. DAR stated Resident 1 was not in her right mind and could have been assaulted or could have unsafely cross a busy street. During an interview and record review on 5/24/2024 at 9:46 a.m., Social Services Director stated she found Resident 1 in the street unaccompanied but Resident 1 was alert and coherent (the state of being logical/making sense and not confused) and refused to go back to the facility. SSD confirmed there was no psychosocial assessment and support provided and documented for Resident 1. SSD stated it was part of her job to provide residents with psychosocial management and/or support and offer services to meet their quality of life. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 10:34 a.m., Minimum Data Set Registered Nurse (RN MDS) stated the facility staff must also ensure that the psychosocial and holistic aspect of the residents have been addressed because it must be traumatizing for Resident 1 to be out there by herself exposed to all kinds of danger and weather elements. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 11:20 a.m., the Administrator (ADM) stated she sent the SSD to where Resident 1 was located to ensure an emotional and psychological support was offered and provided to Resident 1. B. During a review of Resident 6's admission Record (Face sheet), the Face sheet indicated Resident 6 was admitted at the facility on 3/26/2024 with a diagnosis including asthma (a condition in which the airways narrow and swell, produce extra mucus that can result to difficulty in breathing/ shortness of breath, trigger coughing and a wheezing or whistling sound during breathing out), diabetes mellitus (a serious condition when the blood glucose, also known as blood sugar is too high) and morbid obesity (a condition in which a person's weight is higher than what is healthy for their height and can increase the risk of the person's risk for many health problems). During a review of Resident 6's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 6 was able to make decisions that were reasonable despite periods of disorientation, was dependent to two- persons assist to complete her activities of daily living, such as dressing, bathing, hygiene, toileting, and transferring from chair/bed to chair and was occasionally incontinent (loss of control) of her bladder and bowel functions. During a review of Resident 6's SBAR (Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation) dated 5/6/2024, the SBAR indicated Resident 6 she crawled out of bed on a Saturday morning (5/4/2024) at 1 a.m., to go to the bathroom. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 11:38 a.m., Resident 6 stated she pressed the call light and was waiting for the nurses for an hour to assist her to the toilet. Resident 6 stated she had to lower down her bed, crawl her way to the restroom and she was scared that she could have hurt or fell in the bathroom. Resident 6 stated she did not want to wet herself and although she felt ashamed and frustrated, she had to do what she had to do. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 1:52 p.m., Registered Nurse Supervisor 1 (RNS 1) stated Resident 6 must have felt helpless, shamed, and undignified crawling to use the toilet. During an interview and record review on 5/28/2024 at 2:10 p.m., Social Service Director (SSD) confirmed Resident 6 filed a grievance about the lack of assistance from the nursing staff and her decision to crawl to use the toilet. SSD confirmed and stated she did not provide and document a psychosocial assessment and follow-up for Resident 6. SSD stated she was an advocate for the residents, and she should address and provide psychological assistance and/ or referrals for residents who might need it. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 3:23 p.m., the Administrator (ADM) stated it must be an unpleasant and undignified experience for Resident 6 to crawl to use the toilet. The ADM stated the SSD has an important role in making sure the residents' concerns and grievances are addressed and psychological assessments are conducted, and services offered to ensure the residents' emotional needs are provided. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) on Social Service Assessment revised 12/1/2013, the P/P indicated a social service assessment must be conducted to address the residents' psychosocial needs. During a review of the facility's Job Description Manual on Social Service Coordinator Job Description the Job Description indicated the Social Service Coordinator must ensure the residents' psychosocial and concrete needs are identified and met in accordance with the federal, state and company requirements and must assess the psychosocial, mental, and emotional needs of the residents.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the alarm system located at the rear entrance/exit door of the building was functioning properly. This failure has resu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the alarm system located at the rear entrance/exit door of the building was functioning properly. This failure has resulted in the elopement (resident leaving premises without knowledge of staff) of one of seven sampled residents (Resident 1) which could have negatively caused Resident 1 her safety and well-being. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission record (Face sheet), the Face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted at the facility on 4/13/2023 with a diagnosis including diabetes mellitus (a disease that occurs when the blood glucose, also known as the blood sugar, is too high), osteoporosis (a disease in which the bones become fragile and more likely to break), hypertension (a condition of a high or raised blood pressure when the blood is pumping with more force than normal through the arteries) and dementia (the loss of cognitive functioning such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning to such extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 5/14/2024, the MDS indicated Resident 1 was able to make decisions despite periods of disorientation (forgetfulness) and uncooperativeness to care and required supervision with one- person assist to complete her activities of daily living (ADL), such as dressing, bathing, hygiene, toileting, bed mobility (turning and repositioning) and transferring from chair/bed to chair. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 5:58 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant 3 (CNA 3) stated Resident 1 was disoriented and was confused at times. CNA3 stated Resident 1 has been up in her wheelchair in the dining room since 10:30 p.m. and she (CNA3) checked on Resident 1 every 40 minutes. CNA 3 stated at 3 a.m. on 5/21/2024, Resident 1 was nowhere to be found and she left her wheelchair in the dining room. CNA 3 stated Resident 1 was ambulatory. CNA 3 stated she was not sure if Resident 1 was allowed to stay in the dining room by herself. CNA3 stated she did not hear any door alarming that night. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 6:17 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 (LVN 3) stated Resident 1 was ambulatory, alert to self and her situation and had periods of forgetfulness. LVN 3 stated Resident 1 likes to stay up in the dining room watching television and usually goes to sleep at 3 a.m. LVN 3 stated Resident 1 was allowed to stay in the dining room by herself because the CNA checks on her every hour and the alarm system was working; therefore, Resident 1 was safe. LVN 3 stated she did not hear any door alarming that night and she was concerned of how Resident 1 was able to leave the facility premises because it was dangerous for Resident 1 to be out there by herself. LVN 3 stated the alarm system should be working properly because there were residents who were forgetful and might leave the facility and it was the staff responsibility to ensure their safety. During an interview on 5/24/2024 at 6:39 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse 4 (LVN 4) stated 2 weeks ago, the batteries of the alarm system of the rear entrance exit door have started to come off loose due to a broken back cover. LVN 4 stated damaged alarm system can cause malfunction and the residents to be unprotected which could also lead the residents to leave the facility unnoticed. During an observation and interview on 5/24/2025 at 9:03 a.m., Maintenance Supervisor (MS) confirmed the alarm system at the rear entrance and exit door was wrapped in a black tape and stated the tape was not secure enough and could cause the batteries of the alarm system to fall off. MS stated the batteries of the alarm must be secured by a cover to ensure the batteries were in place, thus, preventing a malfunction. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 2:51 p.m., the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated the alarms were instituted in the facility for the residents and staff safety and the alarm system's integrity must be repaired immediately. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 3 p.m., the Director of Nursing Services (DON) stated it was everyone's responsibility in the facility to ensure the alarm system is fixed and working properly. During an interview on 5/28/2024 at 3:23 p.m., the Administrator (ADM) stated the alarm system was an added protection and was part of safe and homelike environment to ensure the residents whereabouts are located. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) on Resident Rooms and Environment revised 1/1/2012, the P/P indicated the facility must provide the residents with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. During a review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P/P) on Entrance to and Exit from the Facility revised 1/1/2012, the P/P indicated the facility must provide a safe environment for the residents, visitors and staff while maintaining the rights of the residents.
Feb 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

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 Identify and to intervene for one of three sampled re...

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 Identify and to intervene for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) with a history of trauma and triggers which may cause re-traumatization. This failure resulted in Resident 1 feeling anxious and re-traumatized by Resident 2 during smoking breaks at the smoking patio. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last admission was 1/24/2024. Resident 1 ' s diagnosis included paranoid schizophrenia (a pattern of behavior where a person feels distrustful and suspicious of other people and acts accordingly. Delusions and hallucinations are the two symptoms that can involve paranoia), anxiety disorder (disorder involves persistent and excessive worry that interferes with daily activities), osteoarthritis (a chronic disease causing the deterioration of the cartilage within a joint), and epilepsy (A disorder in which nerve cell activity in the brain is disturbed, causing seizures). During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 1/26/2024, the H&P indicated, Resident 1 has the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care planning tool, dated 12/21/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 required dependent assistance (helper does all of the effort) from two or more staff with shower, maximal assistance (helper does more than half the effort) from one staff with toileting hygiene, dressing, moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort)from one staff with personal hygiene, and touching assistance (helper set up or cleans up. Resident completed activity) for bed mobility, transfer. During a review of Resident 2 ' s admission record, the admission record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 2 ' s diagnosis included left cerebral infarction (blood supply to the left side of the brain is stopped. The left side of the brain is in charge of the right side of the body), muscle weakness and dysphagia (difficulty swallowing). During a review of Resident 2 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 7/28/2023, the H&P indicated, Resident 2 has the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 2 ' s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2 required dependent assistance (helper does all the effort) from two or more staff with shower, toileting hygiene, moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort) from one staff with dressing, personal hygiene, and touching assistance (helper set up or cleans up. Resident completed activity) for bed mobility, transfer and independent for eating. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Social Service Note (SSN),dated 1/25/2024, the SSN indicated, Adult Protective Service ([APS]- an agency to help elder adults (60 years and older) and dependent adults (18-59 who are disabled), when these adults are unable to meet their own needs, or are victims of abuse, neglect or exploitation) social worker reported to the facility Social Service Director (SSD) regarding Resident 2 touched Resident 1 ' s leg inappropriately, but Resident 1 could not report to anyone because of her past trauma with her step-father. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Care Plan (CP), dated from 1/2024 to 2/1/2024, the CP indicated, there was no care plan initiated or updated for trauma informed care (recognizes and responds to the signs, symptoms, and risks of trauma to better support the health needs of residents). During a record review of Resident 1 ' s Multidisciplinary Care Conference (MCC), dated from 1/25/2024, the MCC does not indicate that there was documentation regarding Resident 1 ' s trauma. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/1/2024, at 9:28 a.m., with Resident 1, in Resident 1 ' s room, Resident 1 was sitting on edge of her bed and shaking her legs. Resident 1 kept looking out the window and asking if someone was outside of her window. Resident 1 stated, she was laying on the grey couch near the reception area and Resident 2 offered massaging her right leg when she complained about pain. Resident 1 stated, Resident 2 triggered her past abuse from her stepfather and made her anxious. During an interview on 2/1/2024, at 10:55 a.m., with Activity Director (AD), AD stated, she did not know about Resident 1 ' s past trauma and current incident with Resident 2. AD stated, it was important to know about this information to prevent further triggers for Resident 1. During an observation on 2/1/2024, at 11:20 a.m., in the outside patio for designated smoking area, Resident 2 was smoking near the door and Resident 1 was smoking near the wall of the building. Resident 2 was looking down and started shaking her left leg until she finished. During an interview on 2/1/2024at 11:30 a.m., with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated, her trauma triggered again by seeing and being in the common area with Resident 2 during the smoking break. Resident 1 stated, she felt nervous and anxious. During an interview on 2/1/2024at 12:10 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN)1, LVN 1 stated, she heard about the incident between Resident 1 and 2, but she did not hear about details. LVN 1 stated, she did not know about Resident 1 ' s trauma and did not initiate the care plan for trauma. LVN 1 stated, she did not receive any in-service regarding trauma informed care. LVN 1 stated, it was important to know about Resident 1 ' s triggers for trauma to prevent re-traumatization. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/1/2024at 12:30 p.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS)1, Resident 1 ' s Care Plan (CP), dated from 1/2024 to 2/1/2024 was reviewed. The CP indicated, there was no care plan initiated or updated for trauma. RNS 1 stated, all care plans should be on electronical care plan, and he did not see any paper care plan in the chart. RNS 1 stated, he did not know about Resident 1 ' s trauma. RNS 1 stated, he did not remember receiving in-service regarding trauma informed care. RNS 1 stated, it would be helpful to receive in-service for trauma informed care, because he was not familiar with that, and it was important to know how to care for the residents with trauma for promoting mental well-being. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/1/2024at 1:04 p.m., with Social Service Director (SSD), Resident 1 ' s Trauma Informed Care Assessment ([[NAME]]-SS-03 Form B-Screen form for trauma), dated 1/25/2024 was reviewed. The [NAME] indicated, Resident 1 had traumatic experience, but total score was left blank. The [NAME] indicated, total score is the sum of Yes responses in items one through five. SSD stated, the score should have been one. SSD stated, she believed she did Social Service Assessment (Psychosocial Assessment, SS-03 Form A), but she was not able to provide the evidence. SSD stated, she did initiate the trauma care plan in paper form but could not explain why she did not initiate the care plan in Point Click Care ([PCC]-the cloud-based healthcare software for Electronic Health Record). SSD stated, she believed she spoke to nursing staff regarding trauma, but she did not remember who she spoke to. SSD stated, she did not realize both residents were taking smoke break together. SSD stated, she was not sure about Resident 2 ' s presence being trigger for Resident 1. During an interview on 2/1/2024, at 1:34 p.m., with Director of Staff Development (DSD), DSD stated, he did not remember if he provided in-service for staff regarding trauma informed care. DSD stated, he did not have any document to prove. DSD stated, he should have provided in-service for trauma informed care. During an interview on 2/1/2024, at 4:30 p.m. with Administrator (ADM), ADM stated, staff were not familiar with trauma informed care and the facility should have provided education and in-services. ADM stated, trauma care plan should have initiated on PCC to easier access. ADM stated, she did have Interdisciplinary team meetings ([IDT]- an essential part of collaborative care, where physicians, nurses, therapists, social workers, and other professionals work together to plan and coordinate patient care) and SSD did fill out Social Service Assessment this afternoon. ADM stated, they should have done this right after the incident to provide better care for Resident 1 ' s mental well-being. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Trauma Informed Care: Screening, Training and Care Integration Program, revised 6/28/2019, the P&P indicated, Policy: The facility will ensure residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma informed care; account for resident experience and preferences to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident. Procedure .Trauma Assessment and Screening: A Trauma Screen Tool (SS-03 Form B) will be completed by Social Services upon admission. A Trauma Informed Care plan will be initiated if a positive response on the Trauma Screen indicates a need for specialized care planning and intervention . Social Services staff shall also explore and discuss a history of Trauma during the completion of the Initial Psychosocial Assessment (55-03 Form A- Social Services Assessment) . Activity Staff will complete the Because We care booklet to gather information regarding a resident's life story, daily routine, and other relevant aspects of his/her life to help the staff better understand the resident as an individual with emotions and preferences for care. The IDT will meet to discuss the results of the Trauma Informed Screen document and implement a plan of care to address potential Trauma Triggers and prevent re-traumatization. Trauma-informed interventions are interdisciplinary and must look at all aspects of care; including the environment, relationships, and care delivery . Staff Education Regarding Trauma-informed Care: Staff will be educated as to the specific needs of residents who have experienced trauma; these individuals often need support and understanding from the staff and care givers. Re-traumatization means unintentionally causing harm through practices, policies, and/or activities that are insensitive to the needs of the resident. Interventions should help residents learn to manage their feelings more effectively and make better decisions regarding responses to various situations. During a review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled, Social Service Coordinator Job Description, undated, the P&P indicated, Principal Responsibilities: Clinical/ Administrative . · Provide Trauma Informed Care Screenings and Training per regulatory guidelines.
Oct 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse for one of one resident (Resident 1),...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse for one of one resident (Resident 1), when Resident 1 filed a grievance (a complaint that may or may not be justified) on 7/12/2023 with the Social Services Director (SSD) alleging Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 inappropriately touched her (Resident 1). This deficient practice delayed California Department of Public Health (CDPH) investigation and had the potential to result in further abuse to go unreported. Findings During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses including diabetes (high blood sugar in the blood) and morbid obesity (more than 80 to 100 pounds above their ideal body weight). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 7/24/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 was cognitively (thinking) intact and required extensive assistance from two staff members to complete activities of daily living ([ADLs] tasks related to personal care). During an interview on 10/23/2023 at 10:54 a.m. with family member 1 (FM 1), FM 1 stated Resident 1 informed FM 1 about an incident where a CNA 1 applied lotion to her (Resident 1 ' s) vagina. FM 1 stated Resident 1 believed the incident was reported CDPH by the Director of Staff Development (DSD). During an interview on 10/23/2023 at 2:55 p.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated back in July or August of this year, CNA 1 touched her inappropriately by applying lotion on her (Resident 1 ' s) body and on her groin area. Resident 1 stated she reported the incident to the DSD and CNA 2. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Grievance/Complaint Investigation Report, dated 7/12/2023, the report indicated Resident 1 expressed she did not like how CNA 1 applied lotion on her body and her groin. The report indicated the grievance report was assigned to the Nursing department and the DSD. During an interview on 10/25/2023 at 9:45 am with the SSD, the SSD stated Resident 1 reported she did not like how CNA 1 applied lotion to her body specifically Resident 1 ' s groin area. The SSD stated she informed the Administrator (ADMIN), the Director of Nursing (DON) and the DSD of Resident 1 ' s grievance. The SSD stated inappropriate touching can be considered sexual abuse. The SSD stated abuse should be reported immediately. The SSD stated if abuse was unreported, it can cause psychosocial concerns, resident may be resistant to staff performing care and resident may have behavioral issues. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 3:21 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated inappropriate touching which makes the resident feel uncomfortable is a form of sexual abuse. The DON stated sexual abuse should be reported to the appropriate agencies within the specific time frame. The DON stated if abuse is unreported the resident may fear their safety, experience depression and anxiety and the resident may feel violated. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 3:22 p.m. with the ADMIN, the ADMIN stated she was notified of the grievance at the end of August. The ADMIN stated all resident concerns and grievances should be investigated and reported to the appropriate agencies. The ADMIN stated the incident was not reported in July when it had occurred. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P/P) titled Abuse- Reporting and Investigations, dated 8/18/2023, the P/P indicated outside agencies should be notified of allegation of abuse with no serious bodily injury within two hours and a written Report of Suspected Dependent Adult/Elder Abuse (SOC 341) report will be sent to the Ombudsman, Law Enforcement, and CDPH licensing and certification within two hours. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse for one of one resident (Resident 1), when Resident 1 filed a grievance (a complaint that may or may not be justified) on 7/12/2023 with the Social Services Director (SSD) alleging Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA)1 inappropriately touched her (Resident 1). This deficient practice delayed California Department of Public Health (CDPH) investigation and had the potential to result in further abuse to go unreported. Findings During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses including diabetes (high blood sugar in the blood) and morbid obesity (more than 80 to 100 pounds above their ideal body weight). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 7/24/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 was cognitively (thinking) intact and required extensive assistance from two staff members to complete activities of daily living ([ADLs] tasks related to personal care). During an interview on 10/23/2023 at 10:54 a.m. with family member 1 (FM 1), FM 1 stated Resident 1 informed FM 1 about an incident where a CNA 1 applied lotion to her (Resident 1's) vagina. FM 1 stated Resident 1 believed the incident was reported CDPH by the Director of Staff Development (DSD). During an interview on 10/23/2023 at 2:55 p.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated back in July or August of this year, CNA 1 touched her inappropriately by applying lotion on her (Resident 1's) body and on her groin area. Resident 1 stated she reported the incident to the DSD and CNA 2. During a review of Resident 1's Grievance/Complaint Investigation Report, dated 7/12/2023, the report indicated Resident 1 expressed she did not like how CNA 1 applied lotion on her body and her groin. The report indicated the grievance report was assigned to the Nursing department and the DSD. During an interview on 10/25/2023 at 9:45 am with the SSD, the SSD stated Resident 1 reported she did not like how CNA 1 applied lotion to her body specifically Resident 1's groin area. The SSD stated she informed the Administrator (ADMIN), the Director of Nursing (DON) and the DSD of Resident 1's grievance. The SSD stated inappropriate touching can be considered sexual abuse. The SSD stated abuse should be reported immediately. The SSD stated if abuse was unreported, it can cause psychosocial concerns, resident may be resistant to staff performing care and resident may have behavioral issues. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 3:21 p.m. with the DON, the DON stated inappropriate touching which makes the resident feel uncomfortable is a form of sexual abuse. The DON stated sexual abuse should be reported to the appropriate agencies within the specific time frame. The DON stated if abuse is unreported the resident may fear their safety, experience depression and anxiety and the resident may feel violated. During an interview on 10/26/2023 at 3:22 p.m. with the ADMIN, the ADMIN stated she was notified of the grievance at the end of August. The ADMIN stated all resident concerns and grievances should be investigated and reported to the appropriate agencies. The ADMIN stated the incident was not reported in July when it had occurred. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled Abuse- Reporting and Investigations, dated 8/18/2023, the P/P indicated outside agencies should be notified of allegation of abuse with no serious bodily injury within two hours and a written Report of Suspected Dependent Adult/Elder Abuse (SOC 341) report will be sent to the Ombudsman, Law Enforcement, and CDPH licensing and certification within two hours.
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility ' s Coronavirus disease Covid-19(respiratory in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility ' s Coronavirus disease Covid-19(respiratory infection) policy by: a. failing to report the COVID-19 outbreak (At least one laboratory confirmed case of COVID-19 resident who has resided in the skilled nursing facility for at least 7 days,)to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH), with one out of three sampled residents (Resident 2) positive for Covid-19 on 10/9/2023, b. failing to document 159 out of 159 facility staff COVID testing from (10/18/2023 -10/25/2023). This deficient practice potentially increased the risk of further spreading Covid-19 to other residents and staff. Findings: During a review of Resident 2s admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis including congestive heart failure (heart cannot pump blood well enough to meet the body ' s needs). During a review of Resident 2 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a standardized assessment and care screening tool) dated 9/7/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 2 ' s cognition (thought process) was moderately impaired. During a review of Resident 2 ' s care plan for Covid-19, the care plan, created on 10/9/2023, indicated Resident 2 tested positive for Covid-19 on 10/9/2023. During an observation and record review of a facility letter, dated 10/10/2023, displayed at the facility entrance, on 10/23/2023 at 2:05 p.m., the letter was reviewed. The letter from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health (LAC DPH ) indicated there was a COVID-19 outbreak at the facility. The facility ' s entrance displayed pink signs indicating possible exposure to COVID -19 started on 10/9/2023. During a record review of facility COVID-19 test results for staff from 10/18/2023 to 10/24/2023 and an interview on 10/25/2023 at 12:02 p.m. with the Infection Prevention Nurse (IP), the staff test results were requested and there was no documented evidence of any COVID-19 testing completed on staff for 10/18/2023 to 10/24/2023. The IP stated Resident 2 tested positive for COVID-19 on 10/9/2023. The IP stated the staff were being tested every 3rd and 5th day. The IP could not provide any staff testing results from 10/18/2023-10/24/2023. The IP stated COVID outbreak was not reported to CDPH Licensing and Certification. During an interview on 10/25/2023 at 3:21 p.m. with the Administrator (ADMIN), the ADMIN stated there was no line listing of staff testing since the previous IP left on 10/18/2023. The ADMIN stated the staff were reporting to the ADMIN verbally and the ADMIN did not document the reports. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P/P) titled Unusual Occurrence Reporting dated 1/2011, the P/P indicated the facility should report disease outbreaks by phone or in writing to the appropriate State or Federal agencies. During a review of the facility ' s P/P titled Reportable diseases dated 1/2011, the P/P indicated reportable infectious, contagious, or communicable diseases are reported to appropriate city, county and or state health department officials. During a review of the facility ' s P/P titled Management of COVID-19 dated 10/28/2022, the P/P indicated employees who provide care and services to patients on behalf of the facility will either be tested by the facility or be required to provide proof of testing results, completed tests and results will be properly documented and reported as required.
Sept 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow professional standards of practice when Licensed Vocational Nurse 1 (LVN 1) administered one of one resident (Resident 1) Docusate Sodium 100 mg (milligrams) tablet (medication to soften bowel movements) without a physician ' s order. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 1 receiving medication without a physician order and had a potential for Resident 1 to experience allergic reactions or medication interactions. Findings During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission record (AR), the AR indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with the diagnoses including diabetes (high blood sugar) and osteomyelitis (infection of the bone) of the lower leg. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS]- a standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents) dated 9/12/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s cognition (thinking and reasoning) was moderately impaired and Resident 1 required two staff members ' extensive assistance with activities of daily living (ADLs). During a review of Resident 1 ' s medication administration record (MAR) for the month of Sept, the MAR indicated no physician order for docusate sodium. During an observation on 9/25/2023 at 1:44 p.m., LVN 1 administered docusate sodium 100 mg to Resident 1. During an interview on 9/25/2023 at 2:09 p.m. with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated there was no order for the docusate sodium and LVN 1 was not able to document the administration. LVN 1 stated a physician ' s order should be obtained prior to administering any medication. LVN 1 stated giving a medication without a physician ' s order placed the resident as risk for allergic reactions and possible medication interactions. During an interview on 9/25/2023 at 2:19 p.m. with the Quality Assurance Nurse (QA), the QA nurse stated all medications should have a physician order prior to the licensed staff administering the medication to the residents. During an interview on 9/26/2023 at 11:31 a.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated all medications requires an order from a physician. The DON stated if medications are given without a physician order there could be interactions with other medication the residents are already taking and the resident could have allergies to the medications. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P/P) titled Medication-Administration dated 1/1/2012, indicated medication will be administered directed by a licensed nurse and upon the order of a physician. The P/P indicated the time and dose of the drug administered to the patient will be recorded in medication record by the person who administered the drug.
Sept 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) did not transfer a res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA 1) did not transfer a resident, who required two persons for physical assistance with transfers between surfaces, by using a mechanical lift (a device used to assist with transfers and movement of individuals who require support for mobility beyond the manual support provided by caregivers alone) alone, for one out of two sampled residents (Resident 1). As a result of this deficient practice Resident 1 sustained a nasal (nose) bridge laceration (cut) with a nasal fracture (a break) after being struck in the nose by the bar of the mechanical lift. Resident 1 was transferred to a General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) where he was treated with IV ([intravenous] in the vein) antibiotics (medication to treat bacterial infections) for his nasal laceration and nasal fracture. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), the Face Sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses including Alzheimer ' s disease (a disease which slowly destroys memory and thinking skills) and muscle weakness. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set ([MDS], a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 8/10/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s cognitive (thinking) skills for daily decision making were severely impaired, and Resident 1 required extensive assistance from two staff members when transferring from bed to chair. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Change of Condition (COC) progress note, dated 9/12/2023, the COC indicated while Resident 1 was being assisted by CNA 1 to a wheelchair via a mechanical lift, Resident 1 ' s nose came into contact with the mechanical lift bar. The COC indicated Resident 1 sustained a cut to his nasal bridge which measured 1.0 x 0.1 centimeters [(cm) a unit of measurement). During a review of Resident 1 ' s undated Care Plan, the Care Plan indicated Resident 1 had activities of daily living [(ADL) tasks such as eating, bathing, dressing, grooming and toileting] self-care performance deficits and required extensive assistance from two staff members during transfers between surfaces. During a review of the facility ' s Mechanical Lift List ([MLL] a list to indicate which residents require a mechanical lift for transfers), dated 9/2023, the MLL indicated Resident 1 ' s name was not on the list. During a review of the facility ' s Fall Management Program note dated 9/8/2023, the Fall Management Program note indicated the rehabilitation department recommended that Resident 1 use a two wheeled walker along with limited physical assistance from nursing for mobility and completion of physical activities. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Physician order, dated 9/12/2023, the Physician ' s order indicated to obtain an X-ray of Resident 1 ' s nose. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Radiology Report, dated 9/12/2023, the Radiology Report indicated Resident 1 ' s nasal bone was fractured. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Physician ' s Order dated 9/12/2023, the Physician ' s Order indicated to transfer Resident 1 to a GACH due to his nasal bone fracture. During a review of the GACH ' s admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the GACH on 9/13/2023. During a review of the GACH ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 9/14/2023, the H&P indicated Resident 1 had a nasal contusion (an injury in which the skin is not broken, as in a bruise) on the bridge of his nose with a nasal bone fracture. During a review of the GACH ' s Critical Care Medicine Consultation report dated 9/13/2023, the Critical Care Medicine Consultation report indicated for Resident 1 to receive IV antibiotics for an infection of his nasal laceration. During a review of the GACH ' s Physician ' s Order dated 9/13/2023, the Physician ' s Order indicated Resident 1 to receive Ceftriaxone (a medication to treat bacterial infections) 1000 milligrams ([mg] a unit of measurement) IV daily for a bloodstream infection. During a telephone interview on 9/14/2023 at 11:44 a.m., CNA 1 stated when she transferred Resident 1 on 9/12/2023 to his wheelchair from his bed, using a mechanical lift, Resident 1 grabbed the mechanical lift ' s bar and the bar hit Resident 1 in his nose. CNA 1 stated she did not have assistance from staff when she used the mechanical lift to transfer Resident 1 to his wheelchair. CNA 1 stated she decided to use the mechanical lift to transfer Resident 1 to his wheelchair because Resident 1 was not cooperating with her. CNA 1 stated there is a binder with a list of residents who required the use of a mechanical lift, but she could not recall if Resident 1 ' s name was on the list. CNA 1 stated no other staff members were available to help with the mechanical lift and stated there should be two staff members when using the mechanical lift. During an interview on 9/14/2023 at 12:13 p.m., Licensed Vocational 1 (LVN 1) stated he went into Resident 1 ' s room (9/12/2023) because he heard a squeaky noise coming from the room that caught his attention, that is when he found CNA 1 holding the mechanical lift bar away from Resident 1 ' s face. LVN 1 stated CNA 1 told him the mechanical lift bar hit Resident 1 ' s nose. LVN 1 stated there was some scant (a small amount) bleeding from the top of Resident 1 ' s nose. LVN 1 stated there was no other staff member in Resident 1 ' s room assisting CNA 1 with the mechanical lift. LVN 1 stated there should be two staff members when using the mechanical lift for safety reasons. LVN 1 stated there is a binder at the nurse ' s station with the appropriate transfer methods for each resident. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 was able to stand and transfer to his wheelchair. During an interview on 9/15/2023 at 12:15 p.m., the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated staff, including CNAs and licensed staff have been in-serviced to have two staff members when using the mechanical lift. The DSD stated for safety reasons one staff member operates the lift while the other staff member ensures the resident is safe and not moving around. The DSD stated there is a binder at every nurse ' s station with a list of residents who require the mechanical lift. The DSD stated Resident 1 ' s name was not on the list. During an interview on 9/15/2023 at 1:14 p.m., the Director of Rehabilitation (DOR) stated the rehabilitation department created the MLL. The DOR stated Resident 1 required partial to moderate assistance with transfers and needed extra time for transfers due to the resident ' s cognitive status. However, Resident 1 did not require the use of a mechanical lift. During an interview on 9/15/2023 at 1:58 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated when the mechanical lift is used, there should be two staff members transferring the resident for the resident ' s safety. The DON stated Resident 1 ' s care plan intervention indicated the resident required the use of two staff members during transfers and Resident 1 ' s name was not on the MLL for residents who require the use of a mechanical lift. The DON stated CNA 1 was alone when she (CNA 1) used the mechanical lift to transfer Resident 1. The DON stated when interventions for the resident ' s, who requires two persons physical assistance, are not implemented and residents do not receive the appropriate assistance, there is a risk for residents to be injured. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P/P) titled Total Mechanical Lift revised 4/27/2023, the P/P indicated at least two people are present while resident is being transferred with the mechanical lift. The P/P indicated mechanical lifts are devices used to transfer individuals who require support for mobility which cannot be provided by the nursing staff alone.
Aug 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement their written abuse prevention policy and procedure (P/P)...

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 their written abuse prevention policy and procedure (P/P) by not reporting an allegation of physical abuse within two hours of the incident for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1) to the State Survey Agency (SSA) after the Responsible Party 1 (RP1) of Resident 1 reported to the nursing staff that a certified nursing assistant (CNA) pushed Resident 1 onto Resident 1's wheelchair on 8/16/2023 at approximately 4:30 p.m. The abuse was reported to the SSA on 8/17/2023 at 11:10 a.m. This deficient practice delayed the SSA's investigation of the alleged physical abuse, which potentially placed Resident 1 at risk for further abuse and violation of resident rights. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis that included orthopedic aftercare (care for a healing fracture [a break in the bone]), left hip injury, history of falling, and dementia (a condition that affects the function of the brain such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning to interferes with a person's daily life and activities). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated 6/27/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1, had periods of forgetfulness, was able to verbalize her needs, and was totally dependent on two or more persons assist during bed mobility, transfer, locomotion (movement from one place to another), toilet use and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's eInteract Change in Condition Evaluation (ECC,) dated 8/16/2023 at 5:00 p.m., the ECC indicated RP1 alleged a CNA pushed Resident 1 onto Resident 1's wheelchair. During a review of Resident 1's Progress Notes (PN), dated 8/16/2023 at 6:55 p.m., the PN did not indicate when the alleged abuse was reported to the local authorities, SSA and the Ombudsman. During a review of the facility's facsimile receipt (proof of fax being sent) for Resident 1's Report of Suspected Dependent/ Elder Abuse (SOC 341), the fax receipt indicated the SOC 341, was faxed to the SSA on 8/17/2023 at 11:10 a.m. During a telephone interview on 8/24/2023 at 1:46 p.m., with RP1, RP1 stated on 8/16/2023 at around 4:30 p.m., RP1 saw CNA 2 push Resident 1 on Resident 1's wheelchair and RP1 immediately informed the Registered Nurse Supervisor after it happened. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/2023 at 3:42 p.m., with the Director of Nursing Services (DON), the SOC 341 was reviewed. The SOC 341, indicated the allegation of abuse was reported to the SSA on 8/17/2023 at 11:10 a.m. The DON stated the DON faxed the report to the local law enforcement, Ombudsman as well as the SSA in the morning of 8/17/2023. During a review of the facility's P/P titled, Reporting Abuse, revised 1/2014, the P/P indicated the facility will report known or suspected instances of physical abuse to the proper authorities by telephone or through a confidential internet reporting tool as required by the state and federal regulations and must be called and/ or reported to the local law enforcement agency immediately or no later than 2 hours of the observation, knowledge or suspicion of the physical abuse. The P/P indicated a written report shall be made to the local Ombudsman, the California Department of Public Health, and the local enforcement agency within 2 hours of the observation, knowledge, or suspicion of the physical abuse.
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

Investigate Abuse (Tag F0610)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its abuse prevention policy and procedure (P/P) by not re...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its abuse prevention policy and procedure (P/P) by not reporting the results of the facility's investigation of an allegation of abuse for one of four residents (Resident 1) to the local law enforcement, local Ombudsman, and the State Survey Agency (SSA) within five days after the alleged abuse occurred on 8/16/2023. The facility submitted the conclusion report on 8/24/2023. This deficient practice potentially placed Resident 1 at risk for further abuse and violation of resident rights. Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record (face sheet), the face sheet indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis that included orthopedic aftercare (care for a healing fracture [a break in the bone]), left hip injury, history of falling and dementia (a condition that affects the function of the brain such as thinking, remembering, and reasoning to interferes with a person's daily life and activities). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated 6/27/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1, had periods of forgetfulness, was able to verbalize needs, and was totally dependent on two or more persons assist during bed mobility, transfer, locomotion (movement from one place to another), toilet use and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's eInteract Change in Condition Evaluation (ECC,) dated 8/16/2023 at 5:00 p.m., the ECC indicated the Responsible Party (RP1) alleged a certified nursing assistant (CNA) pushed Resident 1 onto Resident 1's wheelchair. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/24/2023 at 3:42 p.m., with the Director of Nursing Services (DON), the DON stated the documented evidence of a fax submission of the report of the 5-day investigation (conclusion letter) to the local police, local ombudsman and SSA was dated 8/24/2023. The DON stated it was necessary for the facility to send the 5-day investigation report (conclusion letter) to local law enforcement, local ombudsman and the SSA in the required timeframe to ensure a thorough investigation was conducted for an alleged physical abuse. During a review of the facility's P/P titled, Reporting Abuse, revised 1/2014, the P/P indicated the facility shall provide the appropriate agencies with a written report of the findings of the investigation within 5 working days of the incident.
Jul 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the safety and wellbeing of one out of four residents, Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the safety and wellbeing of one out of four residents, Resident 4, and acknowledge Resident 4 by not answering the call light in a courteous manner. This deficient practice had the potential to result in affecting Resident four ' s dignity and respect due to needs not being met. Findings: During a review of Resident 4's admission record, dated 7/7/2023, the admission record indicated, Resident 4 was originally admitted on [DATE] and re- admitted on [DATE]. Diagnosis included but not limited to Diabetes type 2 (a chronic condition that affects how the body processes sugar), myocardial infarction (heart attack), and dementia (a decline in memory, language, problem solving, and other thinking skills that affect a person ' s ability to perform everyday activities. During an observation on 7/6/2023 at 4:37 p.m., Resident 4 pressed the call light. Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 1) was observed passing by room, turned the call light off with back turned away and continued walking down the hallway. CNA 1 never acknowledged Resident 4 when answering the call light to see if the resident needed anything or if the resident was in distress. During an interview on 7/6/2023, at 4:37 p.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 confirmed she did not answer the call light courteously. CNA 1 stated when answering call lights, staff was supposed to enter the room and ask the resident what was needed and look at the resident in case the resident can ' t speak. CNA 1 stated the reason why the staff should face the resident and acknowledge them was for respect and to make sure the resident was not hurt, in pain, or had fallen. During an interview on 7/6/2023, at 4:37 p.m. with Resident4, Resident 4 stated, some of the CNAs answer the call light without acknowledging anyone and it makes me feel bad. During a review of Resident 4 History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/22/2023, the H&P indicated, Resident4 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 4's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care- screening tool), dated 5/13/2023, the MDS indicated, Resident 4 had moderately impaired cognitive (thinking) impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 4 needed supervision for bed mobility, transfer, eating, dressing, personal hygiene, and limited assistance with toilet use. During a review of the Certified Nurse Assistant Job Description, ([undated]), the Certified Nurse Assistant Job description indicated, the CNA ensures that all resident rights are protected. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Rights, ([undated]), the P&P indicated, employees are to treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity and honor the exercise of resident rights. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Communication- Call System, dated 1/1/2012, the P&P indicated, nursing staff will answer call bells promptly in a courteous manner. Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to ensure the safety and wellbeing of one out of four residents, Resident 4, and acknowledge Resident 4 by not answering the call light in a courteous manner. This deficient practice had the potential to result in affecting Resident four's dignity and respect due to needs not being met. Findings: During a review of Resident 4's admission record, dated 7/7/2023, the admission record indicated, Resident 4 was originally admitted on [DATE] and re- admitted on [DATE]. Diagnosis included but not limited to Diabetes type 2 (a chronic condition that affects how the body processes sugar), myocardial infarction (heart attack), and dementia (a decline in memory, language, problem solving, and other thinking skills that affect a person's ability to perform everyday activities. During an observation on 7/6/2023 at 4:37 p.m., Resident 4 pressed the call light. Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 1) was observed passing by room, turned the call light off with back turned away and continued walking down the hallway. CNA 1 never acknowledged Resident 4 when answering the call light to see if the resident needed anything or if the resident was in distress. During an interview on 7/6/2023, at 4:37 p.m., with CNA 1, CNA 1 confirmed she did not answer the call light courteously. CNA 1 stated when answering call lights, staff was supposed to enter the room and ask the resident what was needed and look at the resident in case the resident can't speak. CNA 1 stated the reason why the staff should face the resident and acknowledge them was for respect and to make sure the resident was not hurt, in pain, or had fallen. During an interview on 7/6/2023, at 4:37 p.m. with Resident4, Resident 4 stated, some of the CNAs answer the call light without acknowledging anyone and it makes me feel bad. During a review of Resident 4 History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/22/2023, the H&P indicated, Resident4 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 4's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care- screening tool), dated 5/13/2023, the MDS indicated, Resident 4 had moderately impaired cognitive (thinking) impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 4 needed supervision for bed mobility, transfer, eating, dressing, personal hygiene, and limited assistance with toilet use. During a review of the Certified Nurse Assistant Job Description, ([undated]), the Certified Nurse Assistant Job description indicated, the CNA ensures that all resident rights are protected. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Rights, ([undated]), the P&P indicated, employees are to treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity and honor the exercise of resident rights. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Communication- Call System, dated 1/1/2012, the P&P indicated, nursing staff will answer call bells promptly in a courteous manner.
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 F0773 (Tag F0773)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician for an abnormally high digoxin (a medicine tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician for an abnormally high digoxin (a medicine that helps your heart pump better when you have an irregular heartbeat) level for one out of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice had the potential to result in dangerous arrythmias (abnormal heart beat). Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, dated 4/18/2023, the admission record indicated, Resident 1 was originally admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 1 diagnosis included essential hypertension (high blood pressure without a known cause), paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm that can lead to blood clots in the heart), cardiomegaly (enlarged heart), cerebral infarction (an area of tissue death due to the blood vessel blockage in the brain), and Diabetes Mellitus Type two (a chronic condition that affects how the body processes sugar). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care- screening tool), dated 3/8/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderately impaired cognition (thinking). The MDS indicated Resident 1 needed supervision with bed mobility, toilet use, eating and required limited assistance with dressing and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1 ' s care plan, dated 3/3/2023, the care plan for altered cardiovascular status (relating to the heart) indicated, Resident 1 had interventions included Digoxin 250 micrograms (mcg- a unit of measurement) give one tablet once per day for heart disease ordered and labs as ordered and relay results to the medical doctor. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Order Summary Report, dated 3/2/2023, the order summary report indicated, Resident 1 had a physician order for Digoxin 250 mcg, give one tablet one time a day for heart disease (hold if apical pulse [a direct hearing of the heart functions from the heart highest point]). During a review of Resident 1's progress notes, the notes indicated on 3/13/2023 at 5:05 p.m., digoxin level was ordered for 3/14/2023. During a review of Resident 1 ' s medical records, the records indicated laboratory report received by the facility 3/14/2023 at 4:41 p.m. indicated Digoxin level was collected at 7:00 a.m. and that results were pending. During a review of Resident 1's progress notes, the notes indicated from 3/15/2023 to 4/14/2023 there was no documentation stating that a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) or Registered Nurse (RN) followed up on digoxin level results or notified the physician regarding Resident 1's digoxin level. During a review of Resident one Medication Administration record (MAR), dated 3/1/2023- 3/31/23, the MAR indicated digoxin was given 3/15/2023 through 3/21/2023. For the MAR dated 4/1/2023 through 4/30/2023, the MAR also indicated, digoxin was given 4/14/2023 and on 4/15/2023. During a concurrent interview with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS )and record review of Resident 1's lab report on 7/6/2023 at 4:50 p.m., Resident 1 ' s Diagnostics laboratory report dated 3/14/2023, indicated, Resident 1's serum digoxin level indicated level result was pending. RNS stated, the numerical serum digoxin levels dated 3/14/2023 should be indicated in the lab report. RNS stated she will call the lab for the results. During a review of Resident 1's laboratory report received by the facility 7/6/2023 at 5:15 p.m., the laboratory report indicated, on 3/14/2023 serum digoxin (measures the amount of the digoxin medication in your blood) level was 2.0 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL- unit for measure, normal range= 0.5-0.9). The report indicated the digoxin level was flagged as high. During a continued interview with RNS and record review of Resident 1's medical records, on 7/6/2023, at 5:20 p.m., Resident 1's Diagnostics laboratory report, collected on 3/14/2023, indicated Resident 1's serum digoxin level was abnormal at 2.0 ng/mL. RNS stated, there were no progress notes indicating that the physician was notified regarding Resident 1 ' s serum digoxin results and results were not known until 7/6/2023. RNS stated having Resident 1's serum digoxin level was very important to know if it the level was normal or not in a toxic range because it can affect the heart and can cause a heart arrythmia. RNS stated abnormal laboratory results were supposed to be relayed to the doctor and family, a change in condition form was supposed to be completed, and a care plan was to be started. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 3) on 7/7/2023, at 1:15 p.m., LVN 3 stated for a resident with a high digoxin level, the digoxin should not be given and the doctor should be notified of the abnormal labs, a change in condition form should be completed, and monitor the resident until physician orders are received. LVN 3 stated knowing the digoxin level will ensure resident was in a therapeutic level. LVN 3 stated toxic digoxin level can cause vomiting, sweating, dizziness, tachycardia (rapid beating of the heart greater than 100 beats per minute) and can possibly lead to a heart attack. During a concurrent interview with the Medical Director (MD) and record review of Resident 1's lab report (collected 3/14/2023) on 7/7/2023, at 12:26 p.m., MD stated for a high digoxin level the licensed nurse should have notified the physician, held the digoxin, repeat the digoxin level the next day, and vital signs should be done every shift; some adverse effects of a high digoxin level are bradycardia, unsteady gait (walk), seizures (sudden uncontrolled burst of electrical activity in the brain), and diarrhea (loose watery stool). During an interview on 7/7/2023, at 2:13 p.m., with the pharmacist consultant (PC), PC stated, when a resident is receiving digoxin 250 mcg, then the digoxin level would be checked twice per year. The side effects are nystagmus (rapid involuntary movement of the eyes), low heart rate, dizziness, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. During a review of the RN supervisor Job Description ([undated]), the RN supervisor job description indicated, RNs are responsible for ensuring that notification is given to the resident ' s attending/ alternate physician, as well as the resident ' s legal guardian/ representative, when the patient becomes critically ill, injured, or has a significant change in condition as outlined within our established policies. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Laboratory Services, dated 1/2012, the P&P indicated, nursing staff will: a. monitor to make sure that lab results are received promptly, b. notify the attending physician of the laboratory test findings and report abnormal results to the physician by telephone and fax with date and time noted on the results. c. document the time when laboratory results were reported along with the attending physician ' s response in the resident ' s medical record. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician for an abnormally high digoxin (a medicine that helps your heart pump better when you have an irregular heartbeat) level for one out of three sampled residents, Resident one. This deficient practice had the potential to result in harm for Resident one leading to dangerous or fatal arrythmias. Findings: During a review of Resident one's admission Record, dated 4/18/2023, the admission record indicated, Resident one was originally admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident one diagnosis included but not limited to essential hypertension (high blood pressure without a known cause), paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm that can lead to blood clots in the heart), cardiomegaly (enlarged heart), cerebral infarction (an area of tissue death due to the blood vessel blockage in the brain), and Diabetes Mellitus Type two (a chronic condition that affects how the body processes sugar). During a review of Resident one's History and Physical Examination (H&P), dated 3/5/2023, the H&P indicated, Resident one had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident one's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care- screening tool), indicated, Resident one had moderate cognition (thinking) impairment. During a review of Resident one's care plan, dated 3/3/2023, the care plan for altered cardiovascular status (relating to the heart) indicated, Resident one had interventions such as Digoxin 250 micrograms (mcg- a unit of measurement of mass in the metric system) give one tablet once per day for heart disease ordered and labs as ordered and relay results to the medical doctor (MD). During a review of Resident one's Order Summary Report, dated 3/2/2023, the order summary report indicated, Resident one had a physician order for Digoxin 250 mcg, give one tablet one time a day for heart disease (hold if apical pulse (a direct hearing of the heart functions from the heart highest point). During a review of Resident one's progress notes, dated 3/2023, the progress notes indicated, there was no documentation stating that a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) or Registered Nurse (RN) notified the physician regarding abnormal digoxin level. During a review of Resident one's Vitae Diagnostics laboratory report dated 3/14/2023, the laboratory report indicated, serum digoxin (measures the amount of the digoxin medication in your blood) was 2.0 (normal range= 0.5-0.9). During a review of Resident one Medication Administration record (MAR), dated 3/1/2023- 3/31/23, the MAR indicated digoxin was given 3/15/2023 through 3/21/2023. For the MAR dated 4/1/2023 through 4/30/2023, the MAR also indicated, digoxin was given 4/14/2023 and on 4/15/2023. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/6/2023, at 4:50 p.m., with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS), Resident one's Diagnostics laboratory report dated 3/14/2023, was reviewed. The Diagnostics laboratory report indicated, Resident one serum digoxin level was not there and stated pending. RNS stated, the serum digoxin levels dated 3/14/2023 should be there. Let me call LabCorp for the results. The importance of having Resident one serum digoxin level is to know if the level was normal or not in a toxic range which can affect the heart and can cause a heart arrythmia (irregular heartbeat) and would have to go the hospital possibly for stroke or heart attack. When there is an abnormal laboratory result, doctor and family is notified, a change in condition form is completed, and a care plan is started. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 7/6/2023, at 5:20 p.m., with RNS, Resident one Diagnostics laboratory report indicated, Resident one serum digoxin level was abnormal at 2.0. Resident one progress notes for the month of March 2023 was also reviewed. RNS stated, there were not any progress notes that indicated that the physician was notified regarding Resident one's serum digoxin results. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/7/2023, at 1:15 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 3), the diagnostic laboratory results dated [DATE], was reviewed. Resident one diagnostic laboratory results indicated, a digoxin level of 2. For a resident with a Digoxin level of 2, the digoxin should not be given. The doctor should be notified for abnormal labs, a change in condition form should be completed, and monitor the resident until physician orders are received. The importance of knowing the digoxin level is getting a therapeutic level for the heart and to make sure the level is not high which the resident can have vomiting, sweating, dizziness, tachycardia (rapid beating of the heart greater than 100 beats per minute) possibly leading to a heart attack or die. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/7/2023, at 1:53 p.m., with LVN 4, the diagnostic laboratory report dated 3/14/2023 and progress notes for month of March 2023 were reviewed. The diagnostic laboratory report indicated, a digoxin level of 2.0, which is abnormal, the digoxin should be held, and the doctor should be notified. The importance of notifying the doctor is that a resident can have hallucinations, visual disturbances, nausea, vomiting, ventricular arrythmias heart attack and have to be transferred to the hospital. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/7/2023, at 12:26 p.m., with the Medical Director (MD), the diagnostic laboratory report, dated 3/14/2023, was reviewed. Resident one diagnostic laboratory report indicated; on 3/14/2023, the serum digoxin was 2.0. For a digoxin level of 2.0 which is high, I would expect the licensed nurse to call me, hold the digoxin, repeat the digoxin level the next day, vital signs should be done every shift because the vital signs tend to fall if the digoxin level is too high. Some adverse effects of a high digoxin level are bradycardia, unsteady gait (walk), seizures (sudden uncontrolled burst of electrical activity in the brain), and diarrhea (loose watery stool). The Medication Regimen Review (MRR) is done monthly for residents. For a resident on digoxin, if the resident does not have a baseline digoxin level, then a digoxin level would be ordered. The heart rate would be monitored and monitor their digoxin level every six months. During an interview on 7/7/2023, at 2:13 p.m., with the pharmacist consultant (PC), stated, when a resident is receiving digoxin, the apical pulses are monitored and check if a digoxin level was ordered from the hospital. If digoxin standard dose of 125 mcg is ordered, then digoxin level is checked once per year. For digoxin 250 mcg, then the digoxin level would be checked twice per year. The side effects are nystagmus (rapid involuntary movement of the eyes), low heart rate, dizziness, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. During a review of the RN supervisor Job Description ([undated]), the RN supervisor job description indicated, RNs are responsible for ensuring that notification is given to the resident's attending/ alternate physician, as well as the resident's legal guardian/ representative, when the patient becomes critically ill, injured, etcetera (etc), or has a significant change in condition as outlined within our established policies. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Laboratory Services, dated 1/2012, indicated, Nursing staff will monitor to make sure that lab results are received promptly. the licensed nurse promptly notifies the Attending physician of the laboratory test findings and reports abnormal results by telephone/ page attending physician and fax to attending physician with date and time noted on the results. The nurse documents the time when laboratory results were reported along with the attending physician's response in the resident's medical record. The attending physician, nurse practitioner, and/or physician assistant signs the laboratory results with initials after review, or else the licensed nurse documents that the information was reviewed by the attending physician, nurse practitioner, or attending physician assistant. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician for an abnormally high digoxin (a medicine that helps your heart pump better when you have an irregular heartbeat) level for one out of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This deficient practice had the potential to result in dangerous arrythmias (abnormal heart beat). Findings: During a review of Resident 1's admission Record, dated 4/18/2023, the admission record indicated, Resident 1 was originally admitted on [DATE] and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 1 diagnosis included essential hypertension (high blood pressure without a known cause), paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm that can lead to blood clots in the heart), cardiomegaly (enlarged heart), cerebral infarction (an area of tissue death due to the blood vessel blockage in the brain), and Diabetes Mellitus Type two (a chronic condition that affects how the body processes sugar). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a standardized assessment and care- screening tool), dated 3/8/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1 had moderately impaired cognition (thinking). The MDS indicated Resident 1 needed supervision with bed mobility, toilet use, eating and required limited assistance with dressing and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's care plan, dated 3/3/2023, the care plan for altered cardiovascular status (relating to the heart) indicated, Resident 1 had interventions included Digoxin 250 micrograms (mcg- a unit of measurement) give one tablet once per day for heart disease ordered and labs as ordered and relay results to the medical doctor. During a review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report, dated 3/2/2023, the order summary report indicated, Resident 1 had a physician order for Digoxin 250 mcg, give one tablet one time a day for heart disease (hold if apical pulse [a direct hearing of the heart functions from the heart highest point]). During a review of Resident 1's progress notes, the notes indicated on 3/13/2023 at 5:05 p.m., digoxin level was ordered for 3/14/2023. During a review of Resident 1's medical records, the records indicated laboratory report received by the facility 3/14/2023 at 4:41 p.m. indicated Digoxin level was collected at 7:00 a.m. and that results were pending. During a review of Resident 1's progress notes, the notes indicated from 3/15/2023 to 4/14/2023 there was no documentation stating that a Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) or Registered Nurse (RN) followed up on digoxin level results or notified the physician regarding Resident 1's digoxin level. During a review of Resident one Medication Administration record (MAR), dated 3/1/2023- 3/31/23, the MAR indicated digoxin was given 3/15/2023 through 3/21/2023. For the MAR dated 4/1/2023 through 4/30/2023, the MAR also indicated, digoxin was given 4/14/2023 and on 4/15/2023. During a concurrent interview with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS )and record review of Resident 1's lab report on 7/6/2023 at 4:50 p.m., Resident 1's Diagnostics laboratory report dated 3/14/2023, indicated, Resident 1's serum digoxin level indicated level result was pending. RNS stated, the numerical serum digoxin levels dated 3/14/2023 should be indicated in the lab report. RNS stated she will call the lab for the results. During a review of Resident 1's laboratory report received by the facility 7/6/2023 at 5:15 p.m., the laboratory report indicated, on 3/14/2023 serum digoxin (measures the amount of the digoxin medication in your blood) level was 2.0 nanogram per milliliter (ng/mL- unit for measure, normal range= 0.5-0.9). The report indicated the digoxin level was flagged as high. During a continued interview with RNS and record review of Resident 1's medical records, on 7/6/2023, at 5:20 p.m., Resident 1's Diagnostics laboratory report, collected on 3/14/2023, indicated Resident 1's serum digoxin level was abnormal at 2.0 ng/mL. RNS stated, there were no progress notes indicating that the physician was notified regarding Resident 1's serum digoxin results and results were not known until 7/6/2023. RNS stated having Resident 1's serum digoxin level was very important to know if it the level was normal or not in a toxic range because it can affect the heart and can cause a heart arrythmia. RNS stated abnormal laboratory results were supposed to be relayed to the doctor and family, a change in condition form was supposed to be completed, and a care plan was to be started. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 3) on 7/7/2023, at 1:15 p.m., LVN 3 stated for a resident with a high digoxin level, the digoxin should not be given and the doctor should be notified of the abnormal labs, a change in condition form should be completed, and monitor the resident until physician orders are received. LVN 3 stated knowing the digoxin level will ensure resident was in a therapeutic level. LVN 3 stated toxic digoxin level can cause vomiting, sweating, dizziness, tachycardia (rapid beating of the heart greater than 100 beats per minute) and can possibly lead to a heart attack. During a concurrent interview with the Medical Director (MD) and record review of Resident 1's lab report (collected 3/14/2023) on 7/7/2023, at 12:26 p.m., MD stated for a high digoxin level the licensed nurse should have notified the physician, held the digoxin, repeat the digoxin level the next day, and vital signs should be done every shift; some adverse effects of a high digoxin level are bradycardia, unsteady gait (walk), seizures (sudden uncontrolled burst of electrical activity in the brain), and diarrhea (loose watery stool). During an interview on 7/7/2023, at 2:13 p.m., with the pharmacist consultant (PC), PC stated, when a resident is receiving digoxin 250 mcg, then the digoxin level would be checked twice per year. The side effects are nystagmus (rapid involuntary movement of the eyes), low heart rate, dizziness, diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting. During a review of the RN supervisor Job Description ([undated]), the RN supervisor job description indicated, RNs are responsible for ensuring that notification is given to the resident's attending/ alternate physician, as well as the resident's legal guardian/ representative, when the patient becomes critically ill, injured, or has a significant change in condition as outlined within our established policies. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Laboratory Services, dated 1/2012, the P&P indicated, nursing staff will: a. monitor to make sure that lab results are received promptly, b. notify the attending physician of the laboratory test findings and report abnormal results to the physician by telephone and fax with date and time noted on the results. c. document the time when laboratory results were reported along with the attending physician's response in the resident's medical record.
Jun 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement infection control practices (IPCP) and their mitigation (reduction of something harmful or the reduction of its har...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement infection control practices (IPCP) and their mitigation (reduction of something harmful or the reduction of its harmful effects) plan by failing to: 1. Designated area for residents who are COVID 19 (a highly contagious virus) positive and for staff taking care of COVID positive residents, 2. Proper use of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE- gloves, mask, gown, face shield / goggle) This deficient practice has the potential to increase the risk of transmitting the Covid-19 to residents, staff, and the community. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/7/2023 at 11:45 pm., with Infection Preventionist (ICP), the ICP stated the covid positive resident rooms will be treated like isolation rooms as long as the staff follow proper PPE donning and doffing procedure, ICP stated there is no designated space for documentation and break time for staff taking care of covid positive residents. During an observation on 6/7/2023 at 12:42 p.m., Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2 opened the resident room (covid positive residents) from inside and was holding resident meal tray without wearing gloves and face shield. Continued to leave the door open while standing to handover the tray for a period of 5 mins. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/7/2023 at 12:50 p.m., with interim director of nursing (DON) in front of the covid positive resident room, DON stated staff should be wearing full PPE when inside the room for patient care, DON stated CNA 2 failed to comply with proper use of PPE and this practice has a potential to spread infection to self and others at the facility. DON stated, it is important to use appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE-gloves, gowns, goggles, or other garments or equipment designed to protect the wearer's body from infection)before entering a covid positive resident ' s room. During an interview with CNA 2 on 6/7/2023 at 12:55 pm. stated she forgot to wear complete personal protective equipment (PPE) before entering the room to assist resident with the lunch. CNA1 stated PPE protects me from getting the infection and if I don ' t wear it, I may spread the infection to others. During a concurrent observation and interview on 6/8/2023 at 11:20 a.m., with the Infection Preventionist (ICP), the ICP confirmed that all the covid positive residents were moved to [NAME] 2 area to contain spread of infection due to air circulation and the facility is replacing ventilation filters with high quality filter. Air purifier will be placed at each nurse ' s station. The ICP stated, if staff are not wearing proper PPE, it will potentially increase chances of transmitting COVID-19 infection to self, residents, staff and family members. During a record review of the facility ' s COVID-19 mitigation plan (MP) requirements, date revised April 10, 2023; the MP indicated the facility has policies in place for dedicated spaces within the facility to ensure separation of infected residents from non-infected residents and for reducing movement of HCP among those spaces to minimize transmission risk. The P/P Indicated staff shall be trained on selecting, donning, and doffing appropriate PPE and demonstrate competency of such skills during resident care. Use standard precautions in all resident care areas. Change gloves between every resident encounter and perform hand hygiene before donning and after doffing gloves. During a record review of the facility ' s floor plan indicated covid positive resident rooms were beside non-covid rooms and exposed resident ' s room. Per the direction of department of Public Health, room changes were made to cohort covid positive resident rooms in one area on June 7, 2023.
May 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident, who had a history of falls, did not fall and s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the resident, who had a history of falls, did not fall and sustained a fracture (brake in a bone) of the right foot fifth metatarsal bone (the bone connecting a person's ankle to a little toe) for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). The facility failed to: 1. Ensure Resident 1 was offered and assisted to go to the bathroom as indicated in Resident 1's untitled Care Plan [(CP) - a document that outlines a resident's health conditions, specific care needs, current treatments, and goals] to prevent the resident from falling again after the resident's first fall on 3/21/2023 at 6:00 a.m. 2. Ensure Resident 1 was accurately assessed for the risk for falls to implement necessary fall preventative measures based on the risk for falls assessment, including placement of a sign on Resident 1's room door indicating 'High Fall Risk' and a soft fall mat by the bed. 3. Implement the Physical Therapist's [(PT 1) a qualified medical professional to treat disease, injury, or deformity by physical methods such as massage, heat treatment, and exercise] recommendation for Resident 1 to use a two-wheels walker (a walking aid with two front wheels and no rear wheels, geared toward users who have more limited mobility and can walk slowly) and physical assistance with mobility. 4. Ensure staff followed PT 1's recommendation to provide Resident 1 with supervision assistance with completing physical activity, including to get out of bed and to go to the bathroom, moving Resident 1 closer to the nursing station, provide Resident 1 with a two-wheeled walker, and assist Resident 1 with toileting. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 1 sustaining a fall with a fracture to the right fifth metatarsal (the bone connecting a person's ankle to the little toe) toe which led to a swelling and discoloration of the resident's right foot with absence of pedal (an arterial [a measurement of the heart's contraction] pulse (which can be felt on top of the foot in front of the ankle) that required a left femoral (related to a thigh) popliteal vein (related to the back of the knee) bypass surgery (a procedure that creates a new route for blood flow to right lower leg by using healthy vein from the left leg). Findings: During a record review of Resident 1's admission Record (Face Sheet), the admission record indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] and last readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including muscle weakness, anemia (condition in which the blood does not have enough healthy red blood cells), anxiety (a feeling of fear, dread, and uneasiness), disorientation (a state of mental confusion), atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), hypertension (high blood pressure), and diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition where the body is unable to absorb sugar from the blood stream without medication). During a review of Resident 1's History and Physical (H&P), dated 3/28/2023, the H&P indicated, Resident 1 could make needs known but could not make medical decisions. During a record review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 3/8/2023, the MDS indicated, Resident 1 required supervision from one staff for bed mobility, transfers, walking in room, locomotion on unit, eating, and limited assistance from one staff for personal hygiene, and getting dressed. During a review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Record (MAR), dated from 3/1/2023 to 3/31/2023, the MAR indicated Resident 1 was receiving medications that could increase Resident 1's risk for falls. The MAR indicated Resident 1 was receiving Insulin Lispro (medication for lowering high blood sugar), Metoprolol Tartrate (a medication for lowering high blood pressure), 100 milligrams [(mg)- a unit of measure] one tablet twice a day by mouth, Lisinopril (medication for lowering high blood pressure) 20 mg one tablet once a day by mouth, Furosemide (medication for removal of fluid excess from the body to lowering blood pressure) 40 mg one tablet by mouth two times a day, Spironolactone (a medication to lower blood pressure) 25 mg one tablet by mouth one time a day, and Buspirone HCL (medication to reduce anxiety) 5mg one tablet by mouth twice a day. According to https://www.drugs.com a comprehensive and up-to-date source of drug information, Lispro could cause side effects such as, dizziness, fast heart rate, and feeling anxious or shaky, Metoprolol Tartrate, Lisinopril, Furosemide and Spironolactone have a potential side effect of very low blood pressure and causing dizziness. Buspirone HCL side effects of dizziness, confusion, fatigue, and nervousness. These medications side effects are the contributing factor to a residents falls. During a review of Nursing Progress Note (NPN), dated 3/21/2023 and timed 6:00 a.m., the NPN indicated, Resident 1 was found sitting on the floor on the left side of the bed. The NPN indicated, Resident 1 was alert and denied discomfort or pain. The NPN indicated, Resident 1's skin was intact. The NPN indicated, Resident 1 stated she wanted to go to the bathroom and lost the balance. The NPN indicated, Resident 1 was advised not to rise rapidly, and the resident's physician was notified. During a review of Nursing Progress Note (NPN), dated 3/21/2023 and timed 10:00 a.m., the NPN indicated, Resident 1 was found sitting on the floor while leaning back on the wall of her room near the door. The NPN indicated, Resident 1 stated she was trying to stand up and fell. The NPN indicated, Resident 1's had a right hip skin discoloration and excoriation (lesions on the surface of the skin) and the dressing was applied. The NPN indicated, Nurse Practitioner (NP) ordered an X-ray (a type of medical imaging that creates pictures of bones and soft tissues) of right foot on 3/21/2023 and reviewed the X-ray report which indicated acute fracture of fifth metatarsal bone on 3/21/2023. The NPN indicated, NP ordered to transfer Resident 1 to GACH on 3/21/2023 for further evaluation. During a review of Resident 1's Care Plan (CP), undated, the CP focus indicated status post unwitnessed fall (1st fall incident). The CP interventions included frequent visual checks, attend resident's needs in a timely manner, and offer and assist resident to use bathroom as needed. During an interview on 5/11/2023, at 2:39 p.m., with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2 via telephone, CNA 2 stated, she worked on 6:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. shift on 3/21/2023. CNA 2 stated, she did not witness the first fall, but she received a report from the night shift staff regarding the first fall incident that happened on 3/21/2023 at 6:00 a.m. CNA 2 stated, later that day she heard a loud thud and found Resident 1 on the floor in a sitting position on 3/21/2023, at 10 :00 a.m. CNA 2 stated, there was no floor mat to prevent injury from the fall, and no falling star placed on Resident 1's room to indicate Resident 1 was a fall. CNA 2 stated, she noticed Resident 1 was getting more confused, and repeatedly saying, I need to go to the bathroom now. CNA 2 stated, she notified LVN 3 regarding Resident 1's increased confusion. CNA 2 stated Resident 1 was trying to get up and go to the bathroom unassisted when she fell. During an interview on 5/11/2023, at 4:00 p.m., with ADON, ADON stated, Resident 1 should have been but was not on 1:1 supervision (resident has a staff member assigned to them for constant monitoring and ensuring the resident stays safe) and responsible staff did not place Resident 1 on a Falling STAR program (assessing residents for their risk of falls and then identifying those at high risk with a visible symbol, usually a falling star graphic placed on a resident's door) after the first fall on 3/21/2023 at 6 a.m. ADON stated, Resident 1 was alert and denied any pain after the first fall. ADON stated the second fall on 3/21/2023 at 10:00 a.m. could have been avoided if those interventions (the Falling Star program, and 1:1 monitoring) were implemented right after the first fall. ADON stated, Resident 1 was hospitalized multiple times after the falls due to complications including a right fifth metatarsal fracture, discoloration of the right foot that led to possible amputation, and femoral bypass surgery. ADON stated Resident 1 should have been moved closer to the nursing station if 1:1 supervision was not possible, especially after the first fall on 3/21/2023 at 6 a.m. ADON stated Resident 1 should have been assigned a Yellow Star upon admission since she had a history of multiple falls and should have been assigned a Red Star (indicating that the resident has had multiple fall incidents and a fall with major injury) after the second fall because of the multiple falls with injury. During an interview on 5/9/2023, at 2:45 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 2), LVN 2 stated a Fall Risk Assessment [(FRA) - a nursing tool that uses a scoring system to evaluate resident's risk of fall] should be completed accurately because fall prevention interventions for each resident were based on the FRA. LVN 2 stated fall incidents to elderly residents could result in immobility, pressure ulcers (injuries to skin and underlying tissue resulting from prolonged pressure on the skin) due to immobility, and fractures. LVN 2 stated a resident's fracture could interfere with normal blood circulation, due to trauma, on the fractured extremity, because immobility which could result in an amputation (the surgical removal of part of the body) due to lack of blood flow to the area past the fracture. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 5/9/2023, at 4:10 p.m., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Resident 1's FRA, dated 3/2/2023, FRA dated 3/21/2023 and timed at 6:00 a.m., and FRA dated 3/21/2023 and timed at 10 a.m. were reviewed. Resident 1's FRA completed on 3/2/2023, indicated Resident 1 was not at risk for falls, with a score of seven. FRA dated 3/2/2023 indicated, Resident 1 had one to two falls in the past three months, a balance problem while walking and standing, taking one to two medications that increase Resident 1's risk for fall, and no predisposing (to have a tendency toward something) disease to contribute to Resident 1's fall risk. Resident 1's FRA, dated 3/21/2023 and timed at 6:00 a.m., (completed after the first fall on 3/21/2023) indicated Resident 1 was assessed as no risk for the potential for falls, and was scored eight which indicated no fall risk (score 0-9: no risk for fall & 10 or above: high risk for fall). FRA dated 3/21/2023 indicated, Resident 1 had no falls in the past three months, although according to FRA dated 3/2/2023 Resident 1 did have a history of one to two falls in the past three months. FRA dated 3/21/2023 indicated Resident 1 had normal balance and gait (a person's manner of walking) had been taking three to four medications that increased Resident 1's risk for falls and had no predisposing disease that could cause falls. FRA dated 3/21/2023 and timed at 10 a.m., indicated Resident 1 was considered as not being at risk for the potential for falls and scored nine which indicated no fall risk. FRA dated 3/21/2023 and timed at 10 a.m., had inaccurate information because FRA dated 3/2/2023 indicated Resident 1 have had one to two falls in the past three months and according to FRA dated 3/21/2023 and timed at 6 a.m., Resident 1 have had one additional fall at 6:00 a.m. on 3/21/2023. FRA dated 3/21/2023 and timed at 10 a.m., indicated Resident 1 had a balance problem while standing and walking, required use of assistive devices (two-wheels walker) for walking, had been taking three to four medications to increase Resident 1's risk for falls, and had no predisposing disease that could increase risk for fall (cause falls). The FRA dated 3/21/2023 and timed at 10 a.m., instructions included the following: If the total score is 10 or greater, the resident should be considered a High Risk for potential falls, the 'Fall Prevention protocol' should be initiated immediately and documented on the care plan. Gait/Balance: to assess the resident's gait/balance, have the resident stand on both feet without holding onto anything: walk straight forward; walk through a doorway; and make a turn. Medications: Respond based on the following types of medications: antihypertensives (lowering blood pressure), diuretics (getting rid of excess water from body and lowering blood pressure), hypoglycemics (lowering blood sugar). Predisposing Diseases: respond based on the following predisposing conditions: Hypotension (low blood pressure), Vertigo (dizziness), Cerebral Vascular Accident (stroke-a loss of blood flow to part of the brain), Osteoporosis (weakened bones), Fractures. During an interview on 5/9/2023, at 4:10 p.m., the ADON confirmed, all three FRAs had documentation of incorrect Resident 1's assessments for the risk for falls. The ADON stated, the licensed nurses that completed FRAs assessments failed to identify and to evaluate Resident 1 as a high fall risk. The ADON stated, if a resident's scores less than 10 on the FRA then the resident is considered at no risk for falls according to instructions for FRA. The ADON stated, staff could have implemented fall prevention interventions, such as a sign on the resident's room indicating 'High Fall Risk' and a soft fall mat by the bed. The ADON confirmed Resident 1 was considered independent and at no risk for falls because of inaccurate FRA assessments. During a review of Resident 1's Physical Therapy Evaluation & Plan of Treatment (PTEPT), dated on 3/3/2023, the PTEPT indicated, Resident 1 was unable to stand steady without upper extremities supported for more than 10 seconds, required an assistive device for functional mobility and a two-wheeled walker to walk 20 feet. The PTEPT indicated, Resident 1's mobility function scored five out of 12 which was ranged from 0 (no function) to 12 (highest function). During a concurrent interview and record review, on 5/11/2023, at 1:34 p.m., with PT 1, the Berg Balance Scale [(BBS)- an assessment tool to determine a person's balance abilities], dated on 3/8/2023 (within a week of first admission) was reviewed. The BBS indicated, Resident 1's BBS score was 31 out of 56, where a score of less than 45 indicated a greater risk of falling (BBS indicated, 0-20 high fall risk, 23-40 a medium fall risk, and 41-56 a low fall risk). PT 1 stated, she assessed Resident 1 as a high fall risk because Resident 1's family had also told her that Resident 1 have had five falls prior to admission to the facility. PT 1 stated, Resident 1 required supervision or touching assistance requiring a staff member to provide verbal cues, touching, steadying, and contact guard assistance as the resident completes an activity. PT 1 stated, Resident 1 needed supervision to get out of bed and to go to the bathroom. PT 1 stated, she had recommended supervision for Resident 1 to licensed staff for safety. PT 1 stated, she went to the nursing station after finishing her PT evaluation and gave verbal recommendations to the charge nurse since there was no written recommendation form available. PT 1 stated, fall incidents could be reduced if close supervision was provided and staff followed her recommendations. PT 1 stated, she had also recommended moving Resident 1 near the nursing station, providing Resident 1 with a two-wheeled walker, and assisting Resident 1 with toileting. PT 1 stated a fall could lead to many complications such as fractures, immobility, pressure ulcers, and compromising circulation on injured sites. During a review of the facility's Fall Prevention Program Guidelines: Falling STAR Program (FSP), undated, the FSP indicated, the purpose of falling STAR program was to reduce facility's fall percentage, prevent recurrent falls and resulting major injury. Identification of Residents on the Falling STAR Program: The Yellow STAR represents a resident's history of falls and is placed over the headboard of a resident's bed. The Red STAR represents a resident's history of multiple fall incidents and a fall with a major injury. Procedure & Steps on Placing Residents on Falling STAR Program: Prior to admission, the facility's admission staff will identify residents that are at high risk for fall or had a history of falls prior to the admission to the facility and assign a Yellow Star to the inquiry packet to alert the admitting nurse. After a fall incident for a current resident, a Yellow/Red STAR is placed over the headboard of a resident's bed, and the special equipment, such as landing mats by the bed will be placed in the room, and a plan of care will be formulated accordingly. During a review of Resident 1's Right foot X-ray (a type of medical imaging that creates pictures of bones and soft tissues) report, dated on 3/21/2023, the X-ray report indicated, Resident 1 had nondisplaced (not moved out of alignment) fracture distal (away from the center of the body) end of right fifth metatarsal bone. During a review of Resident 1's GACH 1 medical record (GACH1MR), dated 3/24/2023, the GACH1MR X-ray final report of the resident's right foot, indicated, a right foot fifth metatarsal fracture. During a review of Resident 1's GACH 2 medical records (GACH2MR), dated 4/16/2023, the GACH2MR Emergency Department Encounter indicated, Resident 1 was admitted to GACH 2 for further evaluation of swelling and discoloration to right lower extremity associated with absence of pedal pulse. GACH2MR Internal Medicine History and Physical, dated 4/16/2023, indicated Resident 1 had altered cognitive status, had right foot toes cyanosis (a bluish color in the skin caused by a shortage of oxygen in the blood) with no pedal pulse via doppler (a noninvasive device that can be used to estimate the blood flow) examination. GACH2MR Operative Report, dated 4/20/2023, indicated, Resident 1 had a left femoral vein to right femoral bypass surgery. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Fall Management Program, dated 3/13/2021, the P&P indicated, the facility will implement a Fall Management Program that supports and provides an environment free from fall hazards. The P&P section Fall Risk Evaluation indicated as part of the admission assessment, the licensed nurse will complete a fall risk evaluation. If a fall risk factor is identified, the licensed nurse will document interventions on the resident's care plan and document interventions for every resident regardless of fall risk evaluation score. The interdisciplinary Team (IDT - a health care team from various areas of expertise) will initiate, review, and update the resident's fall risk status and care plan for the following intervals-on admission, quarterly, annually, upon identification of a significant change of condition, post fall and as needed. The P&P under section Recurrent Falls indicated a resident who endures more than one fall in a day, week, or month, will be considered at high risk for falls.
Apr 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Transfer (Tag F0626)

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 readmit one of two sampled residents (Resident 2) from General Acut...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to readmit one of two sampled residents (Resident 2) from General Acute Care Hospital 1 (GACH1) after the resident was cleared by GACH 1 to return to the facility on 2/13/2023. This deficient practice resulted in the denial of Resident 2's right to return to the facility. Findings During a review of Resident 2's admission Record indicated Resident 2 was originally admitted on [DATE] with a readmission date of 1/27/2023 with diagnoses of hemiplegia (unable to move one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness of one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (disruption of blood flow to the brain) affecting the right side and unspecified behavioral and emotional disorders. During a review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 1/10/2023, indicated the resident's cognition (the ability to think, reason, and understand) was severely impaired. Resident 2 required extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide guided maneuvering) from staff with activities in daily living (ADLs such as transferring, dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene). During a review of Resident 2's progress note dated 2/8/2023, the progress note indicated Resident 2 was sent via ambulance to GACH 1. During a review of Resident 2's GACH 1 physician order dated 2/9/2023, the GACH 1 physician order indicated Resident 2 was admitted to GACH 1. During a review of Resident 2's GACH 1 progress note dated 2/13/2023, the GACH 1 progress note indicated GACH 1 case manager discussed with the facility, due to the Resident 2's history and health insurance, the facility will need to readmit Resident 2 back to the facility once medically stable. During a review of Resident 2's GACH 1 progress note dated 2/13/2023, the GACH 1 progress note indicated there was an order to discharge Resident 2 to skilled nursing facility (SNF). During a review of Resident 2's GACH 1 progress noted dated 2/14/2023, the GACH 1 progress note indicated the facility communicated with GACH 1 they are not taking patient back anymore, so they already reported to DHS. During a review of the facility's census dated 2/13/2024, the census indicated there were 13 beds available with five of them being bed holds in the facility. During a review of the facility's census dated 2/14/2023, the census indicated there were 13 beds available with five of them being bed holds in the facility. During a review of Resident 2's physician order dated 4/15/2023, the physician order indicated Resident 2 was readmitted to facility. During an interview on 4/14/2023 at 3:49 p.m. with the Marketing Manager (MM), the MM stated the facility did not readmit Resident 2 because the facility could not handle Resident 2's behaviors. The MM stated the facility was planning to transfer Resident 2 to another facility, but the resident went to the hospital. The MM stated the hospital was going to find placement for Resident 2. During an interview on 4/14/2023 at 4:33 p.m. with the Social Services Director (SSD), the SSD stated when Resident 2 was sent to GACH 1, Resident 2 was deemed unsafe to return to the facility. The SSD stated usually the hospital helps with finding placement for the resident when the resident will not return to the facility. During a phone interview on 4/14/2023 at 4:54 p.m. with the Administrator (ADMIN), the ADMIN stated when Resident 2 was initially admitted to the facility, the initial documentation did not show the behavior problems. The ADMIN stated the facility tried to accommodate Resident 2's behavior with medication adjustments and Resident 2 had been transferred to the hospital two to three times but Resident 2's behavior did not improve. The ADMIN stated Resident 2 was a danger to the staff and the ADMIN was trying to protect the residents and the staff. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled Bed Hold , the P/P indicated the facility will hold the resident's bed for up to seven (7) days if the resident is transferred to an acute care hospital.If the bed-hold expires and the resident does not elect to pay to hold the bed, but wishes to return to the facility, the Facility will provide the resident with the first available bed covered by the resident's payer source.
Jul 2021 17 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to inform one sampled resident (Resident 33) during the admission process whether a electric wheelchair for mobility was allowed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to inform one sampled resident (Resident 33) during the admission process whether a electric wheelchair for mobility was allowed in the facility. This deficient practice denied the resident of her right to be informed. Findings: During a review of Resident 33's admission Record (face sheet), dated 5/13/21, the admission Record indicated Resident 33's diagnoses included muscle weakness, contracture (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints) of the right and left ankle, and heart failure. During a review of Resident 33's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 5/20/21, the MDS indicated Resident 33's cognition had the ability to make decisions of daily living. The MDS indicated Resident 33 required extensive assistance of a two-person physical assist with activity of daily livings ([ADLs] daily self-care activities, such as dressing, eating, personal hygiene and grooming), transferring and walking. During a review of Resident 33's Physician's Order dated 6/9/21, the Physician's Order indicated Resident 33 may be up in a wheelchair with cushion every day as tolerated. During a review of Resident 33's care plan dated 5/13/21, the care plan indicated Resident 33 had a risk of decline in psychosocial functioning related to medical condition. The goal approach indicated psychosocial well-being needs would be met by identifying the root cause, and intervene appropriately validating concerns. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/15/21 at 3:15 p.m. with Resident 33, Resident 33 was observed in bed laying in a supine (on the back) position. Resident 33 was asked if she was she able to wheel herself around in the facility with the manual wheelchair (WC) observed next to her bed. Resident 33 stated she had an electric WC, which was left at the assisted living facility she previously resided in, when the resident was transferred from there to the facility. Resident 33 stated she requested for the facility's social services designee (SSD) to retrieve the electric WC from the assisted living facility. Resident 33 stated she was told by the SSD the facility did not accept residents with electric WCs. Resident 33 was asked if anyone informed her the electric WC was not allowed in the facility during the admission process, or if the admission package provided by the facility indicated no electrical WCs were allowed in the facility. Resident 33 stated there was no mention of electric WCs were not allowed in the facility in the admission package. Resident 33 stated during the admission process no one asked the resident about her electrical WC. Resident 33 was asked did she sign a contract indicating the electric WC was not allowed in the facility, Resident 33 stated she did not sign a contract that her electric WC was not allowed in the facility. Resident 33 stated she wanted her electric WC prescribed to her by a physician. During a review on 7/16/21 at 11:30 a.m. of the facility's admission package, the admission package did not include a policy and procedure in regards to electric WCs. During an interview on 7/16/21 at 1:00 p.m. with Resident 33 and the SSD, the SSD was asked regarding Resident 33's request to have her electrical WC transferred from the assisted living facility to the facility. Resident 33 stated she was informed by SSD her electric WC was not allowed in the facility. Resident 33 stated upon the admission process, no one informed her an electric WC was not allowed in the facility. Resident 33 stated the admission package provided did not indicate electric WCs were not allowed in the facility. The SSD admitted discussing those concerns but stated he would have to read the policy to determine whether electric WCs were allowed in the facility because the SSD stated he had never seen an electric WC used by residents in the facility. During an interview on 7/16/ 21 at 1:30 p.m. with the Administrator (ADMIN) and Director of Nursing (DON), the ADMIN and DON were asked regarding Resident 33 not being informed during the admission process, or provided information within the admission package whether an electrical WC was allowed in the facility. The DON and ADMIN acknowledged they were made aware of Resident 33's requested for her WC to be transferred from the assisted living to facility. The ADMIN and DON agreed to work on resolving the problem based on the facility's policy and procedures (P/P). During an interview on 7/16/21 at 1:45 p.m. with the admission Coordinator (Adm Coordinator), Adm Coordinator was asked why the admission package provided to the surveyors and Resident 33 did not include anything regarding an electric or manual WCs for resident's mobility. Adm Coordinator stated she created a form to inquire whether residents were ambulatory (ability to walk) or non-ambulatory. During a review of the facility's Inquiry Record on 7/16/21 at 3:00 p.m., the Inquiry Record indicated upon admission there were no specific interventions of determining whether an alert, and oriented resident was informed whether an electrical WC for mobility prior to being admitted into the facility was allowed. During a review of the facility policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Power Mobility Device (PMD), the P/P indicated residents were allowed to have an electric WC if criteria was met medically by the resident, and proper maintenance of the WC evaluated for proper operation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a care plan to prevent one sampled resident (Resident 70)...

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 a care plan to prevent one sampled resident (Resident 70) from the recurrence of developing a urinary tract infection ([UTI] infection of the bladder). This deficient practice placed Resident 70 at increased risk for recurrent UTIs. Findings: During a review of Resident 70's admission Record, dated 7/15/21, the admission Record indicated Resident 70 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], and last admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 70's diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy (dysfunction in the brain that can cause temporary confusion and abnormal behaviors), gastronomy status (tube surgically inserted into the stomach to provide nutrition, hydration, and medications) and acute kidney failure (condition in which the kidneys suddenly can not filter waste from the blood, develops rapidly over a few hours or days). During a review of Resident 70's History and Physical (H/P) dated 10/23/2020, the H/P indicated Resident 70 did not have the capacity to understand and make decision. The H/P indicated Resident 70 was non-ambulatory (ability to walk), incontinent of bowel and bladder, and needed assistance with activities of daily living ([ADLs] self-care activities performed on a daily basis, such as dressing, eating, toileting, and personal hygiene). During a review of Resident 70's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a resident assessment and care-screening tool, dated 6/12/21, the MDS indicated Resident 70 had moderate cognitive (ability to reason) impairment, was sometimes understood and sometimes understood others. The MDS indicated Resident 70 was totally dependent of a two or more-person physical assistance for toileting and was always incontinent (unable to control) of bowel and bladder. During a review of Resident 70's care plan titled, Resident had a change of condition, dated 4/27/21, indicated the staff's inventions included to notify physician (MD) and responsible party (RP) of changes as appropriate and obtain labs and X-ray (XR) as ordered and report results to the MD. During a review of Resident 70's Physician Telephone Order, dated 4/28/21, the Physician Telephone Order indicated for a complete metabolic profile ([CMP] a type of laboratory blood collection that provides important information about your body's chemical balance and metabolism) on 4/29/21. During a review of Resident 70's Physician Telephone Order, dated 5/1/21 indicated for a CMP on 5/2/21. During a review of Resident 70's Progress Note dated 5/1/21 at 1:54 p.m., the Progress Note indicated Resident 70 had episodes of refusing a blood draw on 4/29/21. The Note indicated Resident 70's physician indicated to have the labs drawn on 5/2/21. During a review of Resident 70's Lab Requisition, dated 5/2/21, the Lab requisition indicated Resident 70 refused for the phlebotomist (medical personnel trained to draw blood from a patient) to draw the CMP lab on 5/2/21, 5/3/21 and 5/4/21. During a review of Resident 70's Physician's Telephone Order, dated 5/29/21 at 3:30 p.m., the Physician's Telephone Order indicated for a psych consult when available. During a review of Resident 70's Situation Background Assessment and Recommendation ([SBAR] internal communication tool indicating a change in a residents status), dated 5/31/21 at 7:28 a.m., the SBAR indicated Resident 70's physician was notified the resident was noted with non-compliant behavior, refusing ADLs care, treatment and lab work. The SBAR indicated Resident 70's physician indicated to continue psych consult for reevaluation. During a review of Resident 70's Physician Discharge Summary (DC Summary), dated 5/31/21, the DC Summary indicated Resident 70 was transferred to a general acute care hospital (GACH) on 5/31/21 due to non-compliant behavior, refusing bedside care, ADL's and labs. During a review of Resident 70's GACH Discharge Summary, dated 6/9/21, the GACH Discharge Summary indicated Resident 70 was admitted to the GACH on 6/1/21 after a transfer from the facility for increased agitation, hitting staff and being verbally abusive, refusing medications, and daily activities. The Discharge Summary indicated Resident 70 was placed on a 5150 hold (involuntary psychiatric hold) for danger to others, and gravely disabled (unable to care for oneself). The Discharge Summary indicated Resident 70's primary diagnosis was acute encephalopathy secondary to a complicated pseudomonas aeruginosa (type of bacteria commonly found in soil and water) urinary tract infection ([UTI] infection of the bladder). The GACH Discharge Summary indicated Resident 70 received Keflex ([antibiotic] used to treat infections) orally every six hours for five days. The Discharge Summary indicated Resident 70 was transferred back to the facility on 6/7/21. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/15/21 at 2:35 p.m. of Resident 70's Care Plans with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1), RN 1 stated Resident 70 should have a care plan for bowel and bladder incontinence. RN 1 verified there was no care plan initiated related to Resident 70's bowel and bladder status. RN 1 stated, Without a care plan, the nursing staff would not have interventions to care for the resident. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 70's Care Plan dated 5/3/21, on 7/16/21 at 12:43 p.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse 6 (LVN 6), LVN 6 confirmed Resident 70 should have care plans for risk for infection due to urinary incontinence. LVN 6 stated Resident 70 should have an incontinence care plan because the resident could not control her bowel movements and urination. LVN 6 stated, When the resident (Resident 70) returned from the hospital ( 6/7/21), she should have had a long-term care plan for being at risk for urinary tract infection (UTI) so that nursing staff could have interventions to help prevent the resident from catching another UTI. LVN 6 stated a baseline care plan for risk for UTI and dehydration should have been implemented as baseline care plans within 24 hours of the resident's readmission to the facility. LVN 6 confirmed there was no care plan initiated and stated care plans guided the licensed nurses and certified nursing assistant (CNAs) on how to care for a resident. LVN 6 stated if a care plan was not in the resident's chart it could cause the resident not to receive all the care they needed. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Person- Centered Care Planning, dated November 2018, the P&P indicated the baseline care plan must address a resident's specific health and safety concerns to prevent decline or injury, within 48 hours of the residents admission, to promote continuity of care and communication among nursing home staff, within 7 days after the comprehensive MDS assessment, the comprehensive care plan will be developed.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 49) wa...

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 five sampled residents (Resident 49) was provided with a smoking apron (protective fabric designed to protect smokers from cigarette burns) during smoke breaks. This deficient practice placed Resident 49 at risk for injury and bodily harm. Findings: During a review of Resident 49's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 49 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 49's diagnoses included hemiplgia (inability to move one side of the body) affecting the right side, lack of coordination, and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease ([COPD] progressive lung disease causing obstructed air flow from the lungs). During a review of Resident 49's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized resident assessment and care-screening tool, dated 11/30/2020, the MDS indicated Resident 49's cognition (ability to think and reason) was moderately impaired for daily decision-making skills. The MDS indicated Resident 49 required extensive assistance from nursing staff with activity of daily livings ([ADLs] self-care activities performed daily, such as dressing, eating, and personal hygiene). During a review of Resident 49's comprehensive care care plan for smoking dated 9/8/2020, the care plan indicated Resident 49 had a history of burning her fingers when smoking. The goal was to provide Resident 49 with a smoking apron for safety. The staff's interventions indicated to provide a smoking apron to Resident 49 prior to giving the resident a cigarette, and monitor Resident 49 for safety. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 2:35 p.m. with Resident 49, Resident 49 stated staff pushed her in the wheelchair to the patio for the smoke breaks. Resident 49 staff did not provide the resident with a smoking apron while smoking. Resident 49 stated she has never burned herself when smoking. During an observation on 7/15/21 at 4 p.m., Resident 49 was observed sitting on a wheelchair in the designated smoking patio area during a smoke break. Resident 49 was observed smoking a cigarette with her shaking left hand. Resident 49 was not wearing a smoking apron and the ashes from the cigarette were falling to the patio floor. Resident 49 was unable to use her right hand for support. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 4:10 p.m. with the Activity Director (AD), the AD concurred Resident 49 should have an apron for safety while smoking. During a review of the facility's undated policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Policy and Procedure on Smoking, the P/P indicated to provide additional protective barrier to incapable or incapacitated residents who are known to smoke. The P/P indicated the interdisciplinary team ([IDT] group of different disciplines working together towards a common goal for a resident) shall assess residents who smoke, for safety awareness and safe practices when smoking.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a therapeutic diet (meal plan that controls the intake of certain foods or nutrients/compounds in foods often followed...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a therapeutic diet (meal plan that controls the intake of certain foods or nutrients/compounds in foods often followed as part of the treatment of a medical condition, and is most times done temporarily to heal and/or to prevent health conditions) prescribed by the physician was followed and food preferences were honored for one sampled resident (Resident 84). This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 84 to experience stomach cramps, pain and diarrhea. Findings: During an interview on 07/12/21 at 11:15 a.m. with Resident 84, Resident 84 stated he was blind and had surgery. Resident 84 stated his vision was extremely limited. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/12/21 at 12:34 p.m. with the Social Services Designee (SSD), Resident 84 was observed in his room eating lunch. Items observed on Resident 84's meal tray included a sandwich, eight ounces of coffee, four ounces of cranberry juice, and a cup of vanilla ice cream. Resident 84 stated he was allergic to milk and was lactose intolerant (inability to digest lactose, a component of milk and some other dairy products). Resident 84 stated lactose gave him diarrhea, stomach cramps, nausea and vomiting. The SSD read Resident 84's meal card which indicated the resident disliked quesadillas, rice, chicken breast and milk. During a review of Resident 84's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was readmitted to facility on 12/1/2020. Resident 84's diagnoses included malignant neoplasm of prostate (cancer of the prostate) and cataract extraction status of the right eye (removal of a clouded lens from the eye). During a review of Resident 84's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 7/6/2021, the MDS indicated the resident cognitive (thought process) skills for daily decision-making were intact. The MDS indicated Resident 84 was independent in eating but required limited assistance from staff. During a review of Resident 84's History and Physical (H/P) dated 12/2/21, the H/P indicated the resident had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 84's physician's order dated 7/1/2021, the physician's order indicated the resident was on fortified (foods that have nutrients added to them that do not naturally occur in the food, meant to improve nutrition and add health benefits) regular diet. During a review of Resident 84's lunch meal card dated 7/12/2021, the lunch meal card indicated Resident 84 was to receive a fortified diet consisting of regular finger food, eight ounces of coffee, and four ounces of juice. The lunch meal card indicated Resident 84 dislikes included quesadillas, rice, milk, and chicken breast. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 11:59 a.m. with the Dietary Aide (DA), the DA stated the Resident 84's meal card had to be checked prior to the tray line. DA stated Resident 84's meal card was used to cross check with a log indicating the resident's name, his or her dislikes and allergies. DA stated Resident 84 did not drink milk but liked cranberry juice, water and coffee. DA stated Resident 84 could not eat ice cream since it contained milk. DA further stated if the resident drank milk, he would suffer from stomach cramps and diarrhea. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 12:23 p.m. with Registered Nurse 1 (RN 1) and MDS Coordinator 2 (MDS 2), RN 1 and MDS 2 stated the charge nurses have to check the resident's diet list that comes from the kitchen with the food on the meal card to ensure the right diet was ordered and provided to the right resident. MDS 2 stated if the wrong diet was offered to the resident, it could result in food allergy or cause diarrhea, abdominal discomfort or stomach cramps as in the case of Resident 84 who had allergy to milk or milk products. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P/P) titled, Therapeutic Diet, revised 8/1/2014, the P/P indicated therapeutic diets are diets that deviate from a regular diet and requires a physician's order. The P/P indicated the therapeutic diet will be indicated in the resident's tray card.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

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 implement a resident's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed implement a resident's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a resident assessment and care-screening tool) assessment to assist in directing care to one of 18 sampled residents (Resident 44) who required a two-person physical assist, by failing to: 1. Implement its policy and procedure (P/P) which indicated a care plan would be initiated according to identified risk factors. 2. Ensure staff were trained how to use the assessment Resident Special Needs List tool. These deficient practices resulted in Resident 44 falling and sustaining a scrape (injury to the skin) to the left knee and soreness to the left hip, and the potential for a fracture (broken bone) or severe injury. Findings: During a review of Resident 44's admission Record (face sheet), the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 44's diagnoses included metabolic encephalopathy (condition in which brain function is disturbed either temporarily or permanently due to different diseases or toxins in the body), muscle weakness, and major depressive disorder (mental disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities). During a review of Resident 44's COVID-19 ([Coronavirus] infectious respiratory disease caused by a virus) Monitoring form, dated 6/27/2021 on the 3 p.m. to 11 p.m. shift (evening), the COVID-19 Monitoring form indicated Resident 44 was alert and oriented times two (to person and place). The form indicated Resident 44's speech was slurred and the resident was verbally responsive. During a review of Resident 44's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a resident assessment and care-screening planning tool, dated 5/24/2021, the MDS indicated Resident 44 required extensive assistance with a two plus-person physical assist. During a review of Resident 44's Morse Fall Risk Assessment, the Morse Falls Risk Assessment indicated Resident 44 was a high risk for falls. The Morse Falls Risk Assessment indicated to implement high risk fall prevention interventions. During an interview on 7/16/21 at 11:33 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated staff used the Resident Special Needs List to assist them in identifying the needs of the resident. The DON stated the charge nurse completed the form. The DON defined the term supervised (indicated on the resident special needs list) as observing the resident while he/she was eating, and for the terms Limited and Extensive, the DON stated it depends. During an interview on 7/16/21 at 12:39 p.m. with the DON, the DON confirmed staff were unable to read the MDS to correlate (having a mutual relationship or connection) the MDS to the resident's Resident special needs List, demonstrating the lack of understanding and lacking competency on reading the MDS as intended. During an interview on 7/16/21 at 1:05 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse 8 (LVN 8), LVN 8 stated the MDS Nurse helped fill out the Resident special needs list. LVN 8 stated the admitting nurse completed the form for new admissions. LVN 8 stated staff received an in-service on the GG form and ADLS (activities of daily living) but not on the Resident special needs list. During an interview on 7/16/2021 at 10:41 a.m. with MDS Nurse (MDS 2), MDS 2 stated the Resident Special Needs List used the MDS as a reference. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Fall management Program, the P/P indicated as part of the admission assessment, the licensed nurse will complete a fall risk evaluation. If a fall risk factor is identified, document interventions on the resident's care plan. Document interventions for every resident regardless of fall risk evaluation score. The Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT) and/or the licensed nurse will develop a care plan according to the identified risk factors and root cause(s) per Care Area Assessment (CAA) guidelines.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one sampled resident (Resident 39) was free of unnecessary medications. This deficient practice placed Resident 39 at increased risk...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one sampled resident (Resident 39) was free of unnecessary medications. This deficient practice placed Resident 39 at increased risk for adverse drug side effects due to the resident taking multiple medications in the same drug category. Findings: During a review of Resident 39's admission Record (face sheet), dated 7/15/21, the admission Record indicated Resident 39 was re-admitted to facility on 5/21/21. Resident 39's diagnoses included muscle weakness and oral phase dysphagia (inability to coordinate chewing and swallowing). During a review of Resident 39's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a comprehensive assessment and care-screening tool, dated 4/20/21, the MDS indicated Resident 39 had severe cognitive (ability to think and reason) function. The MDS indicated Resident 39 required extensive assistance with toileting and was incontinent of bowel and bladder (unable to voluntary control urine and feces). During an interview on 7/16/21 at 1:43 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 (LVN 3), LVN 3 stated, The order for senna plus (combination of two medications [laxative and stool softener] used to treat occasional constipation) should be clarified with the physician because the senna plus has docusate sodium in the pill too so its like the resident is taking the same medication twice. Taking both of these medications can cause the resident to have diarrhea and potentially cause the resident to become dehydrated. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 1:25 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the facility's pharmacist conducted the medication regimen review (MRR). The DON stated the MRR was completed on admission and monthly, and recommendations by the pharmacist may include, dose reductions, monitoring laboratory results or suggestions to discontinue a duplicate medication may be provided to the facility. The DON stated the MRR was needed to ensure residents received safe doses of medications, checked to ensure all medications have a reason and to make sure the medications are not duplicated. During a review of Resident 39's Physician Orders, dated July 2021, the Physician Orders indicated the resident was ordered the following duplicate medications on 5/21/21: a. Docusate Sodium (medication used to soften feces) 100 milligrams (mg) one (1) tablet by mouth once per day, for bowel management. b. Lactulose (medication used to facilitate evacuation of the bowel) 10 grams (gm) by mouth two (2) times per day, for bowel management. c. Senna Plus one tablet by mouth two (2) times per day, for bowel management. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Drug Regimen Review, dated December 2016, the P/P indicated: a. The facility must ensure that a pharmacist reviews each resident 's medical chart every month to ensure residents medication regimen is free of unnecessary drugs. Unnecessary drug is any drug when used in excessive dose (including duplicate drug therapy). b. Pharmacist must provide the facility with a copy of the drug regimen review.
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 interview and record review, the facility failed to document a reason for not attempting a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for the use of an antidepressant (medication used for the treatment of ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document a reason for not attempting a gradual dose reduction (GDR) for the use of an antidepressant (medication used for the treatment of mood disorders) for one resident sampled (Resident 39). This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 39 receiving more medication than was necessary. Findings: During a review of Resident 39's admission Record (face sheet), dated 7/15/21, the admission Record indicated Resident 39 was re-admitted to facility on 5/21/21. Resident 39's diagnoses included schizophrenia (long-term mental disorder of a type involving a breakdown in the relation between thought, emotion, and behavior, leading to faulty perception, inappropriate actions and feelings, withdrawal from reality and personal relationships into fantasy and delusion, and a sense of mental fragmentation) and major depressive disorder (disorder characterized by periods of sadness and feelings of hopelessness). During a review of Resident's 39's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a comprehensive resident assessment and care-screening tool, dated 4/20/21, the MDS indicated Resident 39 had severe cognitive (ability to think and reason) impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 39 was assessed as having a poor appetite or overeating for several days (2 to 6 days) per week. residents cognition was severely impaired. During a review of Resident 39's Physician's Order, dated 5/21/21, the Physician's order indicated the resident was to be administered Remeron (medication to treat major depressive disorder, improves mood and feelings of well-being) 7.5 milligrams ([mg] unit of mass) every other day at bedtime for depression as manifested by poor appetite of eating less than 50 percent (%) of meals. During a review of Resident 39's undated Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber, the Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber indicated a gradual dose reduction (GDR) telephone order was given by Resident 39's physician (MD 1) to an undisclosed person (due to the inability to read the persons signature). During a subsequent interview on 7/15/21 at 1:12 p.m., of Resident 39's Note to Attending Physician/Prescriber, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated GDR's were completed for residents taking psychoactive (medication used to treat a mental illness) or antidepressants (medication used to treat depression). The DON stated the GDR attempts to lower the dose of a psychoactive medication to see if the resident can have desired outcomes at a lower rate. The DON stated the GDR must be attempted unless a physician provides a contraindication. The DON confirmed Resident 39's GDR from the pharmacy consultant was not completed nor accurate by the person who took the telephone order because it did not select a reason for not attempting a GDR. The DON stated the note was not dated to indicate when Resident 39's physician was notified. The DON stated this could have placed the resident at risk for not receiving the appropriate dose. During an interview on 7/21/21 at 11:18 p.m. with MD 1, MD 1 stated that he would normally document that the risk outweighs the benefits and that he should have selected the option that would have indicated that changing the dose of the medication would have more risk than benefits to the residents. MD 1 stated he normally did not provide a telephone order for GDR's and there should be a progress note in the record on the date that the GDR was completed. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P/P) titled, Behavior and psychoactive drug management, dated November 2018, the P/P indicated psychopharmacological medications (other than antipsychotics and sedative hypnotics) should have a GDR annually after the first year of taking the medication.
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Correctly label and date food items in the kitchen. 2. Ensure the ice-maker machine was locked and the interior was free ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Correctly label and date food items in the kitchen. 2. Ensure the ice-maker machine was locked and the interior was free from dirt. These deficient practices placed the residents receiving food and ice from the kitchen at risk for food-bourne illnesses. Findings: During an initial kitchen tour observation on 7/12/2021 at 9:03 a.m. the following was observed: 1. One opened beef based can with no open date indicated. 2. One box of Quaker oats with no receive date indicated on the box. 3. One bean pot vegetarian can with no receive date indicated on the can. 4. Four bags of corn inside the freezer with no receive date indicated on the bag. 5. Watermelons and pineapples with no receive date indicated on the counter where the fruits were being stored. During an observation inside the staff lounge area on 7/12/21 at 9:20 a.m., the ice machine maker was unlocked. During an interview on 7/12/21 at 9:21 a.m. with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), the DS stated the ice machine must always be locked. During an observation on 7/12/21 at 9:22 a.m., there was dirt observed on the lining inside the door of the ice maker machine. During a subsequent interview on 7/12/21 at 9:23 a.m. with the DS, DS confirmed the presence of dirt on the lining inside the door of the ice maker machine. The DS stated that anything that goes into the pantry, refrigerator and freezer must have a receive date and an open date so that the kitchen staff would know when it was received and the exact date it was opened. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Food Safety, revised 7/25/2019, the P/P indicated the purpose of the P/P was to establish guidelines for storing, thawing, and preparing food. The P/P indicated foods items will be stored, thawed, and prepared in accordance with good sanitary practice. All items will be correctly labeled and dated.
CONCERN (E)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two sampled residents (Residents 29 and 39) we...

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 sampled residents (Residents 29 and 39) were treated with dignity and respect by: 1. Failing to provide Resident 29 with privacy after being left naked and exposed in bed while waiting for care to be provided. 2. Failing to ensure staff did not stand over Resident 39 while assisting with meals. These deficient practices had the potential for Residents 29 and 39 to experience embarrassment due to a loss of dignity. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 29's admission Record (face sheet), the admission Record indicated Resident 29 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 29's diagnoses included Type 2 diabetes mellitus (high blood sugar), Alzheimer's disease (progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), gastrostomy dependent (tube inserted into the stomach for nutrition, hydration, and medication), left hand contracture (gradual thickening and tightening of tissue under the skin in the hand), and dementia (progressive memory loss marked by memory disorders, personality changes, and impaired reasoning). During a review of Resident 29's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a comprehensive assessment and care-screening tool, dated 5/10/2021, the MDS indicated Resident 29 had impaired cognitive function (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses). During an observation on 7/12/2021 at 10:29 a.m., Resident 29 was observed naked and left alone in bed waiting for care, with the air conditioner blowing. During an interview on 7/12/2021 at 10:33 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant 1 (CNA 1), CNA 1 stated it was wrong to leave Resident 29 unattended and naked while CNA 1 was finishing providing care to a different resident in a different room. During an interview on 7/15/2021 at 2:23 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse 4 (LVN 4), LVN 4 stated it was not good practice to leave the resident exposed and naked, even if the curtains were closed. LVN 4 stated the resident was still exposed to the open and anybody could come inside the resident room and see the resident naked. LVN 4 stated the resident might get sick with coughs and cold while the air conditioning was running. LVN 4 stated leaving Resident 29 naked and exposed was a dignity issue. During an interview on 7/16/2021 at 11:20 a.m. with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated staff were not supposed to leave the residents naked and admitted it was wrong because it was a dignity issues and further stated that staff must provide better quality of care. b. During a review of Resident 39's admission Record, dated 7/15/21, the admission Record indicated Resident 39 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 1's diagnoses included muscle weakness and oral phase dysphagia (difficulty chewing and swallowing). During a review of Resident 39's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 39 required limited assistance of one staff person when eating. During an observation on 7/12/21 at 12:47 p.m., in Resident 39's room, Certified Nursing Assistant 7 (CNA 7) was observed assisting Resident 39 with his lunch meal. CNA 7 was observed standing beside Resident 39 while assisting the resident to eat. There was no chair observed in the room during this time. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 2:43 p.m. with CNA 7, CNA 7 stated she knew she should sit while feeding Resident 39 to show a sign of respect but the facility has not provided staff with chairs in the resident's rooms to be able to sit while providing meal assistance. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Resident Rights, revised on 1/1/2012, the P/P indicated to the purpose of the P/P was to promote and protect the rights of all residents at the facility. The P/P indicated residents had a number of rights under state and federal law and the Facility will promote and protect those rights. The P/P indicated residents have freedom of choice, as much as possible, about how they wish to live their everyday lives and receive care, subject to the facility's rules and regulations and applicable state and federal laws governing the protection of resident health and safety. Employees are to treat all residents with kindness, respect, and dignity and honor the exercise of residents' rights.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0565 (Tag F0565)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to resolve the following resident grievances in a timely manner for th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to resolve the following resident grievances in a timely manner for three of nine sampled residents (Residents 33, 61, and 68): 1. Residents 61 and 68 missing clothing items from the laundry room. 2. Resident 33's missing backpack. This deficient practice was violation of the facility's policy to make every effort to have a home-like environment. Findings: a. During a review of Resident 33's admission Record (face sheet), the admission Record indicated Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 33's diagnoses included muscle weakness, contracture (condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints) of the right and left ankle, and heart failure (chronic, progressive condition in which the heart muscle is unable to pump enough blood to meet the body's needs for blood). During a review of Resident 33's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a standardized assessment and care-screening tool, dated 5/20/21, the MDS indicated Resident 33 had no cognitive (ability to think and reason) impairment for daily decision-making. The MDS indicated Resident required extensive assistance of a two-person physical assist with activity of daily livings ([ADLs] self-care activities performed daily, such as eating, dressing, and personal hygiene). During a review of Resident 33's care plan dated 5/13/21, the care plan indicated Resident 33 had risk for decline in psychosocial functioning related to medical condition. The care plan indicated the goal approach indicated Resident 33's psychosocial well-being needs would be met by identifying the root cause, and intervene appropriately validating concerns. During an interview on 7/14/21 at 3 p.m. with Resident 33, Resident 33 stated she voiced her concerns to the social services designee (SSD) and the Administrator (ADMIN) regarding her missing backpack after the resident was transferred to a general acute care hospital (GACH). During an interview on 7/14/21 at 3:30 p.m. with the SSD, the SSD was asked if she was informed of Resident 33's missing backpack upon the resident's return from the GACH. The SSD stated Resident 33 informed her of the missing backpack and would be reimbursed for the missing item. b. During a review of Resident 61's admission Record, the admission Record indicated Resident 61 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 61's diagnoses included bipolar disorder (personality disorder) and chronic obstruction pulmonary disease ([COPD] progressive disease of the lungs, causing difficulty breathing), and major depression (persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest). During a review of Resident 61's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 61 had no cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 61 required supervision with ADLs. During a resident group council meeting on 7/14/21 at 10:30 a.m., Resident 61 stated his black pants were sent to the laundry room and have been missing for over two weeks. Resident 61 stated he spoke with the laundry supervisor two weeks ago about his missing pants, but has not heard anything from the laundry room about his missing pants. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 12:50 p.m. with the Laundry Supervisor, the Laundry Supervisor stated he found Resident 61's black pants in the unclaimed section of the laundry room and returned the black pants to Resident 61, and notified the SSD. The Laundry Supervisor stated when the certified nursing assistants (CNAs) did not tag the resident's clothes, the clothes could end up missing. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 1:10 p.m. with Resident 61, Resident 61 stated he received his black pants from the laundry room. c. During a review of Resident 68's admission Record, the admission record indicated Resident 68's diagnoses included lack of coordination and schizophrenia (mental personality disorder). During a review of Resident 68's MDS dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 68 had no cognitive impairment. The MDS indicated Resident 68 required limited assistance with ADLS. During a review of Resident 68's care plan dated 3/1/21, the care plan indicated a concern for decline psychosocial functioning related to medical condition with a goal approach of psychosocial well-being needs will be met by identify root cause, and intervene appropriately validating concerns. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 12:50 p.m. with the Laundry Supervisor, the Laundry Supervisor was asked how did the CNAs bring resident clothes to the laundry room to be washed. The Laundry Supervisor stated he did not know what the nurses did, but the clothes were to be put into a plastic bag with the resident's room number, and name on the bag to be washed. During a resident council group meeting on 7/15/21 at 2:30 p.m., Resident 68 stated her pink pants were not returned from the laundry room two weeks ago. Resident 68 stated she gave the pink pants to CNA 7 to take to the laundry room for washing. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 3:30 p.m. with CNA 4, CNA 4 stated the CNAs were to place the resident's clothes inside a plastic bag with the resident's name and room number and take the dirty clothes to the laundry room. CNA 4 stated if the CNA does not put the room number with resident name on the plastic bag, CNA 4 agreed the clothes could end up missing. During an interview on 7/16/21 at 2:45 p.m. with CNA 7 , CNA 7 stated he had taken Resident 68's clothes to the laundry room in the past but could not remember if he took Resident 68's pink pants to the laundry room for washing. During an interview on 7/16/21 at 3 p.m. with the SSD, the SSD stated Resident 68 was reimbursed for her pants. During a review of the facility policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Personal Property, dated 7/14/17, the P/P indicated the facility will promptly investigate any complaints of misappropriation (stealing) of residents personal property.
CONCERN (E)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Recognize Resident 31's non-verbal cues for pain...

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: 1. Recognize Resident 31's non-verbal cues for pain and to ensure the resident's pain assessment was accurate. 2. Ensure Resident 31's care plan interventions for pain management were implemented. 3. Ensure Resident 31 received appropriate hospice (care to provide comfort, relieve pain, and offer support for persons near the end of life and their families) services. These deficient practices resulted in inadequate relief from pain for Resident 31 and placed Resident 31 at risk of not receiving the care necessary to prevent pain, discomfort and distress. Findings: During a review of Resident 31's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 31's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (a disease that causes problem with memory, thinking and behavior), chronic kidney disease (gradual loss of kidney function), dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), contractures of the right and left shoulder (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints), presence of gastrostomy tube ([GT] a tube that is placed directly into the stomach through an abdominal wall incision for administration of food, fluids, and medication), transient cerebral ischemic attack (brief episode during which parts of the brain do not receive enough blood) and hospice services (care to provide comfort, relieve pain, and offer support for persons near end of life and their families). During a review of Resident 31's Minimum Data Set (MDS), resident assessment and care-screening tool, dated 5/13/21, the MDS indicated Resident 31 had severely impaired cognitive (thought process) skills for daily decision-making. During a review of Resident 31's care plan titled, Impaired verbal communication related to speech: resident is aphasic, unable to make needs known, initiated on 10/15/2020, the care plan goal indicated Resident 31 would be able to have needs met daily for three months. The staff intervention's included to anticipate needs and assist with ADLs as needed. During a review of Resident 31's care plan titled, Pain: High risk for pain and discomfort ., initiated on 10/15/2020, the care plan goal indicated to maintain comfort as evidenced by no moaning, no grimacing, no clinching of the teeth during care and activities of daily living ([ADLs] daily self-care activities such as dressing, eating, and toileting) for three months. The staff's interventions included to administer Tylenol 650 mg via GT every day 30 minutes prior to treatment for pain management. During a review of Resident 31's care plan titled, Hospice, initiated on 11/20/2020, the care plan goal indicated Resident 31 would be kept comfortable throughout the disease process. The staff intervention's included to keep Resident 31 comfortable and free of pain and administer pain medication as ordered. During a review of Resident 31's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the months of June and July 2021. The MAR indicated there was no pain medications administered from June 1 to July 15, 2021 to Resident 31. The MAR indicated Resident 31 had the following medications prescribed for pain management: 1. Morphine (narcotic used to treatment moderate to severe pain) 0.25 milligrams ([mg] unit of measurement) sublingual (under the tongue) every two hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. 2. Acetaminophen (pain reliever) 650 mg suppository (medication designed to be inserted into the rectum or vagina) for mild pain as needed. During a review of Resident 31's physician's order summary for the month of July 2021, the order summary indicated to monitor the pain level at the GT site and medicate as needed. During a review of Resident 31's pain assessment record dated June 2021 and July 2021, the pain assessment record indicated the nurse's non-verbal scale assessment indicating the resident had no pain frequency of pain indicated as none, relief after medication indication NA= not applicable; ability to converse indicated unable to carry on conversation. During an observation of Resident 31's gastrostomy site wound treatment on 7/15/2021 at 8:42 am. with Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 (LVN 3) and Certified Nursing Assistant 6 (CNA 6), Resident 31's skin around the gastrostomy tube was inflamed (red and swollen) with a reddish discharge (flow of fluid from a part of the body) noted. Resident 31 was observed grimacing (facial expression usually of disgust, disapproval, or pain) and stiffening and attempting to move her arm towards the site while LVN 3 cleansed the site with normal saline (solution used to clean wounds). During an interview on 7/15/2021 at 8:54 a.m. with LVN 3, LVN 3 stated Resident 31 always held her hand tight, tensed up and jerked when providing care. LVN 3 stated maybe Resident 31 had a little discomfort/sensation. LVN 3 stated pain medication was not given prior to the gastrostomy site dressing change. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/15/2021 at 11:12 a.m. with LVN 8, LVN 8 stated prior to giving any treatment we need to assess the resident for pain and provide pain interventions prior to doing any dressing changes. LVN 8 stated the goal for hospice care was to keep the resident comfortable, free of pain, well hydrated, dry, diaper change when wet, good hygiene, turning and positioning. LVN 8 stated staff should give medication as prescribed to keep the resident comfortable. During an interview on 7/15/2021 at 12:18 p.m. with the Nurse Practitioner (NP), the NP stated the focus of hospice care was for comfort care and pain management. The NP stated for nonverbal residents, staff should look for facial grimacing and irritability or fidgeting while providing care. During an interview on 07/15/2021 at 1:32 p.m. with LVN 2, LVN 2 stated pain assessment of nonverbal residents were done by observing facial grimacing and movements of the body. LVN 2 stated interventions included repositioning, giving pain medication as needed and to keep the resident comfortable. During an interview on 7/15/2021 at 1:42 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the focus of care for hospice residents included comfort measures such as pain management and making sure the residents were not in distress. The DON stated the nurses know to assess the facial expression, distress, resistance, and reaction of the resident. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/15/2021 at 2:07 p.m. with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated they perform competency tests for pain management and it was incorporated with medication management. The DSD stated we discuss the case study on how to identify pain in nonverbal residents. DSD stated when the resident was on hospice, the main focus was comfort measures, hygiene, positioning, warmth, and pain management. During a review of the facility's P/P titled, Hospice Care of Residents, revised January 1, 2012, the P/P indicated the resident's right to comprehensive pain and symptom management at the end of life, including, but not limited to: adequate pain medication. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Pain Management, revised November 2016, the P/P indicated the facility staff would help the resident attain or maintain their highest level of well -being while working to prevent or manage the resident's pain to the extent possible. The P/P indicated the licensed nurse would assess a resident who cannot verbalize intensity of their pain based on nonverbal cues such as grimacing, increased confusion, restlessness . During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, revised November 2018, the P/P indicated the facility was to provide person centered, comprehensive and interdisciplinary care that reflects best practice standards for meeting health, safety, psychosocial . maintain the highest physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0697 (Tag F0697)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pain medication for one of five sampled resid...

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 pain medication for one of five sampled residents (Resident 31) prior to wound treatment. This deficient practice resulted in Resident 31 experiencing unnecessary pain. Findings: During a review of Resident 31's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE]. Resident 31's diagnoses included Alzheimer's disease (disease that causes problems with memory, thinking and behavior), chronic kidney disease, dysphagia (difficulty swallowing), contractures of the muscles of the right and left shoulder (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints), presence of gastrostomy tube ([GT] a tube that is placed directly into the stomach through an abdominal wall incision for administration of food, fluids, and medication), transient cerebral ischemic attack (brief episode during which parts of the brain do not receive enough blood) and hospice services (care to provide comfort, relieve pain, and offer support, providing pain and symptom relief, as well as emotional and spiritual support, typically in the last six months of life). During a review of Resident 31's History and Physical (H/P) dated 11/10/2020, the H/P indicated Resident 31 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 31's Minimum Data Set (MDS), standardized assessment and care screening tool, dated May 13, 2021, the MDS indicated Resident 31 had severe impaired cognitive (thought process) skills for daily decision-making. During a review of Resident 31's care plan titled, Pain: High risk for pain and discomfort ., initiated on 10/15/2020, the care plan indicated the goal was to maintain comfort as evidenced by no moaning, no grimacing, no clinching of teeth during care and ADLs for three months. The staff's interventions included to administer Tylenol 650 mg via GT every day 30 minutes prior to treatment for pain management. During a review of Resident 31's care plan titled, Impaired verbal communication ., initiated on 10/15/2020, the care plan indicated a goal that Resident 31 would be able to have needs met daily for three months. The staff's intervention's included to anticipate Resident 31's needs and assist with ADLs as needed. During a review of Resident 31's care plan titled, Hospice, initiated on 11/20/2020, the care plan goal indicated Resident 31 would be kept comfortable throughout the disease process. The staff's interventions included to keep Resident 31 comfortable and free of pain and administer pain medication as ordered. During a review of Resident 31's pain assessment record dated June 2021 and July 2021, the record indicated Resident 31's non-verbal pain scale assessment indicated the resident was assessed as having no pain. The frequency of Resident 31's pain was assessed as none and relief after medication indicated NA= not applicable; ability to converse indicated unable to carry on conversation. During a review of Resident 31's physician's order summary for July 2021, the physician's order summary indicated to monitor the pain level at the GT site and medicate as needed. During an observation of Resident 31's wound care of the GT site on 7/15/2021 at 8:42 a.m., the skin around the GT was inflamed (swollen and red) and when wiped with a dressing, noted with reddish discharge. Resident 31 was observed grimacing (facial expression that shows disgust, disapproval, or pain) and attempting to move her arm down to the site and stiffening her arms as Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 (LVN 3) cleansed the site with normal saline. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/15/2021 at 8:54 a.m., LVN 3 stated Resident 31 always held her hand tight, tensed up and jerked when providing care. LVN 3 stated maybe Resident 31 had a little discomfort and sensation. LVN 3 stated pain medication was not given prior to changing Resident 31's GT's site dressing. During a concurrent interview and record review on 7/15/2021 at 11:12 a.m. with LVN 8, LVN 8 stated prior to doing any treatment we need to assess for pain and provide pain intervention prior to doing any dressing changes. LVN 8 stated the goal for hospice care was to keep Resident 31 comfortable, with no pain and to give medication as prescribed to keep the resident comfortable. During a review of Resident 31's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the months of June and July 2021, the MARs indicated pain medications were not administered to Resident 31 from June 1 to July 15, 2021. The MAR indicated Resident 31 was prescribed the following pain management: 1. Morphine (narcotic used to treat moderate to severe pain) 0.25 milligrams ([mg] unit of mass) sublingual (under the tongue) every two hours as needed for moderate to severe pain. 2. Acetaminophen (pain reliever) 650 mg suppository (medication designed to be inserted into the rectum or vagina) for mild pain as needed. During an interview with LVN 2 on 7/15/2021 at 1:32 p.m., LVN 2 stated pain assessment of nonverbal residents were performed by observing facial grimacing and movements of the body. LVN 2 stated interventions included repositioning, giving pain medication as needed and to keep the resident comfortable. During an interview on 7/15/2021 at 12:18 p.m. with the Nurse Practitioner (NP), NP stated the focus of hospice care was comfort and pain management. NP stated for nonverbal residents, staff should look for facial grimacing and irritability or fidgeting while providing care. During an interview on 7/15/2021 at 1:42 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the focus of care for hospice residents included comfort measures such pain management and making sure the residents are not in distress. The DON stated our nurses know to assess the facial expression, distress, resistance, and reaction of the resident. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Pain Management, revised November 2016, the P/P indicated the facility staff will help the resident attain or maintain their highest level of well -being while working to prevent or manage the resident's pain to the extent possible. The license nurse will assess resident who cannot verbalize intensity of their pain based on nonverbal cues such as grimacing, increased confusion, restlessness . During a review of the facility's P/P titled, Hospice Care of Residents, revised January 1, 2012, the P/P indicated the resident's right to comprehensive pain and symptom management at the end of life, including, but not limited to adequate pain medication.
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

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: 1. Ensure nursing staff administered a medication wi...

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: 1. Ensure nursing staff administered a medication with meals and food, per physician's order, for one of three residents (Resident 61) observed during the morning medication administration (med pass). 2. Ensure a resident (Resident 285) was assessed and received a physician's order for the self-administration of medications, and the medications left at the bedside were labeled and checked for drug interactions from the facility's contracted pharmacy. These deficient practices had the potential for harm to Residents 61 and 285 due to potential adverse effects of the medications and medication duplication. Findings: a. During an observation on 7/13/21 from 8:40 a.m. to 9:02 a.m., at the [NAME] Station Medication Cart 1 for Resident 61's medication administration (med pass), Licensed Vocational Nurse 7 (LVN 7) prepared the following medications: Ibuprofen (Motrin, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory [NSAID] used for pain relief) 600 milligrams ([mg] strength in milligram units) tablet, Buspirone (Buspar, used to treat anxiety) HCl 10 mg tablet, Gabapentin (Neurontin, used to treat seizures) 600 mg tablet, Nifedipine ER (Procardia XL, used to treat high blood pressure and chest pain) 30 mg tablet, Escitalopram (Lexapro, used to treat depression and anxiety) 20 mg tablet, Furosemide (Lasix, used to treat fluid retention and swelling) 20 mg tablet, Magnesium Oxide (used to treat anxiety and depression, or used as an antacid or laxative) 400 mg tablet, and Iron 65 mg (ferrous sulfate 325 mg, used to treat and prevent iron deficiency anemia). LVN 7 administered all the oral medications together at one time, without food nor meal, to Resident 61. During a review of Resident 61's Physician's Orders, dated July 2021, the Physician's Order indicated an order for, Motrin 600 mg, one (1) tablet by mouth three times a day with meals for pain management. During a review of the facility's undated meal times schedule, the meal times schedule indicated, Breakfast 7:00 A.M. During a review of Resident 61's Physician's Orders, dated July 2021, the Physician's Orders indicated an order for, Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg (Iron 65 mg) one tablet by mouth every day for anemia, (give with food). During an interview on 7/13/21 at 1:13 p.m. with the Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA), regarding the time that Resident 61's breakfast was served that morning, PTA stated, Everyone gets served at 7 o'clock. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 1:18 p.m. with LVN 7, regarding not giving Motrin and Iron with food, LVN 7 stated, Hmm and paused. Regarding breakfast at 7:00 a.m. on the meal schedule, LVN 7 stated, He (Resident 61) ate breakfast 10 to 15 minutes before (med pass), he ate really late. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 1:35 p.m. with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), regarding Resident 61's specific meal schedule, DS stated, Breakfast is served at 7 a.m. The trays are collected by the nurses. During a review of the facility's pharmacy policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Medication Administration-General Guidelines, effective date 8/10/10 (August 10, 2010), the P/P indicated, Procedures .Administration .Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the attending physician. b. During a review of Resident 285's admission Record (face sheet), the admission Record indicated Resident 285 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE]. Resident 285's diagnoses included schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly), obesity (abnormal or excessive fat accumulation that presents a risk to health), hyperlipidemia (an abnormally high concentration of fats or lipids in the blood), osteoarthritis (wearing down of the protective tissue at the ends of bones (cartilage) occurs gradually and worsens over time, causing pain and stiffness, especially in the hip, knee, and thumb joints), and major depressive disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities, causing significant impairment in daily life). During a review of Resident 285's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 6/18/2021, the MDS indicated Resident 285 had intact cognitive function (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses). During an observation on 7/12/2021 at 11:05 a.m., the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IP) was observed sorting the following medications stored in Resident 285's drawer: 1. Voltaren topical gel 1 % (NSAID, used to treat arthritis pain) to apply two to three times daily 2. De-stress relax tablet administered when needed 3. Immunity sleep administered when needed 4. Milk of Magnesium (MOM, antacid or laxative) administered when needed 5. Strong Nails 2500 microgram ([mcg] unit of measurement) gummies, two gummies daily 6. Fungi nail ointment, apply once daily During a subsequent interview on 7/12/2021 at 11:09 a.m. with Resident 285, Resident 285 stated she had been taking the medications in her drawer on her own and the staff did not check on the medications with her. During a review of Resident 285's medical record on 7/12/2021 at 11:25 a.m., there was no documentation a medication self-administration assessment was performed for Resident 285. During an interview on 7/14/2021 at 11:39 a.m. with the IP, IP stated all staff assigned to the resident must be do inventory on what the resident has brought to the facility, especially their own medications. IP stated if a resident was taking their own medications, it must require an assessment, proper care planning and an interdisciplinary team ([IDT] group of different disciplines working together towards a common goal for a resident) meeting must be done to make sure it would be properly assessed by the admitting physician if a resident is able to self-administer their own medications. IP stated the facility's contracted pharmacy must come to pick up the medications, label it and check for any drug interactions that could possibly lead to overdose, falls and injury as a result of the drug interactions. During a telephone interview on 7/14/2021 at 12:20 p.m. with the Pharmacy Consultant (PC), PC stated when a resident was taking their own medications, it must be properly assessed by the resident's physician and the resident should have the capacity to self-administer their own medications. PC stated, I was informed by the facility staff that the resident (Resident 285) was taking some of her own medications and should not be allowed to do that unless properly assessed and was given a physician's order to self-administer her own medications. The facility staff must prevent any resident from self-medicating unless an order had been given. PC stated the PC must come to the facility if he/she was aware of the situation to label the prescribed medications including the over the counter (OTC) medications, and check for drug interactions. During a review of the facility's P/P titled, Assessment for Self-Administration of Medications, revised on 4/2012, the P/P indicated the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) must perform an assessment and review prior to recommending that a resident may self-administer medications. The P/P indicated if self-administration is approved by the IDT, the IDT will request a physician order for self-administration of medications. Self-administration of medication(s) may not be initiated until: 1. Assessment is completed, and the IDT agrees that the resident is safe to self - administer medication(s); 2. The Attending Physician writes an order for self-administration of medication(s); 3. The resident agrees to follow the facility policy for self-administration of medications.
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five (5) percent, due to two (2) medication administration errors involving one o...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a medication error rate of less than five (5) percent, due to two (2) medication administration errors involving one out of three residents (Resident 61) observed during medication administration (med pass). This deficient practice of a medication administration error rate of six and six one hundredths percent (6.06 %) exceeded the five (5) percent threshold. Findings: During an observation on 7/13/21 from 8:40 a.m. to 9:02 a.m., at the [NAME] Station Medication Cart 1 for Resident 61's medication administration (med pass), Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN 7) prepared the following medications: Ibuprofen (Motrin, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory used for pain relief) 600 mg (strength in milligram units) tablet, Buspirone (Buspar, used to treat anxiety) HCl 10 mg tablet, Gabapentin (Neurontin, used to treat seizures) 600 mg tablet, Nifedipine ER (Procardia XL, used to treat high blood pressure and chest pain) 30 mg tablet, Escitalopram (Lexapro, used to treat depression and anxiety) 20 mg tablet, Furosemide (Lasix, used to treat fluid retention and swelling) 20 mg tablet, Magnesium Oxide (used to treat anxiety and depression, or used as an antacid or laxative) 400 mg tablet, and Iron 65 mg (ferrous sulfate 325 mg, used to treat and prevent iron deficiency anemia [lack of red blood cells]). LVN 7 administered all the oral medications together at one time, without food nor meal, to Resident 61. During a review of Resident 61's Physician's Order, dated July 2021, the Physician's Order indicated an order for, Motrin 600 mg, one (1) tablet by mouth three times a day with meals for pain management. During a review of the facility's undated meal times schedule, the meal times schedule indicated, Breakfast 7:00 A.M. During a review of Resident 61's Physician's Order, dated July 2021, the Physician's Order indicated an order for, Ferrous Sulfate 325 mg (Iron 65 mg) one tablet by mouth every day for anemia, (give with food). During an interview on 7/13/21, at 1:13 p.m., with the Physical Therapy Assistant (PTA), regarding the time that Resident 61's breakfast was served that morning, PTA stated, Everyone gets served at 7 o'clock. During an interview on 7/13/21 at 1:18 p.m. with LVN 7, regarding not giving Motrin and Iron with food, LVN 7 stated, Hmm and paused. Regarding breakfast at 7:00 a.m. on the meal schedule, LVN 7 stated, He (Resident 61) ate breakfast 10 to 15 minutes before (med pass), he ate really late. During an interview on 7/13/21, at 1:35 p.m. with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), regarding Resident 61's specific meal schedule, DS stated, Breakfast is served at 7 a.m. The trays are collected by the nurses. During a review of the facility's pharmacy policy and procedures (P/P) titled, Medication Administration-General Guidelines, effective date 8/10/10 (August 10, 2010), the P/P indicated, Procedures .Administration .Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the attending physician. The medication error rate was calculated as two (2) medication errors divided by thirty-three (33) opportunities, multiplied by one-hundred (100), which resulted in the medication error rate of six and six one hundredths percent (6.06 %), which exceeded the five (5) percent threshold.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to: 1. Ensure one (1) bottle of an over-the-counter medi...

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: 1. Ensure one (1) bottle of an over-the-counter medication was not expired, located in one (1) medication storage room, out of three (3) total medication storage rooms at the facility. This deficient practice had the potential for harm to residents due to the potential loss of strength of the medication, and the potential for the residents to receive ineffective medication dosages due to expired medication. 2. Ensure the refrigerator temperature monitoring records did not have an incorrect printed temperature range, located in two (2) medication storage rooms, out of three (3) total medication storage rooms at the facility. This deficient practice had the potential for harm to residents due to the potential loss of strength of the medications, and the potential for the residents to receive ineffective medication dosages due to potential undetected excursions outside of the correct temperature range. Findings: 1. During an observation on [DATE] at 12:34 p.m., in the Central Supply Room, one (1) bottle of Docusate Sodium (Colace, used as a stool softener and a laxative) 240 mg (strength in milligram units) Softgels (a specialized oral capsule with a gelatin based shell surrounding a liquid fill), quantity of 100, with an expiration date of, EXP 5/21 (expiration date [DATE]). During an interview on [DATE] at 1:35 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant 6 (CNA 6), who was also the Central Supply Director, regarding the expired Docusate Sodium 240 mg dated [DATE], CNA 6 stated, OK, I'm sorry, I didn't check this. During a review of the facility's pharmacy policy and procedures (P/P) titled, Storage of Medications, effective date [DATE] ([DATE]), the P/P indicated, Procedures .Outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medications .are immediately removed from stock, disposed of according to procedures for medication disposal . 2a. During an observation on [DATE] at 12:12 p.m., in the Central Supply room, the room temperature log indicated a pre-printed room temperature range of 55 - 77 F Degrees (55 degrees to 77 degrees Fahrenheit. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE] at 12:34 p.m., with CNA 6 regarding room temperature range indicated on the room temperature log, received a request from the surveyor for the medication storage policy and procedure. CNA 6's review of the facility's P/P indicated the room temperature range of 59 degrees F to 86 degrees F. The preprinted temperature of 55 degrees F was 4 degrees lower than the minimum room temperature of 59 degrees F, and the pre-printed temperature of 77 degrees was 9 degrees lower than the maximum temperature of 86 degrees F. During an interview on [DATE] at 2:10 p.m. with CNA 6, regarding the pre-printed temperature range of 55 to 77 degrees F, CNA 6 stated, We are going to update to 59 to 86. 2b. During an observation on [DATE], at 2:48 p.m., the room temperature log indicated a pre-printed temperature range of, 55-77 F Degrees (55 degrees to 77 degrees Fahrenheit). During a concurrent interview and review on [DATE] at 2:55 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse 9 (LVN 9), regarding the room temperature range of 55 to 57 degrees F, compared to the facility's P/P which indicated 59 to 86 degrees F, LVN 9 stated, Let me get them (management) to correct it. During a review of the facility's pharmacy P/P titled, Storage of Medications,, effective date [DATE] ([DATE]), the P/P indicated, Procedures .Medications requiring storage at 'room temperature' are kept at temperatures ranging from 15 degrees C (59 degrees F) to 30 degrees C (86 degrees F).
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the following for one sampled resident (Resident 44) receivi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the following for one sampled resident (Resident 44) receiving hospice (type of healthcare that focuses on the care, comfort, and quality of life of a person with a serious illness who is approaching the end of life) care: a. Ensure there was a signed agreement between the facility and the Hospice agency. b. Ensure Resident 44's diagnoses qualified the resident to be placed under hospice care. c. Ensure Informed consent and treatment authorization of the Hospice program was completed and signed. d. Implement the facility's Hospice program policy and procedures. e. File weekly assessment nursing progress notes in the Hospice binder or in Resident 44's medical records. These deficient practices had the potential to result in Resident 44 not receiving appropriate hospice care and services or placed under hospice program against her will. Findings: During a review of Resident 44's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 44's diagnoses included end stage cerebrovasculer accident ([CVA] stroke, sudden death of some brain cells due to lack of oxygen when the blood flow to the brain is impaired) and metabolic encephalopathy (condition in which brain function is disturbed). During a review of Resident 44's Minimum Data Set (MDS), resident assessment and care-screening tool, dated 6/4/2021, the MDS indicated the resident cognitive (ability to think and reason) skills of daily decision-making were moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 44 required extensive assistance from staff with activities of daily living. During a review of Resident 44's Physician's Order dated 5/23/21, the Physician's Order indicated to admit Resident 44 Hospice care with a diagnosis of end stage CVA with comorbidities, however, no other comorbidities were documented. During a review of Resident 44's History and Physical (H/P) dated 5/25/2021, the H/P indicated the resident had the capacity to understand and make decisions. The H/P indicated Resident 44 had a history of CVA but did not indicate the resident had end stage CVA. During a review of Resident 44's care plan for hospice dated 5/26/2021, the care plan indicated Resident 44's had limited life expectancy due to terminal illness of end stage CVA with comorbidities. The care plan indicated Resident 44's goal was to be able to verbalize acceptance of illness every day throughout the review date 8/26/2021. During a review of Resident 44's medical record, the medical record did not have any documentation from the Interdisciplinary Team ([IDT] group of different discipline working together towards a common goal of a resident) indicating the resident's medical condition was discussed prior to placing the resident under hospice care. During a review of the facility's Hospice binder, the binder had forms such as Informed Consent and treatment authorization, however forms were not signed by the resident or the hospice agency staff. The hospice intake form that indicated the resident's biography information was left blank. During a review of the Hospice binder and Resident 44's medical record, the Hospice binder and medical record had no hospice agency's nurses progress notes indicating how often the resident was being visited and assessed, and reevaluation of care. During a review of the hospice agency's contract agreement dated 5/26/2021, the contract agreement indicated the facility and the hospice agency would coordinate Resident 44's care using professional standards. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 12:31 p. m. with Registered Nurse (RNS 2) and the MDS Coordinator (MDS 2), MDS 2 stated if the resident was diagnosed with end stage cerebrovascular disease and had been determined by the physician and the IDT that he or she needed comfort measures then, the resident would be placed under hospice care. MDS 2 stated residents with end stage dementia, brain death or vegetable should be qualified for hospice care. MDS 2 stated Resident 44 was alert and oriented and made his or her own medical decision with gestures in Spanish. RNS 2 stated Resident 44 could not be alert and oriented and having diagnoses of end stage CVA, except the resident decided to be placed on hospice care. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 12:57 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated there needed to be a contract between the facility and the hospice if the resident elected to be placed on hospice care from the hospital. The DON stated if the hospice care was decided at the facility, the IDT had to asses the resident's status to ensure he or she meets the criteria of being placed under hospice care. The DON stated after the IDT meeting, the facility's attending or hospice physician would assess the resident's status. The DON stated the resident's family members would be included in the IDT meeting. According to the DON, end stage of any disease meant prognosis was poor and the resident's medical conditions were declining. According to DON, Licensed Vocational Nurse 4 (LVN 4) was supposed to ensure all hospice forms were completed and documented accurately. On 7/16/21 at 11:59 a.m., several telephone interview attempts were made to the facility's attending physician. The attempts were unsuccessful. During an interview on 7/16/2021 at 12: 05 p. m. with Resident 44's representative (RR), RR stated she did not understand the hospice program. RR stated she would ask to discontinue Resident 44's hospice care so the resident could receive physical therapy exercises. RR stated Resident 44 can understand Spanish and expressed herself with gestures, and that was an indication the resident's brain was still functioning. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Hospice services are available to residents at the end of life, revised 4/2011, the P/P indicated the facility and the hospice agency will collaborate with hospice representatives to coordinate the resident's care planning process and shall include directives for managing pain, and the hospice agency will be responsible to meet the same professional standards and timeliness of services. The agreement with the hospice provider must be signed by a representative from the facility and a representative from the hospice agency before hospice services are finished to any resident. The P/P indicated the facility will designate a staff that will be responsible for coordinating care provided to the resident via the hospice agency.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control practices were implemented, by not: a. Ensuring a resident (Resident 3), who was positiv...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure appropriate infection control practices were implemented, by not: a. Ensuring a resident (Resident 3), who was positive and on contact isolation for Clostridium difficile ([C-diff] infectious germ that causes severe diarrhea, watery stool and inflammation of the colon transmitted from person to person by spores) did not share a room with other residents. b. Ensuring staff wore proper personal protective equipment ([PPE] protective clothing, gloves, masks designed to protect from the spread of infection or illness) while handling soiled linen hampers and trash. c. Ensuring kitchen staff used gloves while handling food. These deficient practices had the potential to result in cross contamination, foodborne illnesses and spread of infection among residents and other staff members. Findings: a. During the initial tour of the facility and concurrent interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2) on 7/12/21 at 10:46 a. m., Resident 3 was observed in contact isolation (intended to prevent transmission of infectious agents, which are spread by direct or indirect contact with the patient or the patient's environment). LVN 2 stated Resident 3 was on contact isolation for Clostridium difficile ([C-diff] infectious germ that causes severe diarrhea, watery stool and inflammation of the colon transmitted from person to person by spores). During a concurrent observation and interview with LVN 3 on 7/13/2021 at 10:45 a. m., Resident 3's contact isolation was discontinued. LVN 3 stated Resident 3 had not had loose stools for three days. During a concurrent observation and interview with Certified Nursing Assistant 2 (CNA 2) on 7/13/21 at 10:50 a. m., CNA 2 was observed providing morning care to Resident 3 without wearing any personal protective equipment (PPE). CNA 2 stated it was her first day back and the resident was no longer placed in contact isolation. Resident 3 was observed sharing room with another resident. During a review of Resident 3's admission Record, the admission Record indicated the resident was readmitted to the facility 7/6/2021. Resident 3's diagnoses included enterocolitis (inflammation of the digestive tract) related to Clostridium difficile and sepsis (infection of the blood). During a review of Resident 3's Minimum Data Set (MDS), a resident assessment and care screening tool, dated 7/8/2021, the MDS indicated the resident cognitive (ability to think and reason) skills for daily decision-making were intact. The MDS indicated Resident 3 required limited assistance with activities of daily living ([ADLs] self-care activities performed on a daily basis, such as dressing, eating, and personal hygiene). During a review of Resident 3's History and Physical (P/P) dated 7/9/21, the H/P indicated the resident had the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 3's laboratory test result dated 7/1/2021, the laboratory result indicated the resident was positive for C- Diff. During a review of the facility's Infection Control Surveillance dated 7/2021, the Infection Control Surveillance indicated Resident 3 was receiving Vancomycin (antibiotic used to treat infections) 125 milligrams ([mg] unit of mass) for 10 days due to C-Diff. During a review of Resident 3's physician's order dated 7/6/2021, the physician's order indicated to administer Vancomycin 125 mg by mouth every six hours for c-diff through 7/16/21. During a review of Resident 3's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for the month of July 2021, the MAR indicated the resident had been receiving Vancomycin 125 mg by mouth every six hours for C-Diff from 7/7/21 to 7/16/2021. During a review of Resident 3's physician's order dated 7/12/2021 at 6 a.m., the physician's order indicated to discontinue contact isolation for C- diff colitis. During a review of Resident 3's care plan titled, On by mouth antibiotic Vancomycin, dated 7/6/21, the care plan indicated the resident was receiving Vancomycin for ten (10) days for C-Diff. The staff's interventions included to observe infection control measures. During a review of Resident 3's licensed nurse's progress notes, dated 7/6, 7/7, and 7/8/2021, the licensed nurse's progress notes indicated Resident 3 was on contact isolation. There was no documentation indicating Resident 3's loose stools had stopped or that the resident was no longer having watery stool. During a review of Resident 3's licensed nurse's progress notes dated 7/9 and 7/11/2021, the licensed progress notes indicated Resident 3 had no diarrhea. During a review of Resident 3's licensed nurse's note dated 7/12/2021 at 6 a.m., the licensed nurse's note indicated the resident had no loose stool for three days, physician made aware with order to discontinue contact isolation Will continue to monitor for diarrhea or loose stool. During a review of Resident 3's telephone order dated 7/12/2021 at 6 a. m., the telephone order indicated to discontinue contact isolation for C- diff colitis. During an interview on 07/13/21 at 3:05 p.m. with the Infection Control Nurse ( IPN), the IPN stated Resident 3 was placed on contact isolation for C- Diff. IPN stated Resident 3 was receiving Vancomycin 125 mg by mouth for C-Diff. IPN stated Resident 3 was no longer in contact isolation, discontinued on 7/12/2021, because the resident was asymptomatic (without symptoms) for over 48 hours. According to IPN, 48 hours meant, the resident had no loose stool. IPN stated staff should have used PPE (gloves, gown, shields and mask) and a specific hamper for throwing out the used linens while providing care. IPN stated nurses monitored and documented how many times Resident 3 had diarrhea. During an interview on 7/15/21 at 2:26 p. m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated there was no laboratory test to indicate contact isolation could be discontinued for a resident who had C- diff. The DON stated Resident 3 did not have any loose stool for three days, and contact isolation was discontinued. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P/P) Clostridioides difficile; C-Diff spore forming bacteria that causes watery stool or diarrhea in person, revised 5/16/2019, the P/P indicated contact precautions are implemented for residents known or suspected to be infected or colonized with microorganisms that are transmitted by direct contact with the resident or indirect contact with environmental surfaces or resident-care items in the resident's environment, i.e diarrhea associated with clostridium difficile. The P/P indicated a resident with C-Diff should not share a bathroom with someone who does not have C- Diff. b. During a concurrent observation and interview on 7/13/2021 at 8:39 a.m. with Housekeeper 1 (HK 1), HK 1 was observed carrying a trash bag from a resident's room and placing it in a hamper without wearing gloves. HK 1 placed a bag of clean trash bags in the area for trash collection in the hamper, HK 1 stated it was a mistake and removed it. During an observation and concurrent interview on 7/13/21 at 8:40 a.m. with Housekeeping Supervisor (HKS), HKS stated staff must wear gloves while cleaning and transporting trash to prevent spread of infection and to protect themselves. During an observation and concurrent interview on 7/13/21 at 10:02 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant 3 (CNA 3), CNA 3 was observed bringing a dirty linen barrel from a resident's room to the laundry area without wearing gloves. CNA 3 stated she was told not to wear gloves in the hallway. CNA 3 stated it was very important to her wash hands and use proper PPE to prevent spread of infection. During an interview on 7/13/2021 at 11:15 a.m. with IPN, IPN stated while handling soiled linen containers or trash bags, staff should use gloves to prevent the spread of infection and cross contamination. During an interview on 7/15/2021 at 1:45 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated PPE should be worn while handing trash or hampers containing trash or dirty linen to prevent cross contamination and spread of infection. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Infection Control - Policies and Procedures, dated 1/1/12, the P/P indicated the facility's infection control policies and procedures are intended to facilitate maintaining a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and manage transmission of diseases and infections. During a review of the facility's P/P titled, Personal Protective Equipment, dated 1/1/12, the P/P indicated when gowns and gloves are used, they are used only once and discarded into the appropriate receptacles. c. During a meal tray line observation in the kitchen on 7/12/2021 at 11:56 a.m., COOK 1 was observed wearing one glove to his right hand only while transferring food to resident's plates. During an observation on 7/12/2021 at 12:08 p.m., COOK 1, while transferring food to a plate, was observed reach in a kitchen drawer. COOK 1 did not change his gloves and continued to serve food with the same gloved hand. During an interview on 7/12/2021 at 2:31 p.m. with COOK 1, COOK 1 stated when doing the tray line, the kitchen staff must wear gloves on both hands because there was a tendency that you might touch the food and there were already infection control issues. During an interview on 7/15/2021 at 8:59 a.m. with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), the DS stated if staff preparing food does not wear gloves and touches the plate, which is in the direct contact with food, was already an infection control issue which could lead to contamination and might cause foodborne illnesses. The DS stated any staff handling food had the tendency to touch the food directly and must wear gloves. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P/P) titled, Infection Control, revised 1/1/2012, the P/P indicated the purpose of the P/P was to provide infection control policies and procedures required for a safe and sanitary environment. The P/P are intended to facilitate maintaining a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and manage transmission of diseases and infections.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 30% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), 5 harm violation(s), $101,631 in fines. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 80 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $101,631 in fines. Extremely high, among the most fined facilities in California. Major compliance failures.
  • • Grade F (0/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 0/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, Llc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns NORWALK SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC an overall rating of 1 out of 5 stars, which is considered much 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 Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, Llc Staffed?

CMS rates NORWALK SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 30%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, Llc?

State health inspectors documented 80 deficiencies at NORWALK SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC during 2021 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 5 that caused actual resident harm, and 74 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, Llc?

NORWALK SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC 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 99 certified beds and approximately 96 residents (about 97% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in NORWALK, California.

How Does Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, Llc Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, NORWALK SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC's overall rating (1 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (30%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (1 stars) is much below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, Llc?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "What changes have been made since the serious inspection findings, and how are you preventing similar issues?" "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?" These questions are particularly relevant given the facility's Immediate Jeopardy citations.

Is Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, Llc Safe?

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

Do Nurses at Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, Llc Stick Around?

NORWALK SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC has a staff turnover rate of 30%, 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 Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, Llc Ever Fined?

NORWALK SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC has been fined $101,631 across 4 penalty actions. This is 3.0x the California average of $34,095. Fines at this level are uncommon and typically indicate a pattern of serious deficiencies, repeated violations, or failure to correct problems promptly. CMS reserves penalties of this magnitude for facilities that pose significant, documented risk to resident health or safety. Families should request specific documentation of what issues led to these fines and what systemic changes have been implemented.

Is Norwalk Skilled Nursing & Wellness Centre, Llc on Any Federal Watch List?

NORWALK SKILLED NURSING & WELLNESS CENTRE, LLC 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.