VI AT PALO ALTO

600 SAND HILL ROAD, PALO ALTO, CA 94304 (650) 853-5001
For profit - Limited Liability company 44 Beds VI LIVING Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
85/100
#247 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: August 2024

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

Overview

The VI at Palo Alto has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is recommended and considered above average compared to other nursing homes. It ranks #247 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half overall, and #16 out of 50 in Santa Clara County, indicating that only a few local options are better. However, the facility is experiencing a worsening trend, with issues increasing from 6 in 2023 to 8 in 2024. Staffing is a strong point, as it received a 5-star rating with only a 25% turnover rate, significantly lower than the California average, and it has more RN coverage than 91% of state facilities, which is beneficial for resident care. On the downside, there have been serious incidents, including a failure to adequately assess a resident's needs that led to a fall and serious injuries, as well as concerns about food safety standards that could pose health risks to residents.

Trust Score
B+
85/100
In California
#247/1155
Top 21%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
6 → 8 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
25% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 23 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
✓ Good
No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 79 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of California nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
18 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 6 issues
2024: 8 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (25%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (25%)

    23 points below California average of 48%

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

The Bad

Chain: VI LIVING

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 18 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 2024 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to protect the rights of residents to confidentiality of protected health information (PHI, any information in the medical recor...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and policy review, the facility failed to protect the rights of residents to confidentiality of protected health information (PHI, any information in the medical record that can be used to identify an individual and that was created, used, or disclosed in the course of providing a health care service) when staff members left the computer screen open and unattended in the hallways of resident care areas. This deficient practice had the potential to compromise the rights of the residents to privacy and confidentiality. Findings: During an observation on 8/19/24 at 1:00 p.m., a rolling cart containing an open laptop computer was left unattended in the hallway outside of a resident's room. The laptop computer was on and the screen displayed information about multiple residents. On 8/19/24 at 1:08 p.m., certified nursing assistant A (CNA A) returned to the computer. When CNA A was asked about the resident information visible on the screen, CNA A stated she was working on that computer then left to answer a call light and did not close the laptop. CNA A stated she should have not leave the computer screen open and visible to visitors and residents. During an observation on 8/22/24 at 8:25 a.m., a rolling cart containing an open laptop computer was left unattended in the hallway outside of a resident's room. The laptop computer was on and the screen displayed multiple resident's pictures and information about multiple residents. On 8/22/24 at 8:35 a.m., CNA B returned to the computer. When asked about the laptop being open and the resident information visible to the public, CNA B stated he should have closed the laptop when he leaves the area. CNA B stated he had stepped away from his working on the laptop to answer a resident's call light. CNA B stated I should not leave the computer open with the resident information on the screen. Anyone passing by can see it During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 8/22/24 at 8:45 a.m., DON was asked what was the process for protecting resident's personal information when laptops are used in the resident care areas. The DON stated the laptop computers should have be put on a locked screen when staff need to step away from the computer. The DON further stated the patient information should have not visible to the public and left the computer unattended. A review of the facility's policy titled HIPPA Security, revised June 2011, indicated Electronic Protected Health Information (ePHI) is any and all information about an individual's health care plan(s) that is stored or transmitted electronically. The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPPA) mandates that ePHI be safeguarded and protected and that employees comply with the act. The policy further indicated 1. Employees who, in the normal course of their job responsibilities, come in contact with ePHI are obligated to safeguard and keep such information secure . 2. Systems containing ePHI are kept secure by various means including .Logging off immediately when leaving a workstation.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate pharmaceutical services when there were discrepancies between the controlled drug (those with high potenti...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate pharmaceutical services when there were discrepancies between the controlled drug (those with high potential for abuse and addiction) record (CDR, an inventory/accountability sheet) and the medication administration record (MAR) for two out of two residents (Residents 140 and 26). This failure resulted in the facility not having accountability of controlled medications, which had the potential for misuse or diversion. Findings: During the survey, two random CDRs for two residents (Residents 140 and 26) were requested for review. On 8/22/24 at 11:00 AM, a review of the residents' physician orders, the CDRs and MARs indicated the following: 1. Resident 140 had a physician order, dated 8/5/24 for oxycodone (pain medication) 5 milligrams one tablet ever 4 hours PRN (as needed) for mild to moderate pain. Resident 140 had two instances initially noted to be in the CDR but not documented as given in the MAR: On 8/19/24 at 12:40 a.m., 8/19/24 at 8:40 a.m. and 8/20/24 at 8:40 p.m. 2. Resident 26 had a physician order, dated 7/31/24 for oxycodone 5 milligrams 1-2 tablet every 4 hours PRN for mild to moderate pain. Resident 26 had one instance which was recorded in the CDR but not in the MAR dated on 8/17/24 at 11:12 a.m. During a concurrent record review and interview with the director of nursing (DON), another instance was noted to be in the CDR for Resident 140 but not in the MAR dated on 8/19/24 at 8:40 PM. The DON confirmed the missing documentation for Resident 140, and Resident 26 on the MAR. The DON stated administration of controlled substances must be recorded in the controlled drug record and the MAR. The DON also stated We would have to provide education to the staff about documenting in both the MAR and CDR. Review of facility policy titled Medication/Treatment Management Protocol, last revised October 2023, indicated .Controlled substances are signed-off on the medication/treatment record in EMAR as well as on the Controlled Substance Record/signature page, if not automated .
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility had a facility medication error rate of 7.59% when two medication errors occurred out of 26 opportunities during medication administrati...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility had a facility medication error rate of 7.59% when two medication errors occurred out of 26 opportunities during medication administration for two out of 5 residents (Resident 21 and Resident 32). This failure resulted in medication not given in accordance with the prescriber's orders which resulted in residents not receiving the full therapeutic effects of the medications. Findings: 1. During a concurrent medication pass observation and interview on 8/19/24 at 11:00 AM with registered nurse (RN) C , RN C administered Timolol (an eye drop medication) to Resident 21, one eye drop in each eye. RN C then administered Simbrinza (another eye drop medication) one eye drop in Resident 21's left eye without waiting 5 minutes after giving the Timolol. RN C stated I should have wait 5 minutes before giving the other eye drop. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 8/22/24 at 11:45 a.m., the DON stated she expects staff to wait 5 minutes between eye drops if residents get more than one eye drop. A review of Resident 21's physician order, dated 12/17/2022 indicated Resident 21 was to receive Timolol , one eye drop in both eyes, once a day at 9:00 a.m. for indication of glaucoma (a disorder of the eyes caused by high eye pressure). Special instructions indicated Wait at least 5 minutes before any other eye drops. A review of Resident 21's physician order, dated 12/17/2022 indicated Resident 21 was to receive Simbrinza one eye drop in the left eye, three times a day at 9:00 a.m., 5:00 p.m., and 9:00 p.m., for indication of glaucoma. Special instructions indicated Wait at least 5 minutes before any other eye drops. Review of facility policy titled Specific Medication Administration Procedures-IIB5: Eye Drop Administration, last revised 5/16/2018, indicated .If another drop of the same or different medication is prescribed for administration in the same eye at the same time, wait 10 minutes, (or the amount of time specified by the manufacturer) then repeat procedure above. 2. During a concurrent medication pass observation and interview on 8/20/24 at 4:29 PM with LVN E, LVN E administered 3 units of novolog (a type of insulin injection) to Resident 32 with a pen injector (an injector that uses a dial to administer the correct medication dosage). Prior to administering the 3 units, LVN E did not prime the pen injector needle with 2 units of novolog. LVN E stated I did not know about it when asked about priming a pen injector needle prior to giving a dosage of novolog. A review of Resident 32's physician order, dated 8/10/24 indicated Resident 32 was to receive insulin aspart U-100 (novolog, medication for blood sugar) per sliding scale, before meals at 6:30 a.m., 11:30 a.m., and 4:30 p.m. The order also indicated If blood sugar was between 201-250, give 3 units. Review of Lexidrug UpToDate indicated for insulin aspart administration .For prefilled pen injectors, prime the needle before each injection with 2 units .
CONCERN (D)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 infection prevention and control practices for two out of two sampled residents when: 1) A Licensed Vocational Nurse E (LVN E) did not disinfect a glucometer after using it to test a resident's blood sugar (Resident 32). 2) A Registered Nurse C (RN C) did not scrub the hub (an endcap) at the end of a peripherally-inserted central catheter (PICC, a type of tube that goes directly to the heart) line for 15 seconds before flushing the PICC line with normal saline solution and before connecting the intravenous (IV) drug tubing to the PICC line (Resident 191). 3) RN D did not wear gloves when removing a medicated patch from a resident's chest, then did not wear gloves or perform hand hygiene when applying a new medicated patch to the resident's chest (Resident 15). These deficient practices had the potential to result in transmission of infection causing agents to the residents in the facility. Findings: 1. During a concurrent observation and interview with LVN E on 8/20/24 at 4:29 PM, LVN E used a glucometer (a device that checks blood sugar levels) but did not disinfect the glucometer after usage. LVN E stated I will do it . During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 8/22/24 at 11:45 AM, the DON stated I expect the staff to wipe the glucometer after using it. Review of facility policy titled Glucometer Quality Control Testing and Cleaning, last revised October 2017, indicated .The glucometer and fingerstick device was disinfected after each use using the PDI Super Sani Cloth or Sani Cloth Plus or other approved cleaner noted in the manufacturer's guidelines. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview with RN C on 8/20/24 at 10:50 AM, RN C scrubbed the end cap with a rubbing alcohol swab at the end of Resident 191's PICC line for less than 10 seconds, before connecting a syringe pre-filled with normal saline solution (a solution used to ensure the PICC line is unblocked from debris build up), and then between flushing the PICC line and between connecting the IV drug tubing to the PICC line. RN C stated I am supposed to scrub for 60 seconds, when asked how long the end cap must be wiped for. Review of literature pertaining to the care of central venous catheters and PICC lines titled CLABSI Toolkit-Scrub the Hub! indicated .Use a scrubbing device with an alcohol product such as chlorhexidine with alcohol or 70% alcohol to disinfect catheter hub and stopcocks[ .]Rub for 10 to 15 seconds (unless directed otherwise by the manufacturer's instructions), generating friction by scrubbing in a twisting motion as if you were juicing an orange (The Joint Commission. Preventing Central Line-Associated Bloodstream Infections: Useful Tools, An International Perspective. [DATE]. Accessed August 23rd, 2024) 3. During a concurrent observation and interview with RN D on 8/19/24 at 11:15 AM, RN D removed a medicated patch without performing hand hygiene or putting on gloves from Resident 15's upper chest. RN D also did not perform hand hygiene or put on gloves before applying a new medication patch to Resident 15's upper chest. RN D stated I don't use gloves because the patch gets stuck on my gloves, when asked about removing and applying the medicated patch without wearing gloves. During an interview with the DON on 8/22/24 at 11:45 am, the DON stated I expect staff to wear gloves when removing an old patch and putting on a new patch, and performing hand hygiene before donning gloves. Review of facility policy titled Specific Medication Administration Procedures-IIB13: Transdermal Drug Deliver System (Patch) Application, last revised 5/16/18, indicated before administration to .Wash hands or use facility-approved sanitizer . Put on examination gloves . Remove old patch from body by using gloved hands to peel off slowly .Using gloves unwrap the new patch .Apply new patch firmly against the skin .Wash hands thoroughly with antimicrobial soap and water or facility-approved hand sanitizer.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Review of Resident 12's facesheet indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of aftercare followin...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 5. Review of Resident 12's facesheet indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of aftercare following joint replacement surgery, placement of left artificial knee joint and urinary tract infection. Review of Resident 12's minimum data set (MDS, a resident clinical and functional assessment tool) assessment, dated 8/2/24, indicated Resident 12 had a brief interview for mental status (BIMS, an assessment used in nursing homes to monitor cognition) score of 13 (a score of 13-15 indicates minimal cognitive impairment). Review of Resident 12's record indicated there was no physician order for the use of bed canes or an informed consent for the use of bed canes signed by either the Resident or Responsible Party. Review of Resident 12's record indicated a care plan was in place for the use of bed canes, to enable with transfers. During an observation on 8/19/24 at 9:28 a.m., Resident 12 was observed in bed, with two bed canes in a fixed position. 6. Review of Resident 22's facesheet indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of atrial flutter (an irregular heart rhythm), vascular parkinsonism (a disease of the brain and motor function), and insomnia. Review of Resident 22's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 22 had a BIMS score of 7 (a score of 0-7 indicates severe cognitive impairment). Review of Resident 22's record indicated a physician order May use bilateral bed canes as enabler for assistance with transfers, bed mobility and aid in positioning while at SNF, dated 2/24/21. Review of Resident 22's record indicated there was no informed consent on file for the use of bed canes signed by either the Resident or Responsible Party. Review of Resident 22's record indicated a care plan was in place for the use of bed canes, to enable with transfers. During an observation on 8/19/24 at 11:45 AM, Resident 22 was observed in bed, with two bed canes in a fixed position. 7. Review of Resident 33's facesheet indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of atrial fibrillation (an irregular heart rhythm), previous stroke (a brain attack), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a disorder that affects insulin and blood sugar levels). Review of Resident 33's MDS , dated 8/9/24, indicated Resident 33 had a BIMS score of 14. Review of Resident 33's record indicated a physician order May use bilateral bed canes as enabler for assistance with transfers, bed mobility and aid in positioning while at SNF, dated 5/26/24. Review of Resident 33's record indicated there was no informed consent on file for the use of bed canes signed by either the Resident or Responsible Party. Review of Resident 33's record indicated a care plan was in place for the use of bed canes, to enable with transfers. During an observation on 8/19/24 at 11:17 AM, Resident 33 was observed in bed, with two bed canes in a fixed position. 8. Review of Resident 32's facesheet indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of paroxysmal atrial fibrillation (an irregular heart rhythm), type 2 diabetes mellitus and unsteadiness on feet. Review of Resident 32's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 32 had a BIMS score of 15. Review of Resident 32's record indicated a physician order May use bilateral bed canes as enabler for assistance with transfers, bed mobility and aid in positioning while at SNF, dated 4/4/24. Review of Resident 32's record indicated there was no informed consent on file for the use of bed canes signed by either the Resident or Responsible Party. Review of Resident 32's record indicated a care plan was in place for the use of bed canes, to enable with transfers. During an observation on 8/19/24 at 11:17 AM, Resident 32 was observed in bed, with two bed canes in a fixed position. 9. Review of Resident 26's facesheet indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of fracture of lower end of right femur (right thigh bone), status post ORIF (open reduction internal fixation, a surgery to repair the bone) right femur, and hypertension (high blood pressure). Review of Resident 26's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 26 had a BIMS score of 15. Review of Resident 26's record indicated there was no physician order for the use of bed canes. Review of Resident 26's record indicated there was a signed informed consent on file for the use of bed canes, dated 7/31/24 Review of Resident 26's record indicated a care plan was in place for the use of bed canes, to enable with transfers. During an observation on 8/19/24 at 10:01 a.m., Resident 26 was observed in bed, with two bed canes in a fixed position. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 8/21/24 at 1:57 p.m., the DON stated there should have a physician order for Resident 12 and 26. DON also stated there should have informed consent for Resident 12, 22, 33, and 32. A review of the facility's policy titled Restraint Protocol, revised October 2023, indicated . 3. If side rails are used as enablers, the Side Rail(s) Use Assessment in Matrix is completed. 4. The following items are also documented if side rails as enablers are going to be used: .Resident/responsible agent signed the Physical Restraint/Adaptive Equipment consent permitting the use of side rails as enabler; and Receipt of order authorizing the use of side rails. 5. Residents are assessed at least quarterly for continued need of side rails as enablers. 4. During an observation of Resident 191's room on 8/19/24 at 2:09 p.m., Resident 191's bed had bilateral partial bed canes up. Review of Resident 191's face sheet (summary page of patients' important information), indicated that resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 191's active physician orders and care plans indicated that there was no order or care plan for the use of bed canes. During an interview with the DON on 8/21/24, at 2:10 p.m., the DON stated that there should have been a physician order and care plan for the use of bed canes. During a concurrent interview and record review on 8/23/24, at 1:30 p.m. with the DON. The DON reviewed Resident 191's restraint/adaptive equipment use assessment, physician orders, and care plans, and confirmed that there was no physician order or care plan in place for the bed canes. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to follow their restraint protocol and ensure the proper use of side rails or bed canes (adjustable rigid bars attached to the side of a bed) for nine (Residents 1, 12, 22, 26, 32, 33, 191, 243, and 246) of 24 residents (residents who used side rails or bed canes) when: 1. Resident 1 there was no physician order, side rail assessment, consent, or care plan for the use of side rails; 2. For Resident 243 there was no physician order or care plan for the use of bed canes; 3. For Resident 246 there was no physician order for the use of bed canes; 4. For Resident 191 there was no physician order or care plan for the use of bed canes; 5. For Resident 12 there was no physician order or consent for the use of bed canes; 6. For Resident 22 there was no consent for the use of bed canes; 7. For Resident 33 there was no consent for the use of bed canes; 8. For Resident 32 there was no consent for the use of bed canes; and 9. For Resident 26 there was no physician order for the use of bed canes. These failures had the potential to compromise the residents' rights to be fully informed, and make decisions regarding their care and treatment, and result in the residents not receiving the care and services necessary to maintain their health, safety, and well-being. Findings: 1. During an observation on 8/19/24, at 11:25 a.m., Resident 1 was lying in her bed and had upper half-length side rails (cover a portion of the bed, typically half the length). The side rails were in the upright position bilaterally (on both sides). Review of Resident 1's clinical record indicated there was no physician order for Resident 1's use of the side rails. Further review of Resident 1's clinical record indicated there was no consent, no side rail assessment, or no care plan documented for Resident 1's use of side rails. During a concurrent interview and record review with the DON on 8/20/24, at 3:35 p.m., the DON reviewed Resident 1's clinical record and confirmed there was no physician order, no consent, no side rail assessment, or no care plan in place for Resident 1's use of the half- length side rails. The DON stated there should have a physician order, a signed consent, and a side rail assessment prior to the installation of the side rails. The DON further stated a care plan should have been developed and implemented for Resident 1's use of side rails. 2. During an observation on 8/19/24, at 12:05 p.m., Resident 243 was lying in her bed and had bed canes in the upright position bilaterally, attached at the head position of her bed frame. During a concurrent interview and record review with the DON on 8/20/24, at 3:35 p.m., the DON reviewed Resident 243's clinical record and confirmed there was no physician order or care plan in place for Resident 243's use of the bed canes. The DON stated there should have been a physician order prior to the installation of the bed canes. The DON stated residents who had bed canes in used should have a care plan in placed. The DON further stated care plans were important for nurses to know the proper implementation and interventions related to bed cane use. 3. During an observation on 8/19/24, at 1:05 p.m., Resident 246 was lying in her bed and had bed canes in the upright position bilaterally, attached at the head position of her bed frame. During a concurrent interview and record review with the DON on 8/20/24, at 3:35 p.m., the DON reviewed Resident 246's clinical record and confirmed there was no physician order in place for Resident 246's use of the bed canes. The DON stated there should have been a physician order prior to the installation of the bed canes.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food safety when: 1. There was an opened undated food ite...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored in accordance with professional standards for food safety when: 1. There was an opened undated food item in the pantry freezer; 2. There were open and undated food items, and unopened food items with no expiration dates in the dry storage area of the main kitchen. These failures had the potential to cause food contamination and food-borne illness to 37 of 37 residents who received their food from the kitchen. 1. During an initial kitchen tour on 8/19/24 at 9:20 a.m., accompanied by the Executive Chef (EC), inside the reach-in freezer there was an opened, undated container of mango sorbet. The EC confirmed the sorbet was opened and not dated and he stated all items should have been dated when opened. The EC stated the mango sorbet must be discarded. 2. During a continuation of the initial kitchen tour on 8/19/24 at 9:45 a.m., accompanied by the EC, an inspection of the main kitchen dry storage area was conducted. There was a box labeled Green French Lentils which contained an opened bag of lentils. The open bag was undated. The EC stated the bag should have been dated when opened and he stated the lentils must be discarded. In addition, the dry storage area contained four 2- pound bags of chopped peanuts. The four bags were unopened but did not have an expiration date on the bags. The EC stated the bags had been removed from their original box for storage on the shelves and the expiration date would have been on the original box. The EC stated the four bags of peanuts must be discarded since their expiration date was unknown. Review of the facility's policy titled Sanitation and Safety, revised June 2011, indicated . 5. Labeling and dating food; Prepared and packaged food will be labeled and rotated to decrease the risk for food-borne illnesses, provide the highest quality product for the residents and minimize waste.
Mar 2024 1 deficiency 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate assessment and supervision to prevent an accident ...

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 adequate assessment and supervision to prevent an accident for one of three residents (Resident 1) when physical therapy (PT, a healthcare profession that helps you move better or strengthen weakened muscles) did not follow physician's orders to assess Resident 1's functional ability level upon admission and develop a resident-centered plan of care. This resulted in Resident 1's fall, head injuries, multiple fractures, and subsequent death. Findings: Review of Resident 1's face sheet (a document that gives a resident's information at a quick glance) indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities severe enough to interfere with daily life), congestive heart failure (heart muscle does not pump blood as well as it should), atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), osteoporosis (condition that causes the bones to become brittle and fragile), long term use of anticoagulant (blood thinner), urinary incontinence (the loss of bladder control), chronic kidney disease (loss of kidney function), and a history of falling. Review of Resident 1's Progress Notes (PN) dated 8/2/23 4:25 p.m., indicated admitted a XXX y.o. (year old) female from IL (Independent Living), via w/c (wheelchair) at 11:30 AM, accompanied by the [family member], . and the Director of IL. With the dx (diagnoses) of Chronic Heart Dis (Chronic Heart Disease, type of heart disease that affects your heart function repeatedly and over time), Chronic kidney disease, stage 4 (severe loss of kidney function), CHF (Congestive Heart Failure, heart does not pump blood as well as it should) Alert/oriented with forgetfulness, reality orientation as needed Handle gently suring (typo during) ADL'S and transfer Extensive assist with ADL's & transfer. Review of Resident 1's Observation Detail List Report with Observation Date: 8/2/23 4:34 p.m., indicated admission Observation, OBSERVATION DETAILS, General admission Information, . Mode of Transfer: Wheelchair . Resident Arrived With: Wheelchair Level of Consciousness: Alert . NERVOUS SYSTEM: Cognition: Attention: Attentive, Orientation: Disoriented (i.e. time, place, situation), Memory: Impaired, Thinking: Disorganized (rambling, incoherent,, impaired judgment), .GASTROINTESTINAL SYSTEM: Gastrointestinal History: Date of Last BM (bowel movement): 08/02/2023, . Resident's Current Bowel Continence Level: Occasionally incontinent, . GENITOURINARY: Genitourinary History: Current Urinary Continence Level: Occasionally incontinent, Incontinence Pattern: Unable to get to toilet in time due to urgency, .Management of Bladder incontinence: Adult briefs/Depends (underwear), . MUSCULOSKELETAL SYSTEM: Musculoskeletal History and Physical Observation: Does the resident present with any of the following (checked): Extremity weakness, History of Joint Replacement, Requires Assistive Devices, . Assistive Devices: Walker, Wheelchair, .Observe extremities for any pain, swelling, weakness, stiffness, warmth, tenderness, loss of sensation, change in color, or impaired function indicate location(s) (checked): Right Lower Extremity - Gen (generalized) weakness, Left Lower Extremity - Gen weakness Review of Resident 1's Physician's Progress Notes with Encounter Date 8/2/23 written by Physician (PHYS), indicated .Pls. see EPIC (a medical record system) reports for evaluations from [name of 3 Physicians] and fellow at [name of clinic] colleagues for care and goals of care discussions leading to current placement in long term care Functionally now at 1-2 person assist with transfer, ADL's Durable medical equipment: 4WWalker (4-wheel walker), Electric Scooter, Walk in tub, Grab bars, adjustable bed with transfer handles, Emergency call devices Review of Resident 1's PN: PN dated 8/6/23 indicated Resident 1 had an unwitnessed fall with subsequent pain on 8/6/23 and was transferred to the hospital that day; PN dated 8/8/23 indicated Resident 1 returned to the facility on hospice (focuses on a person's quality of life as they near the end of life) care on 8/8/23, with diagnosis of subarachnoid bleed (bleeding in the space between the brain and the surrounding membrane); PN dated 8/20/23 indicated Resident 1 passed away in the facility on 8/20/23. Review of Resident 1's acute hospital CT scan (computerized tomography scan, procedure used to view internal components of the body) to head, cervical (neck) and spine dated 8/6/23, indicated Resident 1 had Multicompartment intracranial hemorrhage [bleeding in multiple parts of the head] including a moderately sized intraparenchymal hematoma [a pool of blood in the tissue of the brain] in the right frontal operculum [part of the brain], with associated subarachnoid hemorrhage in the left collateral sulcus [a part of the brain] of the temporal lobe. Findings are most compatible with traumatic subarachnoid hemorrhage. Review of Resident 1's acute hospital X-ray (images of internal tissues, bones, and organs on film or digital media) to shoulders dated 8/6/23, indicated Resident 1 had an Acute [sudden onset] mildly displaced fracture [partial or complete break in the bone] at the surgical neck of the humerus [upper arm bone]. Review of Resident 1 's acute hospital CT scan to chest dated 8/6/23, indicated Resident 1 had Few lateral nondisplaced [aligned] right rib fractures. Review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a clinical assessment tool), dated 8/14/23, indicated Resident 1 had a brief interview for mental status [BIMS, a tool used to assess cognition (knowing, learning, and understanding things)] score of 6 [a score of 0 to 7 indicates severe cognitive impairment, 8-12 moderate impairment, 13-15 patient is cognitively intact]. Review of Resident 1's fall care plan dated 8/3/23, indicated following interventions to prevent falls: - Provide resident an environment free of clutter and floor free of glare, liquids and/or foreign objects. - Keep call light and personal and frequently used items within reach. - Keep bed in lowest position with brakes locked. - Encourage resident to use environmental devices such as hand grips, handrails, etc. - Educate and remind resident to ask for assistance with transfers and ambulation. Review of Resident 1's Physician's orders dated 8/2/23, indicated Occupational therapy (health care profession that help improve the ability to perform activities of daily living) evaluation and treatment (see OT POC [plan of care] for treatment modalities, frequency, and duration). Physical therapy evaluation and treatment (see PT POC for treatment modalities, frequency, and duration). Rehab potential: Fair). During an interview on 1/3/24 at 10:50 a.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A, CNA A stated depending on the resident's condition, PT should have assessed resident's functional level upon admission, and then therapy department would update nursing. She further stated staff would check on residents frequently and place confused residents close to staff who can keep an eye on them to prevent falls. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/3/24, at 11:08 a.m., with Registered Nurse (RN) B, review of Resident 1's Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE], indicated a score of 17 (0-5 Low Fall Risk, 6-13 Moderate Fall Risk, >13 High Fall Risk), which indicated Resident 1 was high fall risk. RN B stated therapy should have assessed the Resident 1's transfer status (how a person can move from one position to another, example from bed to chair) to determine what level of assistance was required. During an interview on 1/3/24 at 11:43 a.m. with the Director of Rehabilitation Services (DOR), the DOR stated therapy was to assess a resident's functional level if there was a physician order, but it also depended on the resident's payer source, it had to be verified before any treatment. Since walking was not one of Resident 1's goals, PT did not evaluate her. During an interview on 2/7/24, at 2:36 p.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated on the day of the fall, the assigned CNA for Resident 1 changed the resident and got her ready in the morning, helped her to get out of the bed, sat the resident in the wheelchair next to the bed, placed the over bed table in front of the resident, then left the room. When the CNA came back to the room, she found that Resident 1 had fallen in the bathroom with her walker by her side. She further stated Resident 1 possibly stood up on her own, walked to the walker across the room, went to the bathroom then fell in there and hit her head. The resident required extensive assist (individual would not be able to perform or complete the activity of daily living without another person to aid in performing the complete task, by providing weight-bearing assistance) for transfer and no staff was aware that the resident was able to stand up and walk prior to the fall. During an interview on 3/6/24, at 1:20 p.m., with the DON, she stated therapy was verifying Resident 1's payer source, which usually takes several days. However, Resident 1 fell and went to the hospital before the payor source was verified. Resident 1 was then admitted to hospice upon return, so therapy did not pursue to assess her. Review of Resident 1's Certificate of Death dated 8/24/23, indicated Resident 1 passed away in the facility on 8/20/24, the immediate cause of death was A. Multiple blunt force injuries to include multicompartmental intracranial hemorrhage. B. Fall. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Medicare / Managed Care admission Protocol revised October 2017, the P&P indicated, Supportive Data: It is important to consider Medicare qualifications before the resident is admitted . During the inquiry and admission process, many activities take place simultaneously Physician orders: 2. Upon admission, physician orders for a Medicare A/Managed Care stay include, but are not limited to: An order for Evaluate and Treat for therapy services which proceeds evaluation; . A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Fall Prevention Protocol revised October 2017, indicated, Purpose: This protocol describes mechanisms for assessing residents at risk for falls and providing interventions to reduce the likelihood of falls Assessment: 1. The John Hopkins Fall Risk Assessment is completed in the electronic medical record within 24 hours of admission for all SN (Skilled Nursing) residents Interventions: The following interventions are considered for residents who are at risk for falls: 1. Resident and/or family/responsible agent are instructed on physical activity strengths and limitations 7. The resident environment is routinely assessed for safety 8. Assistive devices used by the resident are placed within the resident's reach and are in good working order 10. Frequent rounds are made to check the resident 12. Where appropriate, a referral to rehabilitative therapy services is made to obtain interventions or recommendations to reduce fall occurrences. 12.1 If a resident is not a candidate for formal rehabilitative therapy services, consider including in the Restorative Nursing Program, as appropriate 13.1 The resident is also assessed for the appropriateness of the use of bed/chair alarm, personal alarm, and motion sensor systems 15. The resident is placed in a room close to the nursing station, if possible 17. Address any sensory deficits, especially hearing and vision, to minimize the effects of these deficits as much as possible. 18. Instruct resident to rise slowly from a standing or sitting position and to remain in a standing position until they feel balanced enough to begin walking.
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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an environment free of accidents when one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) fell during mechanical lift transfer. This failure...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an environment free of accidents when one of three sampled residents (Resident 1) fell during mechanical lift transfer. This failure resulted in Resident 1 sustaining lots of bruises to the body and had been feeling fearful during transfers. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s activity of daily living (ADL) care plan (CP) dated 1/31/20, the CP indicated Resident 1 had self-care deficit and decreased physical mobility due to generalized weakness, may use Hoyer lift (a mechanical lift with a sling) for transfer with two people assist. During a review of Resident 1 ' s minimum data set (MDS, a clinical assessment) dated 10/28/23, the MDS indicated Resident 1 ' s brief interview of mental status (BIMS, a brief cognitive screening measure that focuses on orientation and short-term word recall) score 12, which indicated Resident 1 was cognitively intact. During an interview on 2/7/24 at 1:15 p.m. with Resident 1, the resident stated the CNA [certified nursing assistant] was trying to transfer her from the chair to bed, then the strap of the Hoyer pad snapped, and she fell. She was not sure where she had landed, but she was having pain after the fall and got a huge bruise to the left side of her body. She further stated she still didn ' t feel safe and felt apprehensive every time during transfer. During an interview on 2/7/24 at 1:38 p.m. with CNA A, CNA A stated she was going to give Resident 1 a shower the day after the incident, then she found a lot of bruises on the resident ' s body. The resident told her she fell during Hoyer lift transfer the night before. CNA A reported to the charge nurse right away. She also stated if a resident required a Hoyer lift, there should always be two people assist with the transfer. During an interview on 2/7/24 at 2:05 p.m. with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the CNA was transferring Resident 1 with a Hoyer lift by herself, but she should have had another staff with her during the transfer, everybody knew that. The CNA also should have reported the incident as a fall. She further stated the facility didn ' t have a system on monitoring and changing the Hoyer lift pads prior to the incident. During an interview on 2/9/24 at 2:30 p.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) B, LVN B stated the CNA did not report the fall to her, the CNA only told her that Resident 1 ' s Hoyer lift pad strap was broken and she believe the CNA was alone during the transfer. The incident was considered a fall, and the CNA should have reported it to her. She further stated it was everybody ' s responsibility to make sure the equipment worked properly prior to the transfer. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Fall Precautions – Resident Care, revised December 2017, the P&P indicated, 1. The definitions cited below relate to this policy. 1.1 A Fall is defined as a sudden, involuntary and/or unanticipated drop to a lower position that may or may not result in a physical injury. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled No-Lift Transfers, revised December 2017, the P&P indicated, 3. Various lifts are available for staff to use. 3.1 The sling lift is utilized for transferring a non-weight bearing resident who is largely bedridden from bed to chair and back. It offers full support for several positions from lying to sitting. [ .] 3.3 Two staff members are present whenever a lift is being used.
Aug 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

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 the resident and /or their representative with a summary of...

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 the resident and /or their representative with a summary of the care plan for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to limit communication concerning the resident's needs and development of a person-centered plan of care. Findings: A review of Resident 1's July 2023 clinical record, the clinical record indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including malignant neoplasm of the endometrium (a type of cancer that starts in the lining of the uterus). During a concurrent interview and record review with the Nurse Supervisor (NS) on 8/15/2023 at 12:56 p.m., no document indicated that Resident 1 had received a summary of the baseline care plan. The NS reviewed Resident 1 clinical record and confirmed she did not see any documentation that Resident 1 had received the baseline care plan. The NS stated the licensed nurses should provide the baseline care plan to Resident 1 to sign and keep a copy in the clinical record. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 8/15/2023 at 2:30 p.m., the DON acknowledged the licensed nurses should document that residents have received the copies after providing the summary of the baseline care plans to residents and/or their representatives. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Resident Care, revised October 2017, the P&P indicated, The resident and their representative will be provided with a summary of the baseline care plan that includes: Initial goals of the resident; Summary of the resident's medications and dietary instructions; Any services and treatments to be administered; and Any updated information based upon the details of the comprehensive care plan, as necessary.
Mar 2023 5 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0688 (Tag F0688)

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 and/or document restorative nursing assistant (RNA) treatme...

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 and/or document restorative nursing assistant (RNA) treatments for one of five sampled residents (Resident 26). This failure had the potential to result in functional decline for Resident 26. Findings: Review of Resident 26's medical record indicated he was admitted on [DATE] and had the diagnoses of atrial flutter (a condition in which the upper chambers of the heart beat too quickly), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD, a condition of the airways that causes difficulty breathing), and Parkinson's Disease (a nervous system disease that causes muscle rigidity and tremors). During an interview with Resident 26's family member (FM) on 3/14/23 at 12:34 p.m., the FM stated staff have provided Resident 26 with RNA treatments, but the treatments were sporadic. Review of Resident 26's Order History indicated he had a physician's order for RNA treatments from 9/15/22 to 12/15/22. The order indicated the RNA was to ambulate (walk) Resident 26 in the hallway and perform active range of motion exercises (activity meant to improve joint movement) to both arms and both legs for 15 to 30 minutes, three to five times a week. During an interview with restorative nursing assistant A (RNA A) on 3/15/23 at 8:53 a.m., she stated that when she performs RNA treatments with a resident, she must document the treatments in the electronic health record (EHR). RNA A further stated that if a resident refuses an RNA treatment, she must still document in the EHR and indicate that the resident refused. Review of Resident 26's Point of Care History, dated 9/15/22 to 12/15/22, indicated there were five weeks for which there was no documentation that RNA treatments were either provided as ordered or refused. During an interview and concurrent record review with the director of nursing (DON) on 3/16/23 at 3:52 p.m., the DON reviewed Resident 26's medical record and acknowledged there were several weeks for which there was no documentation that RNA was either provided as ordered or refused. The DON stated, If it's not documented, it was not done. Review of the facility's document titled Restorative Care Protocol, revised 10/2017, indicated RNA responsibilities include providing restorative treatments to assigned residents and documenting daily on the designated flow sheets, including dates of treatment and number of minutes for each treatment.
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 administer oxygen in accordance with professional sta...

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 administer oxygen in accordance with professional standards of practice for one of two sampled residents (Resident 5), when her oxygen humidifier bottle (a bottle filled with water connected to the oxygen source to keep the airways moist) was empty and oxygen humidifier bottle was not changed weekly. These failures had the potential to affect the residents' health and safety. Findings: Review of Resident 5's clinical record indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including idiopathic sleep related nonobstructive alveolar hypoventilation (a rare disorder in which a person does not take enough breaths per minute), sleep-related hypoxia (low levels of oxygen in the body tissues), and hypoxemia (when oxygen levels in the blood are lower than normal). Review of Resident 5's clinical record indicated she had a physician's order, dated 2/22/23, to administer oxygen at 2 - 5 liters per minute (LPM, oxygen flow rate) via nasal cannula (NC, flexible tubing that is placed in the nostrils and attached to an oxygen source), titrate (adjust) for comfort. During an observation on 3/13/23 at 10:57 a.m., Resident 5 was lying in bed receiving oxygen at 2 LPM via NC. The humidifier bottle attached to the oxygen concentrator (a machine that supplies oxygen) did not have any water inside. In addition, the humidifier bottle was dated 3/3/23 (10 days prior to this observation). During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/13/23, at 11:26 a.m., with licensed vocational nurse C (LVN C), LVN C verified the oxygen humidifier bottle was empty and dated 3/3/23. LVN C stated the humidifier bottle needed to be changed every seven days and as needed by the night shift. During a concurrent interview and record review with the director of nursing (DON), on 3/17/23, at 10:36 a.m., the DON stated licensed nurses should ensure that the humidifier bottle is cleaned and changed when it is empty or if the water level is low. The DON verified the humidifier bottle should be changed every seven days by the night shift.
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** 2. During a medication administration observation with Licensed Vocational Nurse C (LVN C) on 3/13/23 at 11:10 a.m., in Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a medication administration observation with Licensed Vocational Nurse C (LVN C) on 3/13/23 at 11:10 a.m., in Resident 5's room, LVN C did not wash or sanitize her hands before and after administering the oral medications to Resident 5. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/13/23, at 11:10 a.m., LVN C confirmed the above observation and further stated she should have sanitized her hands before and after administering medications. During an interview with the DON on 3/17/23 at 10:36 a.m., the DON stated staff should wash or sanitize their hands before and after entering residents' rooms, before administering medications, between tasks, and between changing gloves. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Hand Hygiene revised August 2018 indicated, Hand antisepsis should be performed before and after resident contact. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure infection control practices were implemented for two of 12 sampled residents (Resident 5 and 24) when: 1.The licensed nurse irrigated the left and right nephrostomy (an artificial opening created between the kidneys and the skin to facilitate urine drainage) tubes with one syringe; and 2.The licensed nurse did not perform hand hygiene between tasks. These failures had the potential for the development and the spread of infections in the facility. Findings: 1. A review of the Resident 24's physician orders indicated Resident 24 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including malignant neoplasm of the prostate (Cancer in a man's prostate), urinary tract infection(an infection in any part of the urinary system), streptococcal infection (a type of bacteria that can cause skin, soft tissue, and respiratory tract infections), and artificial openings of urinary tract status-Nephrostomy status. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/15/23 at 11:13 a.m., in Resident 24's room, Registered Nurse (RN) D irrigated the left nephrostomy tube with normal saline (NS), then she used the same syringe to aspirate 10 milliliter (ml-unit of liquid measurement) NS from the NS bottle and irrigated the right nephrostomy tube. RN D verified that she did not change the syringe in between the irrigations and she further stated using one syringe for both tubes could increase the risk of infection. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/16/23 at 4:30 p.m., the DON stated that the RN should not use one syringe to flush both nephrostomy tubes. She further stated the licensed nurse should have used two NS syringes to flush each tube to prevent infections. A review of the facility's undated competency skill checklist titled intermittent irrigation-nephrostomy tube indicated adhere to strict aseptic technique to irrigate the nephrostomy tubes.
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

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 the antibiotic stewardship program (program intended to 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 the antibiotic stewardship program (program intended to prevent the overuse of antibiotics) for one of three sample residents (Resident 26). Resident 26 received a course of antibiotics, but did not meet the criteria for antibiotic treatment. This failure had the potential to increase the prevalence of multi-drug resistant organisms in the facility. Findings: Review of Resident 26's medical record indicated he was admitted on [DATE] and had a history of urinary tract infection (UTI) and long-term use of antibiotics. Further review of the medical record indicated Resident 26 did not have an indwelling catheter (flexible tube inserted and left in the bladder to drain urine). Review of Resident 26's Progress Notes, dated 1/29/23, indicated he had increased confusion. The notes further indicated Resident 26's physician ordered a urinalysis with culture and sensitivity (UA/C&S, a urine test to determine if bacteria is present and which antibiotics would be effective). Review of Resident 26's UA/C&S results, dated 1/30/23, indicated the presence of greater than 100,000 colony-forming units per milliliter (cfu/ml, unit of concentration measurement) of Escherichia coli (a type of bacteria). Further review of Resident 26's medical record indicated that aside from increased confusion and a positive UA/C&S result, there was no documentation of any other signs and symptoms of a UTI. Review of Resident 26's Prescription Order, dated 1/30/23, indicated to give Bactrim DS (an antibiotic) 800-160 milligrams (mg, unit of dose measurement) by mouth every 12 hours for 14 days for UTI. Review of Resident 26's document titled Infection Control -- Infection Tracker with McGeer's Criteria [tool used to determine if the resident meets criteria for antibiotic treatment], dated 1/30/23 indicated, Does NOT meet McGeer's criteria for UTI. During an interview and concurrent record review with the director of staff development (DSD) on 3/16/23 at 4:48 p.m., he confirmed the facility used McGeer's criteria to determine if residents met the criteria for antibiotic treatment. The DSD explained if a resident was taking antibiotics and the facility determined the criteria were not met, the nurse should contact the physician to see if the antibiotic can be discontinued. The DSD stated if the physician chooses to continue the antibiotic, the nurse should document that the physician was informed and declined to discontinue the antibiotic. The DSD reviewed Resident 26's medical record and confirmed the documentation only indicated increased confusion and a positive UA/C&S result. The DSD acknowledged these two signs and symptoms alone did not meet the criteria for antibiotic treatment for UTI. The DSD also confirmed there was no documentation indicating the physician was notified that Resident 26 did not meet the criteria and declined to discontinue the antibiotic. Review of Resident 26's medication administration record (MAR) indicated he received the full course of Bactrim DS 800-160 mg every 12 hours, from 1/30/23 to 2/13/23. Review of the Revised McGeer Criteria for Urinary Tract Infection Surveillance Checklist, dated 2012, indicated that without an indwelling catheter, a person with the combination of increased confusion and a positive UA/C&S result alone does not meet the criteria for antibiotic treatment for UTI.
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 document review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared under sanitary conditions when: 1. There were unlabeled and undated food items in the k...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and document review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored and prepared under sanitary conditions when: 1. There were unlabeled and undated food items in the kitchen refrigerator and blast chiller (equipment that quickly lowers food temperature); 2. There were dented cans of food in the dry storage area of the kitchen; 3. There was a black substance on the inside of one out of two ice machines; and 4. Kitchen attendant B (KA B) did not follow printed instructions when testing the surface sanitizer (solution used to kill microorganisms on kitchen surfaces). These failures had the potential to cause food contamination and illness for all residents who received food from the kitchen (34 of 35 residents). Findings: 1. During a kitchen observation on 3/13/23 at 9:13 a.m., accompanied by the executive chef (EC), the refrigerator designated for the skilled nursing facility (SNF) was inspected. There was one medium-sized metal container filled with a dark red liquid. The container was not labeled with any dates or the name of the food item. The EC confirmed this observation and stated he would discard the food item. During a kitchen observation on 3/13/23 at 9:15 a.m., accompanied by the EC, the blast chiller was inspected. There was one large pot filled with a thick, light brown sauce. The pot was not labeled with any dates or the name of the food item. The EC confirmed this observation and stated food items should be labeled with the date they were prepared so staff can tell how long the food items are good for. The EC further stated containers should be labeled with the name of the food item so staff can tell what the food item is. Review of the facility's policy titled Sanitation and Safety, revised 6/2011 indicated, Foods prepared on the premises to be held cold will be labeled with the name and the date of preparation. This food will also be labeled with the date to discard or 'use by.' The discard/use by date will be a maximum of 6 days after the preparation. 2. During a kitchen observation on 3/13/23 at 9:20 a.m., accompanied by the EC, there was one dented can of tomato paste and one dented can of coconut milk in the dry storage area. The dented cans were stored with the other cans of food that were meant to be prepared and consumed. The EC confirmed this observation and acknowledged the dented cans of food should have been stored in the area specifically designated for dented cans. Review of the United States Food and Drug Administration's 2022 Food Code indicated, pitted or dented cans may present a serious potential hazard. 3. During an observation and concurrent interview with the director of dining services (DDS) on 3/14/23 at 10:53 a.m., the ice machine in the SNF pantry (a small area of the SNF where food is stored and prepared) was inspected. The DDS opened the ice machine lid, then used a white paper towel to wipe several parts inside the ice machine that were directly above the ice. After wiping the inside of the ice machine, there were black substances on the white paper towel the DDS used to do the wiping. The DDS confirmed this observation. Review of the United States Food and Drug Administration's 2022 Food Code indicated, ice makers and ice bins must be cleaned on a routine basis to prevent the development of slime, mold, or soil residues that may contribute to an accumulation of microorganisms. The food code further indicated that food equipment, which includes ice makers, shall be clean to sight and touch. 4. During an observation on 3/15/23 at 1:53 p.m., kitchen attendant B (KA B) tested the surface sanitizer in the SNF pantry. KA B filled a small red bucket with the sanitizing solution, then pulled out a piece of test paper from its packaging. KA B dipped the test paper in the sanitizing solution for less than one second, immediately pulled it out, then checked to see if the test paper changed to the appropriate color. Review of the undated instructions on the test paper packaging indicated to dip the test paper in the sanitizing solution for 10 seconds. During an interview with KA B on 3/15/23 at 1:55 p.m., he acknowledged the instructions indicated to dip the test paper in the sanitizing solution for 10 seconds.
Aug 2019 4 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility's pharmacy failed to ensure there was no expired medication in one of three emergency kits (E-kits). This failure had the potential to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and document review, the facility's pharmacy failed to ensure there was no expired medication in one of three emergency kits (E-kits). This failure had the potential to result in residents receiving medication with decreased potency. Findings: During an observation on 8/20/19 at 10:30 a.m., the facility's E-kit for intravenous (IV, administered into a vein) medications was inspected. Inside the E-kit, there was one vial (small cylindrical container) of Vancomycin Hydrochloride (medication used to treat infection) 1 gram (gm, unit of dose measurement) with an expiration date of 8/1/19. During a concurrent interview with registered nurse A (RN A), she confirmed the vial of Vancomycin Hydrochloride 1 gm was expired. RN A confirmed the expired medication should not have been in the E-kit. During an interview with the consultant pharmacist (CP) on 8/21/19 at 2:24 p.m., he explained that the pharmacist who stocked the E-kit before it was sent to the facility was supposed to check the expiration dates on the medications. Review of the facility's policy, Medication Storage in the Facility ID1: Storage of Medications, revised 3/4/14, indicated All expired medications will be removed from the active supply and destroyed in the facility, regardless of amount remaining.
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 monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications (medications capable of affecting the mind, emotions and behavior) for one of eight sa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications (medications capable of affecting the mind, emotions and behavior) for one of eight sampled residents (Resident 30). This failure had the potential to negatively affect the resident's health and well-being. Findings: Review of Resident 30's clinical record indicated he had the diagnoses of Parkinson's disease (progressive disorder of the nervous system), dementia (disorder of the mental processes caused by brain disease or injury) and major depressive disorder (mood disorder that causes persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest). Review of Resident 30's physician's order, dated 7/16/19, indicated he was to receive Seroquel (an antipsychotic medication) 12.5 milligrams (mg, unit of dose measurement) by mouth at bedtime for Parkinson's related psychosis (a severe mental disorder) manifested by visual hallucinations (seeing things that are not really there) and aggression. Resident 30 also had a physician's order, dated 6/27/19, for Lamotrigine (anticonvulsant medication sometimes used to treat mood disorders) 100 mg by mouth once an evening for depression manifested by statements of having a low mood. There was no documentation indicating staff had been monitoring Resident 30 for side effects of Seroquel or Lamotrigine. During an interview and concurrent record review with minimum data set nurse B (MDSN B) on 8/23/19 at 9:14 a.m., she stated staff should monitor for side effects of psychotropic medications every shift. She further stated the monitoring should be documented on the medication administration record (MAR). MDSN B reviewed Resident 30's record and confirmed there was no documentation indicating staff had been monitoring him for side effects of Seroquel or Lamotrigine. During an interview with the consultant pharmacist (CP) on 8/23/19 at 10:56 a.m., he stated monitoring for side effects of psychotropic medications should be documented on the MAR. Review of the facility's policy, Preparation and General Guidelines IIIA3: Limitations on Psychoactive Drugs, revised 1/18/18, indicated Interdisciplinary team [IDT, staff from different disciplines who work together to plan and provide care] will work together to ensure appropriate use, evaluation and monitoring. The policy further indicated, Facility staff will monitor psychotropic medication use and note adverse effects or changes in resident behavior and report to provider.
CONCERN (D)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility had an eight percent medication error rate when two medication errors out of 25 opportunities were observed during medication pass for t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility had an eight percent medication error rate when two medication errors out of 25 opportunities were observed during medication pass for two of five residents (Residents 20 and 95). These failures had the potential to compromise the health and safety of the residents. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 20's clinical record indicated she had a physician's order, dated 3/16/19, for Klor-Con 10 (potassium chloride, a mineral supplement) extended release (ER, designed to slowly release the medication in the body over an extended period of time) tablet 10 milliequivalents (meq, unit of dose measurement) two tablets by mouth once a morning. During an observation on 8/22/19 at 9:37 a.m., licensed vocational nurse E (LVN E) crushed two tablets of the above medication, mixed the crushed tablets in applesauce, and administered them to Resident 20. During an interview with LVN E on 8/22/19 at 9:49 a.m., she confirmed she crushed the two tablets of potassium chloride ER and administered them to Resident 20. During an interview with the consultant pharmacist (CP) on 8/22/19 at 9:57 a.m., he stated potassium chloride ER should not be crushed. The CP explained that crushing the medication could alter its bioavailability (the degree and rate at which the medication is absorbed). Review of the facility's policy, Medication Crushing Guidelines, revised 3/4/14, indicated Timed Release Tablets are designed to release medication over a sustained period, usually 8 to 24 hours. The policy further indicated these tablets should not be crushed. The facility's 2019 Do No Crush Medication List was reviewed. Potassium chloride was on the list. 2. Review of Resident 95's clinical record indicated she had a physician's order, dated 8/5/19, for Refresh Tears (carboxymethylcellulose sodium, lubricating eye drops) 0.5% (concentration of the medication) one drop to both eyes twice a day. During an observation on 8/22/19 at 8:20 a.m., registered nurse D (RN D) administered one drop of artificial tears 0.2-0.2-1% to both of Resident 95's eyes. During an interview with RN D on 8/22/19 at 8:55 a.m., she confirmed the eye drops she administered to Resident 95 did not match the physician's order. RN D also confirmed that prior to administering the eye drops, she did not check to make sure the eye drop concentration matched the physician's order. During an interview with the CP on 8/22/19 at 9:57 p.m., he explained that Refresh Tears 0.5% and artificial tears 0.2-0.2-1% were slightly different from each other. Review of the facility's policy, Preparation and General Guidelines IIA2: Medication Administration-General Guidelines, revised 3/4/14, indicated Medications are administered in accordance with written orders of the prescriber. The policy further indicated a triple check of the five rights (right resident, right drug, right dose, right route and right time) is recommended in the process of preparation of a medication for administration.
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** 4. Review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated he required extensive assistance (staff provide weight-bearing support) f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. Review of Resident 3's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated he required extensive assistance (staff provide weight-bearing support) from two or more people for transfers. The MDS also indicated the bed rail was coded as a physical restraint for Resident 3. During an observation on 8/22/19 at 10:30 a.m., Resident 3 was sitting on his chair in his room. His bed was equipped with partial bed rails (rails that did not cover the entire length of the bed). He was unable to move his left arm and left leg. During an interview with MDSN B and MDSN C on 8/23/19 at 12:43 p.m., they both confirmed Resident 3's bed rails were not restraints because he could not voluntarily get out of bed, even if the bed rails were not present. 5. Review of Resident 10's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated she required extensive assistance from one person for transfers. The MDS also indicated the bed rail was coded as a physical restraint for Resident 10. During an observation and concurrent interview with Resident 10 on 8/21/19 at 1:56 p.m., Resident 10 was sitting on her chair in her room. Her bed was equipped with short rails near the head of the bed. Resident 10 stated the short rails helped her move and did not restrain her. During an interview with MDSN B and MDSN C on 8/23/19 at 12:39 p.m., they both confirmed the short rails near the head of Resident 10's bed were not restraints. MDSN B and MDSN C also confirmed Resident 10 could not voluntarily get out of bed, even if the bed rails were not present. 6. Review of Resident 30's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated he required extensive assistance from two or more people for transfers. The MDS also indicated the bed rail was coded as a physical restraint for Resident 30. During an observation and concurrent interview with Resident 30 on 8/21/19 at 8:30 a.m., Resident 30 was lying in his bed, which was equipped with partial rails. Resident 30 stated the bed rails helped him move and did not restrain him. During an interview with MDSN B and MDSN C on 8/23/19 at 12:42 p.m., they both confirmed Resident 30's bed rails were not restraints because he could not voluntarily get out of bed, even if the bed rails were not present. 7. Review of Resident 42's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated she required extensive assistance from one person for transfers. The MDS also indicated the bed rail was coded as a physical restraint for Resident 42. During an observation and concurrent interview with Resident 42 on 8/21/19 at 8:53 a.m., Resident 42 was lying in her bed, which was equipped with short rails near the head of the bed. Resident 42 stated the short rails helped her move and did not restrain her. During an interview with MDSN B and MDSN C on 8/23/19 at 12:45 p.m., they both confirmed the short rails near the head of Resident 42's bed were not restraints. MDSN B and MDSN C also confirmed Resident 42 could not voluntarily get out of bed, even if the bed rails were not present. Review of the RAI manual indicated a device should be classified as a restraint only when it meets the criteria of the restraint definition. The RAI manual further indicated, If the resident is immobile and cannot voluntarily get out of bed because of a physical limitation or because proper assistive devices were not present, the bed rails do not meet the definition of a physical restraint. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to accurately code the minimum data set (MDS, an assessment tool) for seven of 12 sampled residents (Residents 16, 19, 41, 3, 10, 30, and 42). For Resident 16, the facility inaccurately coded the use of a medication. For Residents 19, 41, 3, 10, 30, and 42, the facility inaccurately coded bed rails as physical restraints. Failure to accurately assess the residents had the potential for inappropriate care planning and interventions. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 16's MDS' dated 9/22/18, 12/23/18, 3/25/19, and 6/25/19 under Section M Medications, indicated Resident 16 received anticoagulant (blood thinner, medication that slows down clotting). Review of Resident 16's physician order report indicated an order for Plavix (clopidogrel, antiplatelet medication that prevents clots from forming and growing) 75 milligrams once a day for stroke prevention. During an interview with minimum data set nurse B (MDSN B) on 8/23/19 at 10:59 a.m., MDSN B stated they thought Plavix was an anticoagulant. MDSN B confirmed Resident 19 was not on an anticoagulant but was an antiplatelet medication. 2. Review of Resident 19's clinical record indicated diagnoses of muscle weakness, difficulty in walking, restless leg syndrome, and reduced mobility. Review of Resident 19's MDS dated [DATE] under Section P Restraints and Alarms, indicated the bed rail was used daily as a physical restraint for Resident 19. Under Section G Functional Status, it indicated Resident 19 needed extensive assistance with two or more person assist for bed mobility and transfers. Review of Resident 19's physician orders report dated 7/10/18, indicated an order that Resident 19 may use quarter side rails as enablers for assistance with transfers, bed mobility and aid in position while at the facility. During an observation and interview on 8/20/19 at 10:07 a.m., Resident 19 was in bed with one side rail up. Resident 19 stated the side rail was to help her move around in bed. Resident 19 stated she was able to move around once in the wheelchair but needed help with transferring. During an interview with the registered nurse supervisor (RNS) on 8/23/19 at 11:37 a.m., the RNS stated Resident 19 was unable to physically get out of bed by herself and needed two people to physically get Resident 19 out of bed to a wheelchair. During an interview with MDSN B and MDSN C on 8/23/19 at 12:31 p.m., MDSN B and MDSN C confirmed Resident 19 was not able to get out of bed by herself with or without the side rail present. 3. Review of Resident 41's clinical record indicated the diagnoses of hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness on one side of the body), Parkinson's disease (loss of nerve cells in the brain affecting movement), muscle weakness and difficulty in walking. Review of Resident 41's MDS dated [DATE] under Section P Restraints and Alarms indicated the bed rail was used daily as a physical restraint for Resident 41. Under Section G Functional Status, it indicated Resident 41 needed extensive assistance with two or more person assist for bed mobility and transfers. Review of Resident 41's physician orders report dated 7/31/19 indicated an order that Resident 41 may use quarter side rails as enablers for assistance with transfers, bed mobility and aid in position while at the facility. During observation and interview on 8/20/19 at 1:46 p.m., Resident 41 was observed lying in bed with two side rails up on both sides of the bed. During another observation and interview on 8/23/19 at 8:23 a.m., Resident 41 was lying in bed with two side rails up on both sides of the bed. Resident 41's family member was also at bedside. Resident 41 stated the side rail does not restrain me at all. Resident 41 stated he was not able to physically get out of the bed by himself. During an interview with registered nurse D (RN D) on 8/23/19 at 11:39 a.m., RN D stated Resident 41 was not able to get out of the bed by himself and needed at least a two person assist to get out of bed and into a wheelchair due to Resident 41's condition. During an interview with MDSN B and MDSN C on 8/23/19 at 12:31 p.m., MDSN B and MDSN C confirmed Resident 41 was not able to get out of bed by himself with or without the side rail present. Review of the Minimum Data Set 3.0 Resident Assessment Instrument User's Manual version 1.16 (RAI manual, MDS coding instructions) dated 10/2019 indicated if the resident is immobile and cannot voluntarily get out of bed because of a physical limitation or because proper assistive device were not present, the bed rails do not meet the definition of a physical restraint.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • Grade B+ (85/100). Above average facility, better than most options in California.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
  • • 25% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 23 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 18 deficiencies on record, including 1 serious (caused harm) violation. Ask about corrective actions taken.
Bottom line: Generally positive indicators. Standard due diligence and a personal visit recommended.

About This Facility

What is Vi At Palo Alto's CMS Rating?

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

How is Vi At Palo Alto Staffed?

CMS rates VI AT PALO ALTO's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 25%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Vi At Palo Alto?

State health inspectors documented 18 deficiencies at VI AT PALO ALTO during 2019 to 2024. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 17 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Vi At Palo Alto?

VI AT PALO ALTO is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by VI LIVING, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 44 certified beds and approximately 37 residents (about 84% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in PALO ALTO, California.

How Does Vi At Palo Alto Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, VI AT PALO ALTO's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (25%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Vi At Palo Alto?

Based on this facility's data, families visiting should ask: "Can I visit during a mealtime to observe dining assistance and food quality?" "How do you handle medical emergencies, and what is your hospital transfer rate?" "Can I speak with family members of current residents about their experience?"

Is Vi At Palo Alto Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, VI AT PALO ALTO has a clean safety record: no substantiated abuse findings (meaning no confirmed cases of resident harm), no Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death), and is not on the Special Focus Facility watch list (a federal program monitoring the lowest-performing 1% of nursing homes). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 of 100 nursing homes in California. While no facility is perfect, families should still ask about staff-to-resident ratios and recent inspection results during their visit.

Do Nurses at Vi At Palo Alto Stick Around?

Staff at VI AT PALO ALTO tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 25%, the facility is 21 percentage points below the California average of 46%. Low turnover is a positive sign. It means caregivers have time to learn each resident's needs, medications, and personal preferences. Consistent staff also notice subtle changes in a resident's condition more quickly. Registered Nurse turnover is also low at 29%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Vi At Palo Alto Ever Fined?

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

Is Vi At Palo Alto on Any Federal Watch List?

VI AT PALO ALTO 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.