CENTINELA GRAND INC

2225 NORTH PERRIS BOULEVARD, PERRIS, CA 92571 (951) 657-2135
For profit - Corporation 109 Beds ROLLINS-NELSON HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT Data: November 2025
Trust Grade
80/100
#39 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: December 2024

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

Overview

Centinela Grand Inc has a Trust Grade of B+, which means it is recommended and above average compared to other facilities. It ranks #39 out of 1,155 nursing homes in California, placing it in the top half of the state and #1 out of 53 in Riverside County, indicating it is the best option locally. However, the facility is currently experiencing a worsening trend, with reported issues increasing from 1 in 2024 to 4 in 2025. Staffing is a strong point, with a 4 out of 5 rating and a low turnover rate of just 12%, significantly below the state average. On the downside, there were serious incidents, including failing to address significant weight loss in a resident and not following proper food safety protocols, which could lead to health risks for residents. Overall, while there are notable strengths, families should be aware of the recent compliance issues.

Trust Score
B+
80/100
In California
#39/1155
Top 3%
Safety Record
Moderate
Needs review
Inspections
Getting Worse
1 → 4 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
12% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 36 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
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 25 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
27 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 1 issues
2025: 4 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (12%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (12%)

    36 points below California average of 48%

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

The Bad

Chain: ROLLINS-NELSON HEALTHCARE MANAGEMEN

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 27 deficiencies on record

1 actual harm
Aug 2025 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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure:1. 14 of 17 residents reviewed (Resident's 1, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure:1. 14 of 17 residents reviewed (Resident's 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17) were supervised by the facility staff, as ordered by their physician, during leave of absence passes (LOA); and2. One resident reviewed (Resident 3) did not have sharp objects on the meal trays, as indicated in the residents' care plan.This failure had the potential for:1. Resident's 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 to experience avoidable environment risks, hazards, and accidents; and 2. Placed Resident 3 at risk for self-harm.Findings:On July 30, 2025, an unannounced visit was conducted at the facility to investigate a complaint.1a. On July 30, 2025, Resident 1's medical record was reviewed.Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness), paranoid schizophrenia (symptoms of suspicious/mistrust/delusions/hallucination), anxiety (feeling of nervousness) disorder, bipolar disorder (manic and depressive episodes).The history and physical completed by the physician on June 20, 2024, indicated Resident 1 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician orders dated June 20, 2024, indicated .may go on temporary leave of absence with staff for sensory stimulation.The care plan dated July 15, 2025, indicated .Focus.elopement.goal.resident will be kept in safe environment.allow resident to wander within the unit; ensure environment is safe & secure.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on May 4, May 7, May 27 - 30, June 1, and July 17, 2025, Resident 1 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 1 during the LOA.1b. On July 30, 2025, Resident 2's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness), psychosis (loss with reality), extrapyramidal movement disorder (movements related to side effects of antipsychotic medications-medications to treat psychological disorders);The history and physical completed by the physician on June 1, 2025, indicated Resident 2 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated May 2, 2025, indicated .may go for temporary leave of absence with staff for sensory stimulation.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on May 15, 2025, at 1:00 p.m., Resident 1 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 2 during the LOA.1c. On July 30, 2025, at 12:17 p.m., Resident 3 was interviewed. Resident 3 was alert and oriented. Resident 3 stated during his leave of absence pass on July 20, 2025, he experienced anxiety and right leg pain requiring him to call 911 (emergency services) for assistance. On July 30, 2025, Resident 3's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Psychosis (loss of reality), anxiety disorder (feeling nervousness), depression (persistent feeling of sadness), abuse of non-psychoactive substances (excessive use of illegal drug), neuropathy (nerve problem), suicidal ideations (thinking, considering, or planning suicide).The history and physical completed by the physician on July 10, 2025, indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated July 10, 2025, indicated .may go on a temporary leave of absence with staff for sensory stimulation .The care plan dated July 1, 2025, indicated .Focus.elopement.goal.resident will be kept in safe environment.allow resident to wander within the unit; ensure environment is safe & secured.The nursing progress notes indicated the following:On July 20, 2025, at 10:38 a.m., Resident 3 left the faciity on pass to the store.On July 20, 2025, at 8:00 p.m., nursing staff contacted Resident 3 via phone and Resident 3 stated he called 911 due to anxiety and right leg pain.On July 21, 2025, at 7:31 a.m., the facility called (name of hospital) and was informed by (name of hospital) staff Resident 3 was on a 5150 hold ( 72-hour hold for a person experiencing a mental health crisis).On July 23, 2025, at 5:50 p.m., Resident 3 was re-admitted into the facility.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on July 20, 2025, at 10:30 a.m., Resident 3 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 3 during the LOA.The Leave of Absence Logbook further indicated on June 24, June 25, June 26, July 3, July 7, July 12-19, and July 24-31, 2025, Resident 3 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 3 during the LOA.1d. On July 30, 2025, Resident 4's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness) and psychosis (loss of reality).The history and physical completed by the physician on August 9, 2024, indicated Resident 4 can make needs known but cannot make medical decisions.The physician order dated July 30, 202, indicated .may go on temporary leave of absence for sensory stimulation with staff.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on July 10 and July 21, 2025, Resident 4 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 4 during the LOA.1e. On July 30, 2025, Resident 6's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included psychosis (loss of reality).The history and physical completed by the physician on July 2, 2025, indicated Resident 6 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated July 2, 2025, indicated .may go on a temporary leave of absence with staff for sensory stimulation.The progress note nursing dated July 11, 2025, indicated Resident 6 .left via Uber (transportation service) for appt and LOA to stay overnight with a friend.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on July 3, July 6, and July 11, 2025, Resident 6 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 6 during LOA.There was no documented evidence an assessment was conducted to ensure Resident 6 was safe to go out overnight on LOA independently on July 11, 2025.1f. On July 30, 2025, Resident 7's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses which included Dementia (loss of intellectual functioning), depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness), and Alzheimer (slowly destroys memory).The history and physical completed by the physician on September 27, 2025, indicated Resident 7 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions with a BIMS (measurement of cognitive function 0 to 15) score of 05 (higher the score higher the cognitive function).The physician order dated September 6, 2024, indicated .may go on temporary leave of absence with staff for therapeutic sensory stimulation.The care plan dated July 3, 2025, indicated .Focus.elopement.Goal.resident will be kept in safe environment.Intervention.allow resident to wander within the unit; assure that environment is safe and secured.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on May 10, June 18, June 20, June 21, June 25, and July 2, 2025, Resident 6 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 6 during the LOA.1g. On July 30, 2025, Resident 9's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Psychosis (loss of reality), major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness), and auditory hallucinations (perception of something not present),suicidal ideations (thinking, considering, or planning suicide), anxiety disorder (feeling nervousness), cannabis dependency (need of marijuana), alcohol abuse (need of alcohol).The facility was unable to provide a history and physical for Resident 9.The physician order dated June 20, 2025, indicated .may go on a temporary leave of absence with staff for sensory stimulation.The care plan dated June 20, 2025, indicated .Focus.elopement.goal.resident will be kept in safe environment.allow resident to wander within the unit; ensure environment is safe & secured.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on June 22 and June 23, 2025, Resident 9 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 9 during the LOA.1h. On July 30, 2025, Resident 10's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Anxiety disorder (feeling nervousness) and major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness).The history and physical completed by the physician dated May 1, 2025, indicated Resident 10 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated May 8, 2024, indicated .may go on temporary leave of absence for sensory stimulation with staff.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on June 6, June 17, June 20, and June 25, 2025, Resident 10 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 10 during the LOA.1i. On July 30, 2025, Resident 12's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness), anxiety (feeling nervousness) disorder, delusional (belief of things not true), bipolar (manic and depressive episodes).The history and physical completed by the physician on May 19, 2025, indicated Resident 12 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated May 19, 2025, indicated the following, .may go on temporary leave of absence with staff for therapeutic stimulation.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on April 22, April 25, May 2, May 20, May 22, May 25, June 1, June 2, June 7, and July 10, 2025, Resident 12 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 12 during the LOA.1j. On July 30, 2025, Resident 13's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Psychosis (loss of reality) and anxiety (feeling nervousness disorder) depression (persistent feeling of sadness).The history and physical completed by the physician on May 19, 2025, indicated Resident 13 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated June 17, 2025, indicated .may go on a temporary leave of absence with staff for sensory stimulation.The care plan dated July 4, 2025, indicated .Focus.elopement.goal.resident will be kept in safe environment.allow resident to wander within the unit; ensure environment is safe & secured.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on June 2 -7, June 18 - 22, June 28 - June 30, July 5, July 7 - 15, July 17 - 20, July 26, and July 28 - 30, 2025, Resident 13 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 13 during the LOA.1k. On July 30, 2025, Resident 14's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Bipolar (manic and depressive episodes), anxiety (feeling of nervousness), suicidal ideations (thinking, considering, or planning suicide).The history and physical completed by the physician on May 30, 2025, indicated Resident 14 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated May 30, 2025, indicated .may go on a temporary leave of absence with staff for sensory stimulation.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on June 10, June 13, June 15 -18, June 20, June 28 - 30, July 2, July 4-5, July 9-11, July 13 - 15, July 18, July 25, and July 27 -30, 2025, Resident 14 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 14 during the LOA.1l. On July 30, 2025, Resident 15's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Bipolar (manic and depressive episodes) and depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness).The history and physical completed by the physician on October 2, 2025, indicated Resident 15 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated October 2, 2024, indicated .may go on temporary leave of absence with staff for therapeutic stimulation.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on July 28, 2025, at 8:20 a.m., Resident 15 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 15 during the LOA.1m. On July 30, 2025, Resident 16's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 16 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Bipolar (manic and depressive episodes), depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness), and anxiety (feeling of nervousness).The history and physical completed by the physician on May 1, 2025, Resident 16 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated May 4, 2025, indicated .may go on temporary leave of absence with staff for sensory stimulation.The care plan dated July 10, 2025, indicated .Focus.elopement.goal.resident will be kept in safe environment.allow resident to wander within the unit; ensure environment is safe & secured.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on May 13 - 14, May 16 - 20, June 23 - 26, July 3, July 6, and July 8, 2025, Resident 16 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 16 during the LOA.1n. On July 30, 2025, Resident 17's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 17 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Anxiety (feeling nervousness) and Bipolar (manic and depressive episodes).The history and physical completed by the physician on June 23, 2025, indicated Resident 17 had the capacity to understand and make medical decisions.The physician order dated June 23, 2025, indicated .may go on temporary leave of absence with staff for sensory stimulation.A review of the facility Leave of Absence Logbook was conducted. The logbook indicated on March 25-27, April 22-23,and June 6, 2025, Resident 17 signed out for a leave of absence pass with no documented evidence staff accompanied Resident 17 during the LOA.On August 1, 2025, at 12:41p.m., a concurrent interview was conducted with the Director of Staff Development (DSD). The DSD stated there is no daily assigned staff to cover residents' LOA passes. The DSD stated staff is only assigned to LOA passes for physician appointments and activities that are far from the facility. The DSD stated residents who have LOA are self-responsible and do not require staff to accompany them. The DSD stated if a physician order indicates residents should be accompanied on LOA than the resident should be accompanied by staff on LOA. The DSD further stated Resident's 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 should have been accompanied while on LOA.On August 1, 2025, at 4:32 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the facility process for determining a residents' LOA is the resident must be alert and oriented to participate in LOA pass. The DON stated Residents 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 physicians order indicated they may go on temporary leave of absence with staff for sensory stimulation. The DON further stated that Resident's 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12,13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 should have been accompanied by staff on LOA passes.A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Therapeutic Leave, revised November 2017, indicated .the nurse will obtain and order from the practitioner specifying approval of a therapeutic leave.the facility will document in the medical record the resident's leave of absence.A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Physician Orders, not dated, indicated .physician orders are those given to the nurse by the physician.all physician orders shall be noted by a licensed nurse and carried out accordingly.2. On July 30, 2025, Resident 3's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Psychosis (loss of reality), anxiety disorder (feeling nervousness), depression (persistent feeling of sadness), abuse of non-psychoactive substances (excessive use of illegal drug), neuropathy (nerve problem), and suicidal ideations (thinking, considering, or planning suicide).The history and physical completed by the physician on July 10, 2025, indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated July 1, 2025, indicated .suicidal ideations.Intervention .remove sharp objects.On August 1, 2025, at 12:19 p.m., Resident 3's lunch tray was observed with a fork, spoon, and knife. The lunch tray was placed on the bedside table readily available for Resident 3 to use.On August 1, 2025, at 12:24 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1. LVN 1 stated the contents of Resident 3's lunch tray included a fork, spoon, and knife. Resident 3's care plan was reviewed. LVN 1 stated the knife and fork on Resident 3's tray would be considered sharp objects. LVN 1 stated according to Resident 3's care plan he should not have sharp objects.On August 4, 2025, at 11:51 a.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated that when a care plan is developed it should be followed through. The DON stated if the care plan indicated resident should not have sharp objects the resident should not have sharp objects. The DON stated the sharp objects should not have been on Resident 3's meal tray.
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 F0742 (Tag F0742)

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 mental health services were provided when:1. The physician ...

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 mental health services were provided when:1. The physician or psychiatrist was not notified for one resident (Resident 3) of Resident 3's concern regarding his methadone addiction and possibly experiencing a relapse; and 2. The facility did not arrange psychological evaluations for 12 of 12 residents reviewed (Resident's 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15).This failure had the potential for Resident's 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 15 to have a delay in the necessary care and services to address their behavioral health needs. Findings:1.On July 30, 2025, an unannounced visit was conducted at the facility to investigate a complaint.On July 30, 2025, at 12:17 p.m., Resident 3 was interviewed. Resident 3 was alert and oriented. Resident 3 stated he felt the facility was not addressing his problem with methadone (synthetic opioid medication) addiction.On July 30, 2025, Resident 3's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Psychosis (loss of reality), anxiety disorder (feeling nervousness), depression (persistent feeling of sadness), abuse of non-psychoactive substances (excessive use of illegal drug), neuropathy (nerve problem), suicidal ideations (thinking, considering, or planning suicide).The history and physical completed by the physician on July 10, 2025, indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The (Name of Facility - methadone clinic) After Visit Summary dated June 18, 2025, indicated .member stated, I am an addict on methadone my last dose was June 10, 2025 I need .services to help me I am withdrawing from not having my medication.member is willing to enter treatment member has been on methadone since 2016 and is having stronger urges to use.member is high risk for relapse due to his current state of withdrawal from methadone.member lacks coping skills to cope with life on life's terms.member reports he is currently in nursing home for physical health issues.The physician order dated July 16, 2025, indicated .consult/appointment with methadone clinic secondary to opioid use disorder.There was no documented evidence indicating Resident 3's concerns about his methadone addiction, withdrawal, and high risk for relapse were addressed with the physician or the psychiatrist until July 16, 2025, when the physician ordered another consult/appointment be made with the methadone clinic.On August 1, 2025, at 4:32 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the Registered Nurse (RN) supervisor is in charge of reading the residents after visit summary and scheduling follow up appointments. The DON stated, after reading Resident 3's after visit summary dated June 18, 2025, the RN supervisor should have contacted the psychiatrist or the physician regarding Resident 3's high risk of relapse. The DON stated there is no documented evidence that the RN supervisor contacted the psychiatrist or the physician regarding Resident 3.A review of the facility policy and procedures titled Specialized Rehabilitative Services, not dated indicated .mental health services and supportive psychotherapy for mental illness.specialized rehabilitative services will be provided under the written order of a physician.the services will be provided or coordinated by qualified personnel.the care plan for individuals receiving specialized rehabilitative services will be monitored by a licensed professional.specialized rehabilitative services are considered a facility service and included within the scope of facility services.2a.On July 30, 2025, Resident 4's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 4 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness) and psychosis (loss of reality).The history and physical completed by the physician on August 9, 2024, indicated Resident 4 can make needs known but cannot make medical decisions.The physician order dated July 30, 2025, indicated psychology consult & follow up treatment as indicated & prn (as needed).depression.psychosis.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 4 received a psychology evaluation as ordered by the physician.2b.On July 30, 2025, Resident 5's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses which included bipolar (manic and depressive episodes) and dementia (loss of intellectual functioning);The history and physical completed by the physician on June 4, 2025, indicated Resident 5 had the capacity to understand and make decisions;The physician order dated June 4, 2025, indicated .psychology consult, treatment, follow up.The psychiatric note dated July 3, 2025, indicated .exhibiting aggressive behavior and is observed talking to himself.continue monitoring and follow ups.plan.supportive psychotherapy.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 5 received a psychology evaluation as ordered by the physician.2c.On July 30, 2025, Resident 6's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 6 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included psychosis (loss of reality).The history and physical completed by the physician on July 2, 2025, indicated Resident 6 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated July 2, 2025, indicated .psychology consult, treatment, and follow up.The care plan dated July 2, 2025, indicated .Focus.psychosis m/b auditory hallucinations.Intervention.reality orientation daily and prn.psychiatry/psychology evaluation with treatment and follow ups.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 6 received a psychology evaluation as ordered by the physician.2d.On July 30, 2025, Resident 7's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 7 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses which included Dementia (loss of intellectual functioning), depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness), and Alzheimer (slowly destroys memory).The history and physical completed by the physician on September 27, 2025, indicated Resident 7 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions with a BIMS (measurement of cognitive function 0 to 15) score of 5 (higher the score higher the cognitive function).The physician order dated September 6, 2024, indicated .psychology consult, treatment, and follow up.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 7 received a psychology evaluation as ordered by the physician.2e.On July 30, 2025, Resident 8's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses which included Bipolar (manic and depressive episodes), depression (persistent feeling of sadness), history of suicidal behavior (thinking, considering, or planning suicide), psychoactive substance abuse (chemical changes to mood, cognition, and behavior);The history and physical completed by the physician on September 12, 2024, indicated Resident 8 has the capacity to understand and make decisions;The physician order dated November 8, 2024, indicated .psychology consult and follow up treatment.The care plan dated June 16, 2025, indicated the following: .Focus.resident diagnosis psychosis.Goal.resident will note decreased psychotic features.Intervention.psychiatry/psychology evaluation with treatment and follow up.Focus.resident uses psychotropic medication.Intervention.behavioral management program.Focus.resident is a long-term stay with no discharge plan.Goal.resident will receive appropriate care to meet needs daily.Intervention.assess and provide residents' psychosocial.needs.-The psychiatry note indicated the following dated May 17, 2025, indicated .continue to implement .Supportive Therapy.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 8 received a psychology evaluation as ordered by the physician, behavioral management as indicated in Resident 8's care plan, and Supportive Therapy as indicated in the psychiatrist note.2f.On July 30, 2025, Resident 9's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 9 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Psychosis (loss of reality), major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness), and auditory hallucinations (perception of something not present),suicidal ideations (thinking, considering, or planning suicide), anxiety disorder (feeling nervousness), cannabis dependency (need of marijuana), alcohol abuse (need of alcohol).The facility was unable to provide a history and physical for Resident 9.The physician order dated June 20, 2025, indicated the following: .psychiatry consult, treatment, follow up.psychology consult, treatment, follow up.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 9 received a psychology and/or psychiatrist evaluation as ordered by the physician.2g.On July 30, 2025, Resident 10's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 10 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Anxiety disorder (feeling nervousness) and major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness).The history and physical completed by the physician dated May 1, 2025, indicated Resident 10 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated May 8, 2024, indicated .psychology consult & follow up treatment.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 10 received a psychology evaluation as ordered by the physician.2h.On July 30, 2025, Resident 11's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 11 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnoses which included Major depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness), anxiety (feeling nervousness), and psychosis (loss of reality).The history and physical completed by the physician dated December 13, 2024, indicated Resident 11 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated December 12, 2024, indicated .psychologist consult, treatment, and follow up.The behavior management team note dated January 2025 through July 2025, indicated .medications Ativan (anti-anxiety medication).Zoloft (anti-depressant medication).behaviors.anxiety.depression.plan.refer to psychologist.The psychiatrist note dated June 5, 2025, indicated .inability to relax.continue monitoring and follow-ups.plan.supportive psychotherapy.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 11 received a psychology evaluation as ordered by the physician and behavioral management team. The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 11 received supportive psychotherapy as indicated by the psychiatrist.2i.On July 30, 2025, Resident 12's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 12 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness), anxiety (feeling nervousness) disorder, delusional (belief of things not true), and bipolar (manic and depressive episodes);The history and physical completed by the physician on May 19, 2025, indicated Resident 12 had the capacity to understand and make decisions;The physician order dated May 19, 2025, indicated .psychology consult, treatment, and follow up.The care plan dated July 24, 2025, indicated the following: .Focus.resident requires skilled nursing.Intervention.monitor psychosocial.refer to psychologist.Focus.psychosis.Intervention.psychiatry/psychology evaluation.-The behavior management team note dated June 4, 2025, and July 7, 2025, indicated .medications.behavioral problems.plan of action.refer to psychologist.-The psychiatrist note dated June 6, 2025, indicated .inability to sleep accompanied by angry Outbursts.continue monitoring.plan.supportive psychotherapy.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 12 received a psychology evaluation as ordered by the physician and behavioral management team. The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 12 received supportive psychotherapy as indicated by the psychiatrist.2j.On July 30, 2025, Resident 13's medical record was reviewedThe admission record indicated Resident 13 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Psychosis (loss of reality) and anxiety (feeling nervousness disorder) depression (persistent feeling of sadness).The history and physical completed by the physician on May 19, 2025, indicated Resident 13 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated June 17, 2025, indicated .psychology consult, treatment and follow up.The care plan date July 4, 2025, indicated the following: .Focus.resident is a long term stay with no discharge plan.Intervention. assess and provide resident psychosocial needs.Focus.care plan for discharge.Intervention.refer to psychologist.The psychiatrist note dated July 4, 2025, indicated .sudden anger outburst.poor impulse control.continue to monitor and follow-up.plan.supportive psychotherapy.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 13 received a psychology evaluation as ordered by the physician. The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 13 received supportive psychotherapy as indicated by the psychiatrist.2k.On July 30, 2025, Resident 14's medical record was reviewedThe admission record indicated Resident 14 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Bipolar (manic and depressive episodes), anxiety (feeling of nervousness), suicidal ideations (thinking, considering, or planning suicide).The history and physical completed by the physician on May 30, 2025, indicated Resident 14 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated May 30, 2025, indicated .psychology consult, treatment, follow up.The psychiatrist note dated June 6, 2025, indicated .exhibiting mood swings.physical aggression.continue to monitor.plan.supportive psychotherapy.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 14 received a psychology evaluation as ordered by the physician. The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 14 received supportive psychotherapy as indicated by the psychiatrist. 2l.On July 30, 2025, Resident 15's medical record was reviewed.The admission record indicated Resident 15 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Bipolar (manic and depressive episodes) and depressive disorder (persistent feeling of sadness).The history and physical completed by the physician on October 2, 2025, indicated Resident 15 had the capacity to understand and make decisions.The physician order dated October 2, 2024, indicated .psychology consult, treatment, follow up.;The psychiatrist note dated April 1, May 5, and June 6, 2025, indicated .mood swings signs of paranoia.continue to monitor.plan.supportive psychotherapy.The behavioral management team note dated January 8, February 5, March 5, April 2, May 7, and June 4, 2025, indicated .medications.behavioral problems.plan of action.refer to psychologist.The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 15 received a psychology evaluation as ordered by the physician and behavioral management team. The facility could not provide documented evidence Resident 15 received supportive psychotherapy as indicated by the psychiatrist.On August 4, 2025, at 11:44 a.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Social Worker (SW). The SW stated she is the one to schedule appointments for psychiatry and psychology evaluations and follow ups. The SW also stated she is in charge of reviewing psychiatry and psychology notes. The SW stated she is on the behavioral management team and is the one to schedule appointments for the recommendations. The SW further stated Resident 8 supportive services were not scheduled and should have been scheduled. The SW stated Resident 11 and Resident 12 psychology evaluation should have been scheduled. The SW stated the facility should have located a psychologist that accepts Medi-Cal to schedule Resident 4 and 17 psychology evaluations.On August 4, 2025, at 11:51 a.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated she is a part of the behavioral management team. The DON stated depending on the recommendation it can be nursing or social services who scheduled evaluations and follow up appointments. The DON stated the social service department is responsible of scheduling psychology and psychiatry evaluations. The DON stated the facility should have scheduled the psychology evaluations and that the possible outcome to the residents would be a delay in mental health care.A review of the facility policy and procedures titled Specialized Rehabilitative Services, not dated indicated .mental health services and supportive psychotherapy for mental illness.specialized rehabilitative services will be provided under the written order of a physician.the services will be provided or coordinated by qualified personnel.the care plan for individuals receiving specialized rehabilitative services will be monitored by a licensed professional.specialized rehabilitative services are considered a facility service and included within the scope of facility services. A review of the facility policy and procedures titled Social Services, not dated indicated .the facility regardless of size will provide medically related social service to each resident attain or maintain the residents highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.any need for medically related social services will be documented in the medical record.the social worker or social worker designee will pursue the provision of any identified need for medically related social services of the resident.services to meet resident's needs may include.providing or arranging for needed mental and psychosocial counseling services.the resident's plan of care will reflect any ongoing medically related social services needs and how these needs are being addressed.the social worker or social worker designee will monitor the residents progress in improving physical, mental, and psychosocial functioning.
Jun 2025 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure an injury of unknown origin was reported immedi...

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 an injury of unknown origin was reported immediately, but not later than 2 hours to the State Survey Agency (SSA) and to the Long-Term care (LTC) Ombudsman for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). The facility was made aware of Resident 1 ' s right arm fracture on May 23, 2025. This failure had the potential for state agencies and the LTC Ombudsman not to be able to advocate for the residents in protecting their rights to be free from abuse and neglect. Findings: On June 9, 2025, at 10:35 a.m., during a concurrent observation and interview, Resident 1 was observed with right arm in a blue sling with right hand contracted. Resident 1 was attempted to be interviewed but only responded with a mumble. A review of Resident 1 ' s admission record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included cognitive communication deficit and muscle weakness. Further review of the record indicated the resident was transferred to the hospital on May 23, 2025, for a fracture on the right arm. A review of Resident 1 ' s nursing notes dated May 23, 2025, indicated, .Relayed x-ray result to Right forearm w/ (with) conclusion: Osteopenia w/ flexion contracture, displaced fracture of Olecranon w/ margins appearing chronic .ordered to Transfer to (name of hospital) for further evaluation and treatment . A review of Resident 1 ' s progress notes, did not indicate documentation of how the patient sustained the right arm fracture. On June 9, 2025, at 12:34 p.m., during a concurrent interview and record review with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON verified Resident 1 was transferred to the hospital for a higher level of care on May 23, 2025, and the Ombudsman was notified only of the transfer via fax transmittal on May 23, 2025. The ADON verified there was no documented evidence the facility notified the Ombudsman and SSA of Resident 1 ' s fracture of unknown origin. The ADON further stated there was no documented evidence the facility performed an investigation of Resident 1 ' s fracture of unknown origin. The ADON stated the Ombudsman and SSA should have been notified of Resident 1 ' s fracture of unknown origin and the facility should have investigated of Resident 1 ' s fracture of unknown origin. On June 9, 2025, at 1:34 p.m., during a concurrent interview and record review with the Social Worker (SW), the SW verified that the transfer notice for a higher level of care for Resident 1 was dated May 23, 2025, and only a copy of the transfer notice was sent to the Ombudsman on May 23, 2025. The SW verified there was no documented evidence the facility reported Resident 1 ' s fracture of unknown origin to the Ombudsman and CDPH. The SW further stated the Ombudsman and CDPH should have been notified of Resident 1 ' s fracture of unknow origin. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, not dated, indicated .Identification of Abuse, Neglect .The facility will consider factors indicating possible abuse, neglect of residents .the following possible indicators .physical injury of resident unknown source .an investigation is immediately warranted .once the resident is cared for and initial reporting has occurred an investigation should be conducted .anyone in the facility can report suspected abuse .When abuse, neglect is suspected the licensed should respond to resident .notify Director of Nursing .initiate an investigation immediately .notify physician .contact the State Agency and the local Ombudsman office to report the alleged 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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to investigate what could have caused one of three sampl...

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 investigate what could have caused one of three sampled residents ' (Resident 1) right arm fracture. The facility did not witness the source of the fracture, and the resident could not explain the source of the right arm fracture. This failure had the potential to delay provision of corrective action to ensure Resident 1 is free from potential abuse, neglect, and mistreatment. Findings: On June 9, 2025, at 10:35 a.m., during a concurrent observation and interview, Resident 1 was observed with right arm in a blue sling with right hand contracted. Resident 1 was attempted to be interviewed but only responded with a mumble. A review of Resident 1 ' s admission record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included cognitive communication deficit and muscle weakness. Further review of the record indicated the resident was transferred to the general acute care hospital (GACH) on May 23, 2025, for a fracture of right arm. A review of Resident 1 ' s nursing notes dated May 23, 2025, indicated, .Relayed x-ray result to Right forearm w/ (with) conclusion: Osteopenia w/ flexion contracture, displaced fracture of Olecranon w/ margins appearing chronic .ordered to Transfer to (name of hospital) for further evaluation and treatment . A review of Resident 1 ' s progress notes, did not indicate documentation of how the patient sustained the right arm fracture. A review of Resident 1 ' s medical record indicated no documented evidence the facility investigated Resident 1 ' s injury of unknown origin on the right arm. On June 9, 2025, at 12:34 p.m., during a concurrent interview and record review with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON verified Resident 1 was transferred to the GACH for a higher level of care on May 23, 2025. The ADON verified there was no documented evidence the facility performed an investigation of Resident 1 ' s fracture of the right arm, which was of unknown origin. The ADON stated the facility should have investigated Resident 1 ' s fracture of the right arm. On June 9, 2025, at 1:34 p.m., during a concurrent interview and record review with the Social Worker (SW), the SW verified that the transfer notice for a higher level of care for Resident 1 was dated May 23, 2025. The SW verified there was no documented evidence the facility investigated Resident 1 ' s fracture of unknown origin. The SW further stated the facility should have been investigated Resident 1 ' s fracture of unknown origin. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation, undated, indicated .Identification of Abuse, Neglect .The facility will consider factors indicating possible abuse, neglect of residents .the following possible indicators .physical injury of resident unknown source .an investigation is immediately warranted .once the resident is cared for and initial reporting has occurred an investigation should be conducted .anyone in the facility can report suspected abuse .When abuse, neglect is suspected the licensed should respond to resident .notify Director of Nursing .initiate an investigation immediately .notify physician .contact the State Agency and the local Ombudsman office to report the alleged abuse .
Dec 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0685 (Tag F0685)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #24) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for vision/hearing was provided their hearing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, record review, and facility policy review, the facility failed to ensure 1 (Resident #24) of 1 sampled resident reviewed for vision/hearing was provided their hearing aid when they were received in the facility. Findings included: An undated facility policy titled, Hearing and Vision Services, indicated, 3. The social worker/social service designee is responsible for assisting residents, and their families, in locating and utilizing any available resources, for the provision of the vision and hearing services the resident needs. An admission Record revealed the facility admitted Resident #24 on 02/21/200605/13/2024. According to the admission Record, the resident had a medical history that included a diagnosis of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease with acute exacerbation. An annual Minimum Data Set (MDS), with an Assessment Reference Date (ARD) of 10/02/2024, revealed Resident #24 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3, which indicated the resident had severe cognitive impairment. According to the MDS, Resident #24 had minimal difficulty with hearing and a hearing aid or other hearing appliance was not used. Resident #24's Order Summary Report which contained active orders as of 12/11/2024, revealed an order dated 05/13/2024, for an audiology consultation and follow-up treatment annually and as needed. Resident #24's audiogram (a graph that visually represented the results of a hearing test) dated 06/11/2024, revealed the resident had hearing loss significant enough to qualify for hearing aids and the provider would start the process of obtaining the resident's hearing aids. Resident #24's consultation report dated 08/20/2024, indicated the resident was seen for diminished hearing, stuffy ears, nasal congestion, throat congestion/clearing. The consultation report revealed, the resident needed hearing aids and had not received them. A Hearing Aid Delivery Report dated 10/08/2024, revealed Resident #24's hearing aid was delivered to the facility and the Social Services Designee (SSD) signed the form to acknowledge receipt of the resident's hearing aids. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/09/2024 at 9:45 AM, Resident #24 was in a wheelchair, and the resident did not have hearing aids in their ear. Resident #24 stated they did not get their hearing aids. A sign posted at the bedside of the resident directed staff to please charge the resident's hearing aids overnight. During a concurrent observation and interview on 12/09/2024 at 1:35 PM, the surveyor noted Resident #24 was without their hearing aids. Resident #24 stated they still did not have their hearing aids and that maybe she (the SSD) forgot. During an observation on 12/10/2024 at 11:08 AM and 1:23 PM, Resident #24 was not wearing hearing aids. On 12/11/2024 at 1:41 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) #2 stated Resident #24 was hard of hearing, but did not wear hearing aids. On 12/11/2024 at 1:44 PM, CNA #3 stated Resident #24 had hearing impairment and did not have hearing aids. On 12/11/2024 at 1:28 PM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) #1 stated Resident #24 did not wear hearing aids. When asked about the posting at the bedside of the resident related to charging the resident's hearing aids, LVN #1 stated the hearing aids may be at the nursing station and asked for more time to investigate. On 12/11/2024 at 1:34 PM, LVN #1 brought a pair of new hearing aids labeled with Resident #24's name and room number to the surveyor. LVN #1 stated he found the resident's hearing aids, but did not know how long they had been in the facility. On 12/11/2024 at 2:11 PM, the SSD stated they oversaw residents' hearing services. The SSD acknowledged signing for Resident #24's hearing aids on 10/08/2024. Per the SSD, she failed to alert the nursing department the resident's hearing aids had arrived and that was an error on her part. On 12/11/2024 at 2:32 PM, the Director of Nurses (DON) stated the SSD did not communicate receipt of Resident #24's hearing aids to the facility to ensure the Medical Director and the resident's responsible party were notified, and to ensure that nursing staff were educated on assisting the resident with their hearing aids and caring for the hearing aids. The DON stated the expectation was for the SSD to make the interdisciplinary team (IDT) aware of ancillary services, such as hearing aids, to ensure the residents wore them to improve their quality of life.
Mar 2022 12 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G)

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one out of 95 residents (Resident 75) received ...

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 95 residents (Resident 75) received the appropriate services needed to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status when: 1. Significant severe weight loss of 14 lbs (pounds, a unit of measurement), 6.7 percent (%) from October 14, 2021 to November 11, 2021, 17 lbs, 8% from September 14, 2021 to December 10 2021, 18 lbs, 8.6% from October 14, 2021 to January 18, 2022, 25 lbs, 11.9% from August 23, 2021 to February 8, 2022, and 34 lbs 16.2% from September 14, 2021 to March 2, 2022 were not addressed in the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) which may include, Physician (MD), Registered Nurse (RN), Dietary Manager/Dietitian (Registered Dietitian, RD), Social Services, Activity Director/Coordinator .weight variance meeting; nor were interventions implemented to prevent further significant severe weight loss, and 2. There was no documented order for a Physician prescribed weight loss regimen. These failures contributed to on-going unaddressed significant severe weight loss in one, three, and six-month time frames which posed a threat for further medical complications. Findings: A record review for Resident 75 was conducted beginning March 15, 2022. Resident 75 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD, a chronic lung condition that cause breathing difficulties), schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect a person's thoughts, mood and behavior), anxiety disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities), hypothyroidism (a medical condition when thyroid gland does not produce enough thyroid hormones to meet one's body's needs, may affect breathing, heart rate, weight, digestion, and mood), hypertension (high blood pressure), Hyperlipidemia (elevated fat levels in the body), polyosteoarthritis (a type of arthritis that affects five or more joints with most common symptoms of joint pain and inflammation), and legal blindness (a form of visual impairment that the glasses or contact lenses cannot correct the vision). Resident 75 was self-responsible. The most recent Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated February 4, 2022, showed Resident 75 had a BIMS (brief interview of mental status) score of six which indicated she had moderate cognitive impairment. A review of the facility document titled, History and Physical Examination, completed on August 22, 2021 by Resident 75's MD, indicated Resident 75 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. Section K (Swallowing/Nutritional Status) of the annual MDS assessment, dated November 5, 2021, indicated Resident 75's height was 68 inches () and weight was 194 lbs. Review of a quarterly MDS assessment, dated February 4, 2022, indicated Resident 75's height was 68 and weight was 185 lbs. Both MDS assessments indicated Resident 75 had an unplanned significant weight loss of 5% or more in the last month or loss of 10% or more in the last six months. The MDS assessments further indicated Resident 75 was not on a physician-prescribed weight loss regimen. A review of the facility document titled, Monthly Weight Record, for the year of 2021 and 2022, indicated the following weights for Resident 75: 8/23/21: 210 lbs 9/14/21: 210 lbs 10/14/21: 208 lbs 11/11/21: 194 lbs (a significant severe weight loss of 14 lbs, 6.7% from 10/14/21) 12/10/21: 193 lbs (a significant severe weight loss of 17 lbs, 8% from 9/14/21 to 12/10/21) 1/18/22: 190 lbs (a significant severe weight loss of 18 lbs, 8.6% from 10/14/21 to 1/18/22) 2/8/22: 185 lbs (a significant severe weight loss of 25 lbs, 11.9% from 8/23/21 to 2/8/22) 3/2/22: 176 lbs (a significant severe weight loss of 34 lbs 16.2% from 9/14/21 to 3/2/22) A review of the monthly physician progress notes dated November 5, 2021, December 27, 2021, and February 14, 2022, indicated Resident 75 was being seen by the physician (MD) via telehealth (the use of digital information and communication technologies, such as computers and mobile devices, to access health care services remotely and manage one's health care) with assistance from the facility staff. The notes indicated Resident 75 did not have a recent change in condition, Resident 75's appetite was fair, and to continue skilled nursing care. The significant severe weight loss of 14 lbs, 6.7 % from October 14, 2021 to November 11, 2021, 17 lbs, 8% from September 14, 2021 to December 10 2021, 18 lbs, 8.6% from October 14, 2021 to January 18, 2022, 25 lbs, 11.9% from August 23, 2021 to February 8, 2022, and 34 lbs 16.2% from September 14, 2021 to March 2, 2022 were not addressed in the physician progress notes. On March 16, 2022, at 12:29 p.m., Resident 75's lunch meal observation and a concurrent interview was conducted with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 3. CNA 3 stated Resident 75's meal intake average was about 50% but depended on her mood. CNA 3 showed the finished lunch meal tray and stated Resident 75 ate about 50-75% of her meal. CNA 3 further stated Resident 75 sometimes asked for snacks and specific food, which the CNA 3 would give Resident 75. 1. On March 16, 2022, at 3:34 p.m., an interview and a concurrent review of Resident 75's monthly weight record was conducted with the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1. LVN 1 confirmed the documented weights from August 23, 2021 to March 2, 2022 on Resident 75's monthly weight record. LVN 1 stated she would be concerned the 14 lbs weight loss from October 14, 2021 to November 11, 2021, and the 9 lbs weight loss from February 8, 2022 to March 2, 2022. LVN 1 acknowledged Resident 75 had a 34 lbs weight loss in a six-month time frame from September 14, 2021 to March 2, 2022. LVN 1 further stated gradual weight loss was fine since Resident 75 was over her Ideal body weight range (IBWR). When asked if the 34 lbs weight loss from September 14, 2021 to March 2, 2022, was significant, LVN 1 stated she was not sure if the weight loss was significant. LVN 1 stated all significant weight changes were discussed in the weekly IDT weight variance meeting. When asked for documentation of the IDT weight variance meeting addressing the significant severe weight losses from August 23, 2021 to March 2, 2022, the LVN was unable to confirm documentation in Resident 75's medical record. On March 17, 2022, at 8:14 a.m. an interview was conducted with RN 3. RN 3 confirmed all significant weight changes should be discussed in the IDT weight variance meeting. On March 17, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., an interview and concurrent record review for Resident 75 was conducted with the Dietary Supervisor (DS). The DS stated Resident 75's mental status was about the same as the previous admission. Resident 75 had verbalized she wanted to lose weight on her previous admission. The DS stated Resident 75 did not verbalize she wanted to lose weight or set any weight goal during the present admission because she was not able to answer those questions. The DS stated on the readmission on [DATE], the RD set the goal for Resident 75 to have safe weight loss; one to two lbs per month if medically feasible due to the resident's weight status without any significant weight change. The RD set the target weight goal range (TWGR) of 195 to 200 lbs. The document titled Nutrition Screening and Assessment-OBRA, completed by the DS on November 4, 2021 showed, Resident 75's weight was 194 lbs in November 2021, a 14 lbs, 6.73% significant severe weight loss from October 2021 to November 2021. Resident 75's weight was 208 lbs in October 2021, a 16 lbs, 7.62% significant severe weight loss from August 2021 to November 2021. Resident 75's appetite (meal intake) was 50-74%. The section titled Comments showed, Resident 75's intake was down. The section titled Weight Note showed, resident had a weight loss of 14# (6.73%) x 30 days. Readmit weight on August 22, 2021 was 210#. She continued to be on a planned weight loss of 1-2# per month until TWGR is reached. She is currently at her TWGR. I did explain to resident we want the weight loss to be safe .Will refer to RD due to annual assessment & weight note, at her TWGR. The DS confirmed the 14 lbs, 6.73% weight loss in 30 days was a significant severe weight loss. When asked if the 14 lbs, 6.73% weight loss in 30 days was safe, the DS stated the weight loss was not safe if it was a significant weight loss. The annual nutrition review indicated the DS referred the assessment to the RD. A review of the document titled, Nutrition Screening and Assessment-OBRA, completed by the RD on November 8, 2021, under the Section titled Evaluation showed, Intake meets estimated nutrition needs at this time, Continue POC (plan of care). Under the Section titled Goal showed, TWGR 195-200 lbs, Without significant weight change, as medically feasible and Safe weight loss POC to attain TWGR as medically feasible. The DS confirmed the RD did not change the TWGR and that Resident 75 was below the TWGR. The DS confirmed the goal for Resident 75 was to not experience significant weight change and for safe weight loss to attain TWGR. A review of the document titled, Dietary Note: Weight, Quarterly completed by the DS on February 8, 2022, and electronically signed by the RD on February 10, 2022 showed, Resident 75's TWGR had been reduced to 180-184 lbs, weight was 185 lbs, 22 lbs, 11.9% weight loss in 180 days since August 23, 2021. The section titled, % Meal Intake showed 50-74% for breakfast, lunch and dinner. The section titled, Refer to RD showed, Yes, weight loss, below TWGR, D/C the planned weight loss on 2/8/22. The section titled, Meeting care plan goal, if no reason? showed, yes. The section titled, RDN Recommendations: showed, to continue POC, Res (Resident 75) is obese, has a weight loss POC (plan of care) and meeting weight goal. Monitor. A review of facility document titled, Nurse Assistant Notes: A.M. Shift and Night Shift, from October 1, 2021 to February 28, 2022, indicated there were 453 meals (Breakfast, Lunch, and dinner) served between October 1, 2021, and February 28, 2022. Resident 75 refused eight% of her meals and consumed 50% or less 41.5% of the time. The DS confirmed she tried to communicate with Resident 75 about her weight loss with the goal of one to two lbs per month but Resident 75 was not able to interview about the weight. The DS stated she suggested to discontinue the weight loss plan at that time and referred to the RD. The DS stated the RD wanted to continue the same plan of care and lowered Resident 75's target weight goal to 180-184 lbs. The DS stated she did not remember if she talked to the RD about the change of Resident 75's target weight goal, but she changed the care plan per the RD's assessment plan. The DS confirmed Resident 75 was not involved in the decision to reduce her TWGR but should have been. The DS confirmed Resident 75's significant severe weight loss of 14 lbs, 6.73% weight loss in 30 days and the significant severe weight loss of 16 lbs, 7.62% in 90 days, and 22 lbs, 11.9% weight loss in 180 days were not discussed in the IDT weight variance meeting. She stated the nurses or herself (the DS) determined which residents should be followed in the IDT weight variance meeting. She confirmed that she did not know why Resident 75 was not included in the weight variance for monitoring the significant weight loss since November 2021. A concurrent review of Resident 75's weight record dated March 2, 2022, was conducted with the DS. Resident 75 had another weight loss of nine lbs in a month, and weight loss of 34 lbs, 16.2% in six months. The DS stated the weight loss should have been discussed in the IDT weight variance meeting and she did not know why it was not discussed until March 16, 2022. The DS stated she did not attend the IDT weight variance meeting on March 16, 2022, but she signed it because the nurse went over what they discussed in the meeting. During an interview on March 17, 2022, at 11:55 a.m., RN 4 stated she entered the February 2022, and March 2022 weights on Resident 75's monthly weight record. On February 22, 2022, Resident 75's weight was 185 lbs with a weight loss of five lbs in a month. RN 4 stated she did not calculate the weight change percentage. RN 4 stated dietary was responsible to calculate the weight percentages and put in a form. RN 4 explained the process of significant weight loss if identified. She stated she would check resident's meal intake, and if the residents had any edema or medical conditions. RN 4 stated she would notify the MD and the RD. She stated for Resident 75, the February 2022, and March 2022 weights were still within Resident 75's IBWR but she still notified the MD because the weight loss was a significant change. RN 4 stated she did not document on the nursing progress notes that she notified the MD. RN 4 stated she documented NNO which meant no new order from the MD next to the weight change on the comment column in Resident 75's monthly weight record. When asked what the appropriate time frame to address a significant weight change was or if significant weight loss was considered safe, the RN 4 did not answer. During a follow up interview on March 17, 2022, at 2:11 p.m., the DS explained the process of identifying significant weight changes. The DS stated the Restorative Nurse Assistant (RNA) weighed the residents on the first of each month and took four to five days to complete. The residents' weights were entered in the computer and a form with the weight changes was generated. The DS stated she would go over the weights with the nurse, usually with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The DS stated if a resident was on a planned weight loss regimen, the facility would monitor the weight monthly. The DS stated if the resident was on a weight loss plan but had a significant weight loss, the facility would monitor weights weekly. The DS would communicate with the RD and initiate the weight loss assessment form which was emailed to the RD. She stated the RD would email the completed assessment back to the DS. During an interview and a concurrent record review with the Director of Nursing (DON) on March 17, 2022, 3:02 p.m., when asked if Resident 75's significant weight loss from November 2021 to March 2022 was discussed in the IDT weight variance meeting, the DON did not answer. The DON stated the facility should address the significant weight loss after the weights were entered in the medical record. The process would be to notify the MD and the RD. She stated then she would carry out any order from the MD. She reviewed Resident 75's record and stated there was no MD order for Resident 75's weight loss plan. The DON stated the facility should have addressed the significant weight loss on February 8, 2022, even though Resident 75 was on weight loss plan. She stated Resident 75 should be included in the IDT weight variance meeting and monitored Resident 75's weights closely. The DON acknowledged the goal from the RD was to have safe weight loss of one to two lbs per month, but she did not answer when asked if 14 lbs weight loss in a month on November 11, 2021, was consider safe. The DON stated that she would monitor weights weekly for a resident who had a significant weight loss even though he or she was on a weight loss program. A concurrent review of the facility document titled, Dietary Care Plan for Nutrition Status, for Resident 75, initiated on August 22, 2021, and updated on November 4, 2021, was conducted with the DON. The DON confirmed the plan of care did not reflect a weight loss plan until Resident 75's TWGR was reduced to 180-184 lbs on February 10, 2022. A phone interview was conducted with the RD on March 18, 2022, at 10:08 a.m. The RD confirmed significant severe weight loss parameters of 5% in a month, 7.5% in three months and 10% in six months. The RD stated she was aware of the consequences of significant severe weight loss. When asked if Resident 75's significant severe weight loss between November 2021 to March 2022 was safe the RD stated obesity was more important to deal with than significant severe weight loss. When asked if she involved Resident 75 in the weight loss plan, the RD stated she could not remember if she spoke to Resident 75. When asked if a resident on a weight loss plan should have a Physician's order, the RD stated nursing was responsible to get an order from the MD for a physician prescribed weight loss plan. The RD stated she did not enter a recommendation for a physician prescribed weight loss regimen for Resident 75 on the RD recommendation form. A concurrent review of Resident 75's annual nutrition assessment completed on November 8, 2021, was conducted with the RD during the phone interview. The RD was asked if the significant severe weight loss of 14 lbs, 6.73% in one month was safe weight loss. The RD did not answer the question but stated the November 2021 weight was an outliner weight. The RD further stated, we cannot control how many pounds people lose and how they eat. A concurrent review of Resident 75's quarterly nutrition assessment completed on February 10, 2022, was conducted with the RD during the phone interview. Resident 75's weight in February 2022 was 185 lbs, a significant severe weight loss of 22 lbs, 11.9% weight loss in 180 days since August 23, 2021. The DS had a comment to hold the weight loss plan due to the weight loss and she referred to the RD. The RD disagreed and adjusted and reduced the TWGR to 180-184 lbs. When asked why the TWGR was decreased after Resident 75 had experienced a significant severe weight loss in the past 180 days, the RD stated she adjusted the weight goal as Resident 75 lost the weight. She added she would stop the weight loss plan now and the facility would start to follow Resident 75 more closely. A phone interview was conducted with Resident 75's MD on March 18, 2022, at 11:59 a.m. When asked what Resident 75's nutrition plan was since admission, the MD stated he did not remember. When asked if he remembered Resident 75 was on a weight loss regimen, he stated the RD would be the one to make those recommendations. When asked if he wrote an order for a physician-prescribed weight loss regimen, the MD stated he believe he gave the RD a verbal order for a planned weight loss regimen. The MD was asked if Resident 75's significant severe weight loss of 25 lbs, 11.9% in five months in February 2022 and the significant severe weight loss of 34 lbs, 16.2% in six months in March 2022 was safe, the MD stated he could not answer that question without reviewing Resident 75's medical record. A review of facility document titled, RDN (Registered Dietitian Nutritionist) Recommendations, dated August 2, 2021, to March 10, 2022, indicated the RD did not have any recommendations or interventions for Resident 75's significant weight losses which occurred between November 11, 2021 and March 2, 2022. A review of facility document titled, Dietary Care Plan for Nutritional Status, initiated on August 22, 2021, and updated on November 4, 2021, it indicated the plan of planned weight loss did not start until February 10, 2022, with one to two lbs weight loss per month to the goal of 180-184 lbs. The other goal was for Resident 75 to consume meals at least 75% of meals and minimize the risk for significant weight loss of five lbs per month. The care plan indicated the approach plan for the facility to encourage Resident 75 to consume 75-100% of her meal, the facility should monitor weight and report + or - five lbs or more per month to the MD, and to notify the MD for any significant weight loss. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled, Weight Monitoring, revised 2022, indicated, .the facility will ensure that all residents maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status, such as usual body weight or desirable body weight range .the facility will utilize a system approach to optimize a resident's nutritional status. This process includes: a. Identifying and assessing each resident's nutritional status and risk factors. b. Evaluating/analyzing the assessment information. c. Developing and consistently implementing pertinent approaches. d. Monitoring the effectiveness of interventions and revising them as necessary .nutrition assessment and current dietary standards of practice are used to develop an individualized care plan to address the resident's specific nutritional concerns .the care plan should address the following .a. identified causes of impaired nutritional status .c. Identify resident-specific interventions; d. Time frame and parameters for monitoring; e. Updated as needed such as when the resident's condition changes .interventions are determines to be ineffective or a new causes of nutrition-related problems are identified; f. If nutritional goals are not achieved, care planned interventions will be reevaluated for effectiveness and modified as appropriate .Interventions will be identified, implemented, monitored, and modified, consistent with the resident's assessed needs .to maintain acceptable parameters of nutritional status .Residents with weight loss - monitor weight weekly .A significant change in weight is defined as: a. 5% change in weight in 1 month .b. 7.5% change in weight in 3 months .c. 10% change in weight in 6 months .Documentation: .the physician should be informed of a significant change in weight and may order nutritional interventions; b. The physician should be encouraged to document the diagnosis or clinical conditions that may contributing to the weight loss .e. The Registered Dietitian or Dietary Manager should be consulted to assist with interventions; actions are recorded in the nutrition progress notes .g. The interdisciplinary plan of care communicates care instructions to staff . 2. On March 17, 2022, at 9:30 a.m., an interview and concurrent record review with the MDS Coordinator (MC) was conducted regarding Section K of Resident 75's annual assessment dated [DATE], and the quarterly assessment dated [DATE]. Section K for both the annual and quarterly assessments indicated Resident 75 experienced a significant unplanned weight loss of 5% or more in the last 30 days, or a significant unplanned weight loss of 10% or more in the last 180 days. The MC confirmed the significant unplanned weight loss in the quarterly and annual assessments for Resident 75 was not a physician-prescribed weight loss regimen. The MC stated physician-prescribed means a physician's order. The MC further stated he was aware Resident 75 was on a weight loss program with a weight loss goal of one to two lbs per month. The MC stated Resident 75 weight losses for the annual and quarterly assessments were more than one to two lbs per month and therefore not considered a physician-prescribed weight loss. The MC stated the MD should be aware of a planned weight loss regimen. The MD was responsible for any new orders or a change of the planned weight loss regimen. The MC confirmed Resident 75 did not have a physician order for the planned weight loss regimen of one to two lbs in a month. During an interview and a concurrent record review with the DON on March 17, 2022, at 3:02 p.m., the DON confirmed there was not a physician order for a weight loss regimen. During a phone interview with the RD on March 18, 2022, at 10:08 a.m., the RD stated nursing was responsible to get an order from the MD for a physician prescribed weight loss plan. The RD stated she did not enter a recommendation for a physician prescribed weight loss regimen for Resident 75 on the RD recommendation form. On March 18, 2022, at 10:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with the RN 2. When asked who was responsible to get a physician order for a physician prescribed weight loss regimen, the RN 2 stated a weight loss regimen was based on the RD recommendations. The RN 2 was unable to confirm the MD order for a weight loss regime for Resident 75. A phone interview was conducted with Resident 75's MD on March 18, 2022, at 11:59 a.m. When asked if he wrote an order for a physician-prescribed weight loss regimen, the MD stated he believe he gave the RD a verbal order for a planned weight loss regimen. A review of facility document titled, RDN (Registered Dietitian Nutritionist) Recommendations, dated August 2, 2021, to March 10, 2022, indicated the RD did not have any recommendations for a planned weight loss regimen.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Findings: 2. On March 15, 2022, Resident 25's record was reviewed. Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Findings: 2. On March 15, 2022, Resident 25's record was reviewed. Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 25's face sheet indicated Resident 25's family member was responsible for making medical decisions for the resident. The History and Physical dated December 18, 2021, indicated Resident 25 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. There was no documented evidence information on the formulation of an AD was offered to the resident and/or responsible party upon admission. On March 16, 2022, at 9:25 a.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the SSD. The SSD stated Resident 25 did not have an AD. The SSD stated information about the formulation of an advance directive was not offered to Resident 25 and to his responsible party. The SSD further stated this information should have been offered to Resident 25, or to his responsible party upon his admission to the facility on December 18, 2021. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Advanced Directives, revised 2022, indicated, .Prior to or upon admission of a resident upon admission to our facility, the Social Service Director or designeee will provide written information to the resident concerning his/her right to make decisions concerning medical care, including the right to accept or refuse medical or surgical treatment, and the right to formulate advance directives .Prior to or upon admission of a resident, the Social Service Director or designee will inquire of the resident, and his/her family members, about the existence of any written advance directives . Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written information on how to formulate an Advance Directive (AD-a written instruction related to the provision of health care when the resident can no longer make decisions), for two of 25 residents reviewed (Resident 54 and 25). This failure had the potential for Residents 54 and 25 to receive unnecessary care/treatment and services. Findings: 1. On March 15, 2022, Resident 54's record was reviewed. Resident 54 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The History and Physical dated January 10, 2022, indicated Resident 54 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. The Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST) dated April 21, 2021, indicated Resident 54 was self-responsible and did not have an AD. The facility document titled, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RECEIPT Advance Directive/Medical Treatment Decisions, dated January 10, 2022, indicated Resident 54 was self-responsible. The document did not indicate Resident 54 was provided written information on how to formulate an AD. On March 16, 2022, at 11:05 a.m., the Social Service Director (SSD) was interviewed. The SSD stated, Upon admission, the residents were asked to provide a copy of the AD, if available. The SSD stated the residents were asked if they wanted to formulate an AD and the facility would offer to assist if the resident did not have an AD. The SSD stated Resident 54 did not have an AD. The SSD stated, she did not ask Resident 54 if he wanted to formulate an AD and did not offer to assist Residen 54 in formulating an AD.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure for two of three residents reviewed for skin 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 for two of three residents reviewed for skin condition (Residents 19 and 5) received the proper care and treatment when: 1a. For Resident 19, the physician's order to give Doxycycline (type of antibiotic medication) for pressure ulcers (PU- an injury caused by prolonged pressure on the skin) was not carried out upon admission to the facility and was not administered to the resident. This failure resulted in Resident 19 not receiving the complete course of antibiotic treatment which may delay the healing process of the multiple infected pressure ulcers; 1b. The facility failed to develop and initiate a baseline care plan to address Resident 19's admitting diagnosis of multiple infected pressure ulcers. This failure had the potential to put Resident 19 at risk for the delay of treatment and intervention to promote the wound healing of the multiple infected PU; and 2. For Resident 5, treatments on the right great toe and right outer foot were performed without a doctor's order. In addition, multiple skin problems on the resident's right hand were not identified and treated. This failure resulted in Resident 5 not receiving the proper treatment to address his skin conditions. Findings: 1a. On March 14, 2022, at 10:37 a.m., Resident 19 was observed lying in bed on a low air loss mattress (special mattress used for wound management). On March 14, 2022, Resident 19's record was reviewed. Resident 19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included multiple infected PU. The acute hospital's discharge order document titled, Take Home Medication List, dated March 10, 2022, indicated to give Resident 19 Vibramycin (brand name for Doxycycline) 100 mg (milligrams - unit of measurement) PO (by mouth) BID (twice a day) to start on March 10, 2022, at 9 p.m., for seven days for infected multiple PU. The facility's admission physician's order dated March 10, 2022, did not indicate the Doxycycline discharge order from the hospital was carried out by the licensed nurse upon admission to the facility. The facility's Comprehensive Resident Assessment, dated March 10, 2022, indicated Resident 19 was admitted with infected PU on right upper buttock, sacrum (bottom of the spine), left ischium (lower and back part of the hip bone), and left lateral foot redness. On March 17, 2022, at 9:50 a.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated Resident 19 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with a diagnosis of multiple infected PU. The ADON stated Resident 19 had a discharge order from the hospital to give Doxycycline 100 mg PO BID to start on March 10, 2022, at 9 pm. The ADON stated Resident 19 did not receive the Doxycycline as ordered by the physician since she was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. On March 17, 2022, at 10:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. RN 1 stated she was the licensed nurse who admitted Resident 19 to the facility on March 10, 2022. RN 1 stated she carried out the discharge orders from the hospital and she missed transcribing the order for Doxycycline. RN 1 stated the Doxycyline was ordered as a part of the wound treatment for Resident 19's multiple infected PU. RN 1 stated it should have been carried out as ordered by the physician. RN 1 further stated if the treatment was not completed or carried out as ordered, it may contribute to the delay of the healing process of the infected wounds. 1b. On March 14, 2022, at 3:40 p.m., Resident 19's record was reviewed. Resident 19 was admitted on [DATE], with a diagnosis that included multiple infected PU. The facility's Comprehensive Resident Assessment, dated March 10, 2022, indicated Resident 19 was admitted with multiple infected PU on right upper buttock, sacrum, left ischium, and left lateral foot redness. There was no documented evidence a baseline care plan was initiated upon admission to address Resident 19's diagnosis of multiple infected PU. On March 14, 2022, at 3:40 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 2. RN 2 stated upon admission of Resident 19 on March 10, 2022, the facility should have initiated a baseline care plan to address Resident 19's multiple infected pressure ulcers. RN 2 stated the baseline care plan should include interventions and treatment to help prevent the development of further complications of the wounds and/or monitoring of the resident's response to the wound treatment. RN 2 stated the baseline care plan should have been initiated within 48 hours of Resident 19's admission. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Baseline Care Plan, revised 2022, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .The facility will develop and implement a baseline care plan for each resident that includes the instructions needed to provide effective and person-centered care of the resident that meet professional standards of quality of care .The baseline care plan will be developed within 48 hours of a resident's admission . 2. On March 14, 2022, at 11:34 a.m., a concurrent observation and interview was conducted with Resident 5. Resident 5 was awake, wearing vinyl gloves on both hands, and cleaning around his bed. In a concurrent interview, Resident 5 stated he had wounds on his right foot. Resident 5 proceeded to remove his sandals and socks, and pointed out the dressing to the inner side of his right great toe and the outer side of his right foot. The dressing on the right outer foot was dated March 13, 2022. Resident 5 stated he had surgery on the right great toe a few weeks ago and the dressing to the right great toe was changed on March 13, 2022. Resident 5 stated the dressing on the outer side of his right foot was placed there by the nurse about 2 days ago because he had scratched it and the skin became open. Resident 5 was observed to remove the glove on his right hand. The skin was observed to be reddish, scaly and dry, with several reddish scabs on the upper surface of the hand. The joints appeared swollen and the fingernails were yellowish and thick. Resident 5 stated he had a sensitivity to alcohol-based products and used the gloves to protect his hands from harsh cleaning products. Resident 5 stated he applied Vitamin A and D ointment on his hands himself and asked for the ointment from the staff at the nurses' station or from the CNAs (Certified Nursing Assistants). Resident 5 stated he had this skin condition on his right hand for 104 days here in this facility as well as in the previous facility where he came from. Resident 5's record was reviewed. Resident 5 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including diabetes. The physician's orders for March 2022, indicated a diagnosis of right lower extremity cellulitis (a bacterial skin infection of lower leg) and a treatment order indicating .(R [right]) great toe surgical wound .Cleanse with NS (normal saline), pat dry, apply Vaseline and cover with band aid q (every) daily and PRN (as needed) x 7 days then re-evaluate. (3/2/22 - 3/08/22). There was no documented evidence treatment orders were obtained for Resident 5's scratch on the right outer foot or the skin conditions on the right hand. There was no doctor's order for Vitamin A and D ointment to be applied on Resident 5's right hand. The Nursing Weekly Summary Review for the period of March 1 to 7, 2022 indicated a right great toe surgical wound following a skin tag (a skin growth in which a short, narrow stalk sticks out) removal. The Nursing Weekly Summary Review for the period of March 7 to 14, 2022 indicated skin clear. There was no documented evidence the scratch on Resident 5's right outer foot or the skin conditions on his right hand were identified. The Treatment Administration Record for March 2022, indicated the treatment to Resident 5's right great toe was provided from March 2 to 13, 2022 (continued beyond the physician's order of March 8, 2022). There was no documented evidence for the treatment provided on Resident 5's right outer foot or the Vitamin A and D ointment for Resident 5's right hand. On March 15, 2022, a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Treatment Nurse (TN). The TN confirmed Resident 5 had a surgical wound on the right great toe and the treatment was continued beyond March 8, 2022. The TN stated the wound should have been re-evaluated on March 8, 2022, and a new order obtained to continue the treatment. The TN stated Resident 5's scratch should have been identified as a change in condition; the doctor notified; a treatment order obtained for the scratch; and a care plan formulated, before providing treatment to the resident. The TN stated she had not assessed Resident 5's right hand, nor identified the multiple skin conditions on it, since Resident 5 always wore vinyl gloves. The TN stated the skin conditions on Resident 5's right hand should have been identified; the doctor notified; treatment orders obtained to address the skin conditions on Resident 5's right hand; and a care plan formulated. On March 18, 2022 at 9:24 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated Resident 5's surgical wound on the right great toe should have been re-evaluated on March 8, 2022, and if resolved, the treatment discontinued. If it was not resolved, a new order should have been obtained from the doctor. If the order was renewed, then the care plan should have also been updated. The DON stated there should have been a change of condition done regarding Resident 5's scratch on the right outer foot, the doctor notified, a treatment order obtained before administering the treatment, and a care plan developed. The DON stated the facility's process was to perform skin assessments of the residents weekly by the licensed nurses. Resident 5's multiple skin conditions on the right hand should have been identified. The doctor should have been notified, treatment orders obtained, and a care plan developed. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Skin Assessment, revised 2019, indicated, .It is our policy to perform a full body skin assessment as part of our systematic approach for pressure ulcer prevention and for the promotion of healing of various skin conditions .A full body, head to toe, skin assessment will be conducted by a licensed or registered nurse upon admission/re-admission, daily for three days, and weekly thereafter. The assessment may also be performed after a change of condition .Document observations .Document type of wound .Describe wound .Document other information as indicated or appropriate . The facility's policy and procedure titled, Change in a Resident's Condition or Status, revised 2022, indicated, .Our facility shall promptly notify the resident, his or her Attending Physician .of changes in the resident's medical .condition and/or status .notifications will be made within twenty-four (24) hours of a change occurring in the resident's medical .condition or status .inform the resident of any changes in his/her medical care or nursing treatments .record in the resident's medical record information relative to changes in the resident's medical .condition or status .
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 respiratory care and treatment for one of two...

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 respiratory care and treatment for one of two residents reviewed for oxygen administration (Resident 57), when the physician's order for oxygen administration was not followed. This failure had the potential to result in ineffective oxygen therapy, respiratory distress, and decline in the resident's health condition. Findings: On March 14, 2022, at 9:48 a.m., Resident 57 was observed in bed with oxygen (O2) via nasal cannula (N/C - a tube used to deliver oxygen through the nose). Resident 57's oxygen administration was observed at one liter per minute (LPM). In a concurrent interview, Resident 57 stated she used O2 as needed, when she was short of breath (SOB), and the level should be at three LPM. Resident 57's record was reviewed. Resident 57 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (a disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs). The physician's order dated January 14, 2022, indicated, .administer O2 inhalation at 2-3 LPM via NC as needed for SOB . On March 14, 2022, at 1:17 p.m., Resident 57 was observed in bed, with O2 on, at one LPM. A concurrent observation and interview was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1. LVN 1 went to Resident 57's room and checked the oxygen level. LVN 1 stated the oxygen level was at one LPM. LVN 1 stated the oxygen level should be between two and three LPM, as per physician's order. LVN 1 further stated the physician's order was not followed. The facility policy and procedure titled, Oxygen Administration, revised 2022, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration .Verify that there is a physician's order for this procedure. Review the physician's orders or facility protocol for oxygen administration .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0805 (Tag F0805)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate food texture for one resident (Resident 76) who was on a NAS (no added salt), CCHO (consistent carbohy...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the appropriate food texture for one resident (Resident 76) who was on a NAS (no added salt), CCHO (consistent carbohydrate that treats medical condition of Diabetes Mellitus), mechanical soft texture diet (a diet texture with a soft and chopped or ground texture for one who has difficulty chewing or swallowing) received a whole grilled quesadilla with cubed chicken for an alternate meal at lunch meal on March 15, 2022. This deficient practice had potential for Resident 76 to choke and/or aspirate (a condition in which food, liquids, saliva, or vomit is breathed into the airway) which could further compromise his medical status. Findings: During lunch meal service observation on March 15, 2022, beginning at 12:09 p.m., Resident 76, with a mechanical soft texture diet order, received a whole grilled quesadilla (brown and crispy tortilla) with cubed chicken as an alternative meal. During a concurrent interview with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), she verified with the cook and stated it was not appropriate. The DS instructed the cook to grind the cubed chicken into ground chicken and cut the quesadilla, with a brown and crispy tortilla, in half. During an interview on March 17, 2022, at 10:15 a.m., the DS confirmed that the grilled quesadilla with cubed chicken was not appropriate for the mechanical soft textured diet. She stated the chicken needed to be ground and the tortilla needed to soft, not crispy. A chart review of Resident 76 on March 16, 2022, at 12:25 p.m., indicated that Resident 76 had a physician diet order of NAS, CCHO, Mechanical Soft diet with a starting date of July 30, 2021. Resident 76 had pertinent diagnosis with Chronic obstruction pulmonary disease (a chronic inflammatory lung disease that causes obstructed airflow from the lungs), Parkinson's disease (a progressive disease of the nervous system that leads to shaking, stiffness, and difficulty with walking, talking, swallowing, balance, and coordination), Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar), and Hypertension (high blood pressure). On the dental report completed on September 27, 2021, it indicated that Resident 76 was edentulous at upper and lower teeth and requesting new set of dentures. On the dietary care plan for nutrition status, dated July 30, 2021, it stated Resident 76 was on a mechanically altered diet due to chewing problems. On the nutrition screening and assessment completed on August 5, 2021, it indicated Resident 76 had chewing difficulties at times and needed mechanical altered food texture for ease of chewing. A review of departmental document titled, Diet Manual - Regular Mechanical Soft Diet, dated 2020, read, .the Mechanical Soft diet is designed for residents who experience chewing or swallowing limitations .modified in texture to a soft, chopped and ground consistency . It also indicated whole or chopped meat needed to be avoided for meats, and hard or toasted breads or grain products needed to be avoided. A review of departmental policy and procedure titled, Food Preparation Guidelines, dated 2022, read, .4. Food shall be provided in a form (i.e. regular, cut, chopped, ground, pureed) that meets each resident's individual needs in accordance with his or her assessment and care plan .
CONCERN (E)

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** 4. On March 14, 2022, at 3:39 p.m., an observation was conducted with Resident 25. Resident 25 was observed wheeling himself in ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On March 14, 2022, at 3:39 p.m., an observation was conducted with Resident 25. Resident 25 was observed wheeling himself in the main dining room going towards the back patio. Resident 25 was observed holding one unlit cigarette in his left hand. Resident 25 stated, I need a lighter. Resident 25 then proceeded to the back patio smoking area while there was no staff present nearby. On March 14, 2022, at 3:43 p.m., a concurrent observation and interview was conducted with the Activities Director (AD). The AD was observed to go out in the back patio to assist another resident. The AD passed by Resident 25 and talked to him for a bit. Resident 25 was still observed holding the unlit cigarette in his left hand. After speaking with Resident 25, the AD went back to the dining room. On March 14, 2022, at 3:44 p.m., an interview was conducted with the AD. The AD stated residents in the facility were not allowed to keep their lighters and cigarettes in their own possession for safety reasons. The AD further stated the activity personnel kept the residents' cigarettes and lighters for safety. The AD was asked if she noticed Resident 25 holding the unlit cigarette. The AD stated she did not notice Resident 25 holding an unlit cigarette. The AD went back out to talk to Resident 25. The AD stated Resident 25 had an unlit cigarette in his possession and he stated he had his cigarette stashed in his room and did not want to give the cigarette to her. On March 18, 2022, Resident 25's record was reviewed. Resident 25 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Schizoaffective disorder (type of behavioral disorder) and weakness. The History and Physical, dated December 18, 2021, indicated Resident 25 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. The Resident Care Plan, dated December 18, 2021, indicated .Concerns & Problems .Resident is at risk for self-injury related to smoking .Potential for accidental burns from cigarette smoking .Resident Goals .Will have no injuries to self and others daily .Approach plan .Explain to the resident the facility's policy and procedures regarding smoking .Explain to resident that smoking inside the facility is prohibited . The Resident Smoking Assessment Form, dated December 18, 2021, indicated .Resident is an unsafe smoker and must be supervised at all times when smoking . On March 18, 2022, at 11:33 a.m., Resident 25's Smoking Assessment Form, dated December 18, 2021, was reviewed with RN 2. RN 2 stated, Resident 25 was evaluated as an unsafe smoker and he should not be allowed to keep his own cigarette or lighter in his possession. RN 2 further stated residents in the facility were not allowed to keep cigarettes and lighters in their possession. The facility policy and procedure titled, Resident Smoking, revised 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Smoking is prohibited in all areas except the designated smoking area .Smoking materials of residents requiring supervision with smoking will be maintained by nursing staff . 2. On March 14, 2022, at 9:55 a.m., a smoking observation was conducted. Several residents were observed waiting for facility staff to come outside and begin supervised smoking. Resident 3 was observed in a wheelchair by the East Wing patio, legs raised, with a blanket over his legs. On his chest was a small black bag containing one pack of cigarettes and a light blue disposable lighter. One resident was observed to approach him and talk to him. Resident 3 proceeded to hand him one cigarette and light the cigarette with the disposable lighter. Both residents had a conversation for a few minutes. Resident 3 then instructed the other resident to move away from him. Resident 3 was observed to get one cigarette from the pack in his bag and light the cigarette with the disposable lighter. Resident 3 was interviewed. Resident 3 stated the facility had nine different times for smoking. Resident 3 stated he was allowed to keep his lighter and cigarettes, Me anyway, because I know what I'm doing. Resident 3 stated he had no issues regarding smoking except the facility staff did not get out on time for the smoke breaks. Resident 3 was observed flicking the ashes from his cigarette to the left side of his wheelchair. When he was finished smoking, he disposed of the cigarette butt on the concrete to the left side of his wheelchair. There were two cigarette butts on the concrete, indicating Resident 3 finished two cigarettes prior to the staff coming out to supervise smoking. At 10:05 a.m., two facility staff were observed to exit the Central Dining Room door towards the outside patio and started setting up for the smoke break. The staff started distributing smoking aprons and cigarettes to the residents at 10:07 a.m. At 10:40 a.m., Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2 was interviewed. CNA 2 stated she supervised the smoke breaks until 10 a.m., the Activities department supervised until 1:45 p.m., and the Certified Nursing Assistants supervised in the afternoon until the 10 p.m., smoke breaks. CNA 2 stated Resident 3 was not supposed to have his cigarettes or lighter with him because he had an issue before where he also gave another resident cigarettes. CNA 2 stated the agreement with him was 1-2 cigarettes per smoke break and We're the ones who are supposed to give it to him. CNA 2 stated Resident 3 should not have had his cigarettes and lighter with him and should not have offered the other resident a cigarette and lit it. Resident 3's record was reviewed. Resident 3 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including cerebral palsy (impaired muscle coordination), contractures (shortening of the muscles) of the right upper arm and both lower legs. The History and Physical, dated February 16, 2022, indicated Resident 3 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. The Resident Smoking Assessment Form, dated December 2, 2021, indicated Resident 3 was an .unsafe smoker and must be supervised at all times when smoking . The Resident Smoking Assessment Form, dated March 3, 2022, was not completed to indicate if Resident 3 was a safe smoker and may smoke supervised. The Resident Care Plan for Smoking, revised March 5, 2021, indicated, Concerns and Problems .Resident is at risk for self-injury related to smoking .Potential for accidental burns from cigarette smoking .Resident Goals .Will have no injury to self and others daily . The care plan did not indicate interventions to prevent the resident from keeping his smoking materials including his cigarettes and lighter, or offering cigarettes to other residents. At 3:00 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 confirmed Resident 3 was not safe to smoke unsupervised. RN 2 stated Resident 3 should not have had his cigarettes and lighter with him and should not have offered the other resident any cigarettes. On March 18, 2022, at 9:35 a.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated residents were assessed upon admission and quarterly if they were safe to smoke. If they were, then they are allowed to smoke supervised. The DON stated the smoking materials including cigarettes and lighters were stored in the lockbox at the nurses' station. During smoke breaks, the smoking monitors (staff who supervised smoking) would take the lockbox out to the smoking area, distribute the cigarettes, and light the cigarettes for the residents. The DON stated Resident 3 should not have had his smoking materials with him and should not have offered the other resident a cigarette. The DON confirmed Resident 3's care plan was not updated. The DON stated if Resident 3 did not follow the facility's smoking guidelines, then his smoking care plan should have been updated and modified. 3. On March 14, 2022, at 3:52 p.m., Resident 18 was interviewed. Resident 18 stated, They just took my lighter today. Resident 18 stated he usually had his lighter with him. Resident 18's record was reviewed. Resident 18 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including COPD (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - a lung condition causing breathing difficulties). The History and Physical, dated August 7, 2021, indicated Resident 18 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. The Resident Smoking Assessment Form, dated August 7, 2021, indicated Resident 18 was .considered a safe smoker and may smoke at this time supervised . The Resident Smoking Assessment Forms, dated September 21, 2021 and December 21, 2021, were not completed to indicate if Resident 18 was a safe smoker and may smoke supervised. There was no documented evidence Resident 18 had a care plan for smoking. At 4:00 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with RN 2. RN 2 stated Resident 18 should not have had his lighter with him. RN 2 confirmed Resident 18 did not have a care plan for smoking. RN 2 stated Resident 18 should have had a care plan for smoking. On March 18, 2022, at 9:35 am., the DON was interviewed. The DON stated Resident 18 should not have had his lighter with him and a care plan should have been developed for smoking. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe smoking practices were observed and implemented for three of four residents reviewed for smoking (Residents 24, 3, 18 and 25), when: 1. Resident 24 was observed smoking inside the facility; 2. Resident 3 had his cigarettes and lighter in his possession, offered a cigarette to another resident, and smoked a cigarette himself without staff supervision; 3. Resident 18 stated he usually had his lighter in his possession; and 4. Resident 25 had a cigarette in his possession while inside the facility. These failures had the potential to result in accidents or injuries to the residents. Findings: 1. On March 14, 2022, at 1:20 p.m., Resident 24 was observed in the North hallway, by her room. Resident 24 had, in her possession, a cigarette and a lighter. Resident 24 lit up the cigarette and started smoking inside the facility. Resident 24 continued smoking inside the facility, walked passed several residents' rooms and the nursing station, towards the outside patio. On March 14, 2022, at 1:25 p.m., an interview with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 was conducted. CNA 1 stated Resident 24 was not allowed to have the cigarette and lighter in her possession, and was not allowed to smoke inside the facility. On March 14, 2022, at 2:40 p.m., an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 2 was conducted. RN 2 stated residents were not allowed to smoke inside the facility. RN 2 also stated she did not know how Resident 24 got possession of the cigarette and the lighter. RN 2 stated Resident 24 could not smoke safely and she should not have possession of smoking materials, as this was a safety risk for her and the other residents in the facility. RN 2 stated residents were only allowed to smoke in the designated smoking area (the outdoor patio), and only with supervision. On March 16, 2022, at 11:10 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated no residents were allowed to smoke inside the facility. The DON also stated Resident 24 was not supervised and the incident should not have happened. Resident 24's record was reviewed. Resident 24 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included major depressive disorder (mood disorder), schizoaffective disorder (hallucinations, delusions, disorganized behavior), unspecified psychosis (disturbance in thoughts and perception), and nicotine dependence. The care plan titled, Resident Care Plan for Smoking, initiated on June 7, 2021, indicated, .Concerns & Problems .Resident is at risk for self-injury related to smoking .Potential for accidental burns from cigarette smoking .Resident Goals .Will have no injuries to self and others .Will be able to verbalize understanding of risks and complications associated with smoking .Approach Plan .Explain to resident the facility's policy and procedures regarding smoking .Explain to resident that smoking inside the facility is prohibited . The Resident Smoking Assessment Form, dated June 7, 2021, indicated, .Resident is considered a safe smoker and may smoke at this time supervised .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure discontinued and expired medications were not stored in the medication and treatment carts, readily available for use....

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure discontinued and expired medications were not stored in the medication and treatment carts, readily available for use. This failure increased the risk for the licensed nurses to administer discontinued and expired medications to the residents which could result in medication and treatment errors. Findings: 1. On March 16, 2022, at 11:36 a.m., an inspection of the medication cart in the medication room was conducted with RN 2. A medication cart was observed stored inside the medication room. In a concurrent interview, RN 2 stated the medication cart was not used since February 2022. RN 2 stated all medications inside the medication cart were readily available for use. The following medications were stored in the medication cart: -one open bottle of Vitamin C (vitamin/supplement) liquid with an expiration date of November 2021; -one open bottle of ProStat (protein supplement) with an expiration date of June 2021; -one open bottle of Geritussin (cough medicine) with an expiration date of September 2021; -one open bottle of Normal Saline 250 ml (milliliter - unit of measurement) with an expiration date of February 2022; -one open box of needles with an expiration date of November 2021; -one open bottle of Loratadine (an antihistamine medicine that helps with the symptoms of allergies) 10 mg (milligram a unit of measurement) tablet with an expiration date of August 2021; -one open bottle of Docusate Sodium (stool softener) 100 mg tablet with an expiration date of November 2021; -one open bottle of Geri-dryl (allergy relief) 25 mg tablet with an expiration date of November 2021; -one open bottle of Bisacodyl (laxative) 5 mg tablet with an expiration date of January 2022; -one open bottle of Docusate Sodium 100 mg gel capsule with an expiration date of January 2021; -one open bottle of Ferrous Sulfate (iron supplement) 325 mg tablet with an expiration date of January 2022; -one open bottle of Vitamin E (vitamin/supplement) 400 IU (international unit) soft gel with an expiration date of June 2021; and -one open bottle of Acetaminophen (pain medicine) 500 mg tab with an expiration date of January 2022. In a concurrent interview with RN 2, RN 2 stated the discontinued and expired medications stored in the medication cart should have been discarded properly and should not have been stored readily available for use. RN 2 further stated, These medications are not effective anymore. On March 16, 2022, at 2:32 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated the discontinued and expired medications from the medication cart should have been removed and should have been disposed of properly. The DON further stated the discontinued medications should not have been stored in the medication cart because this had the potential for the licensed nurses to administer the medications and may result in medication error. 2. On March 16, 2022, at 10:23 a.m., an inspection of the treatment cart was conducted with the Treatment Nurse (TN). The following were found, readily available for use: - NYSTOP (Nystatin- an antifungal) powder labeled for Resident 22, with a fill date of February 10, 2022. The label further indicated APPLY TOPICALLY TO PERINEAL REDNESS 2 TIMES A DAY FOR 30 DAYS . The TN stated Resident 22 had the treatment before and did not have a current order for it. The TN stated she did not discard the bottle because the resident would ask for it. - One container of Cerave moisturizing cream labeled for Resident 72, with a fill date of January 5, 2022. The TN stated Resident 72 was already cleared so he did not need it anymore. - Eleven 4x4 gauze dressings with expiration dates of July 2020. The TN stated these were supplies from hospice. The TN stated she cleaned the treatment cart but missed these items and she should have removed them. The TN stated medications without a doctor's order and expired treatment supplies should not be in the treatment cart, readily available for use. On March 18, 2022, at 9:20 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated unused and expired treatment medications and supplies should not have been in the treatment cart, readily available for use. The facility's policy and procedure titled, DISCONTINUED MEDICATIONS, revised 2022, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Staff shall destroy discontinued medications or shall return them to the dispensing pharmacy in accordance with the facility policy . The facility's policy and procedure titled, Destruction of Unused Drugs, revised 2022, indicated .All unused, contaminated, or expired prescription drugs shall be disposed of in accordance with our established procedures .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0802 (Tag F0802)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one dietary personnel was competent to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service when one [NAME] (Cook...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one dietary personnel was competent to carry out the functions of the food and nutrition service when one [NAME] (Cook 1) did not monitor and did not know the process for ambient (current air temperature) cool down of Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS) foods (cross refer to F812, finding number 1). This failure had the potential to cause food borne illness in a potentially compromised population of 90 out of 95 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings: During the review of facility document titled, Physician Orders List, dated March 14, 2022, it indicated there were 90 residents who had physician diet orders and received food from the facility kitchen. During the follow-up observation of the reach-in refrigerator in the kitchen on March 14, 2022, at 3:02 p.m., a batch of egg salad in a full sheet and deep metal pan was found with a temperature of 59.9 degrees Fahrenheit (F). During a concurrent interview with [NAME] 1, he stated he prepared it around 2:30 p.m., and stated he did not monitor the temperature before storing it away in the refrigerator. He stated used the cooling log for the boiled eggs. During a concurrent review of the cooling log, it showed he started the cool down of the boiled eggs at 140 degrees F at 12:00 p.m. [NAME] 1 stated he put the boiled eggs in the ice bath, took the temperature at 1:30 p.m., and it measured 70 degrees F. At 2:00 p.m. it was 34 degrees F. [NAME] 1 stated he then put the cooled down eggs in the processor and mixed them with celery, mayonnaise, and relish. Cook 1 stated he put the mixture of egg salad in the refrigerator around 2:30 p.m., without measuring the temperature. [NAME] 1 stated he did not use the cooling log to track the cooling down process of the egg salad. He stated he was not sure of the process for cooling down the egg salad. He stated he got the cooling down in-service last week from the Dietary Supervisor (DS). During a concurrent interview with the DS, she acknowledged [NAME] 1 did not monitor the temperature for the cooling down process of the egg salad. The DS stated [NAME] 1 needed to do cooling down after he mixed the ingredients of the egg salad by using the cooling log to track the temperature. A concurrent review of departmental document titled, Title of In-service: Cooling and Reheating PHF (potential hazardous foods), completed on August 27, 2021, was reviewed. It did not show the in-service included ambient food cooling down procedure. During the follow up interview with the DS on March 17,2022, at 10:15 a.m., she stated [NAME] 1 should know the process of ambient food cooling down, and that the kitchen made egg salad usually twice a week. During an interview with the facility Registered Dietitian on March 18, 2022, at 9:46 a.m., she stated [NAME] 1 needed to follow the cooling process and filled in the cooling log. During a review of [NAME] 1's personnel file (date of hire: August 24, 2018), included a facility document titled, Dietary Aide Competency: Annual Competency, completed on January 10, 2022, it indicated that [NAME] 1 was competent with food handling and evaluated by the DS. A review of undated departmental policy and procedure titled, Cooling and Reheating Potentially Hazardous Foods (PHF) also called Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS), indicated PHF must be cooled within four hours to 41 degrees F or less when prepared from ambient temperature ingredients and using the cool down log to track the ambient temperature foods. According to the FDA Federal Food Code, 2017, Safe cooling required removing heat from food quickly enough to prevent microbial growth. Excessive time for cooling of time/temperature control for safety food has been consistently identified as one the leading contributing factors to foodborne illness.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed during the lunch meal on March 15, 2022, when 11 residents with a CCHO (Consistent Carbohydrate ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the menu was followed during the lunch meal on March 15, 2022, when 11 residents with a CCHO (Consistent Carbohydrate to treat medical condition of diabetes) mechanical soft (food was broken down for easy chewing) diet and 21 residents with a CCHO regular (no modification made to food) diet received a whole piece of chocolate cake with whipped topping instead of a half piece. This failure had the potential to result in increased blood sugar levels of 32 residents with a CCHO diet. Findings: On March 15, 2022, at 1:15 p.m., the dietary staff was observed to serve the whole, size of two inches by two inches by half inch (2x 2x 1/2) chocolate cakes to residents receiving regular CCHO and mechanical soft CCHO diets. A concurrent review of the undated departmental menu spreadsheet titled, Spring Cycle menus, week 2 Tuesday 3/15/22 ., indicated residents with a CCHO regular diet and a CCHO mechanical soft diet should have received a half piece of 2x 2x 1/2 chocolate cake with whipped topping. A review of the physician order for all residents' diet titled, Physician orders list, dated March 14, 2022, indicated there were 21 residents receiving a regular CCHO and 11 residents receiving a CCHO mechanical soft diet. On March 15, 2022, at 1:50 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Dietary Supervisor (DS). The DS stated the residents with a CCHO diet should have been served half of the regular 2x 2x 1/2 chocolate cake instead of the whole piece. A review of the facility's policy titled, Food Preparation Guidelines, dated 2022, indicated, .The cook, or designee, shall prepare menu items following the facility's written menus and standardized recipes .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0813 (Tag F0813)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a policy and procedure for Foods Brought by Family/Visitors, that included provisions on facility providing education...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a policy and procedure for Foods Brought by Family/Visitors, that included provisions on facility providing education and information about safe food handling (such as safe cooling/reheating process, hot/cold holding temperatures, preventing cross contamination, hand hygiene, etc.) practices to residents, family and visitors, and provisions on facility providing training to all facility personnel regarding safe food handling practices who were involved in preparing, handling, serving, or assisting the resident with meals or snacks. This failure had the potential to cause foodborne illnesses in a medically vulnerable population of residents who could consume food and receive food from family or visitors. The facility census was 95. Findings: On March 12, 2022, at 3:35 p.m., an interview was conducted with Registered Nurse (RN) 2. RN 2 stated family and visitors could bring food for the residents. She stated the food from outside, or leftovers would be kept in the designated resident's refrigerator for 72 hours. RN 2 was not able to verbalize the process of safe food handling and stated she did not receive any in-service regarding safe food handling for food brought in from outside of the facility. On March 15, 2022, at 9:45 a.m., an interview was conducted with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 stated family and visitors could bring food for the residents and the leftovers could be kept in the designated resident's refrigerator. She stated she did not know how long the leftovers could be kept in the refrigerator. CNA 2 stated she had an in-service regarding food brought in from outside sources. CNA 2 was not able to verbalize the process of safe food handling. On March 15, 2022, at 10 a.m., an interview was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1. LVN 1 stated family and visitors could bring food from outside for the residents and the leftovers could be kept in the designated resident's refrigerator for three days. LVN 1 stated she had an in-service for food brought in from outside sources a long time ago, but she was not able to verbalize the process of safe food handling. On March 15, 2022, at 10:08 a.m., an interview was conducted with CNA 2. CNA 2 stated family and visitors could bring food for residents and the leftovers would be kept in the designated resident's refrigerator for one day. CNA 2 stated she had an in-service for food brought in from the outside but could not remember if the process of safe food handling was provided. On March 15, 2022, at 10:15 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON stated he was involved in the process of admitting new residents to the facility. The ADON stated the facility usually did not tell the new residents' families that they could bring food for them. The ADON stated the facility allowed family and visitors to bring food from the outside for the resident if necessary. He stated the leftovers could be kept in the designated resident's refrigerator for three days or 72 hours. On March 15, 2022, at 10:35 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated the facility allowed the family and visitors to bring in food and home-cooked food for the residents. She stated the food could be kept in the resident's refrigerator for no more than a day because the facility tried to encourage the residents to consume in the same day. The DON reviewed the policy and procedure and stated she was not aware the food leftovers could be kept in the refrigerator for 2 days. She also acknowledged that the staff had inconsistent information regarding the time frame to keep the food and leftovers in the resident's refrigerator. A concurrent review with the DON regarding the facility's policy and procedure titled, FOOD FOR RESIDENTS FROM OUTSIDE SOURCES, undated, indicated, .3. Prepared food brought in for the resident must be consumed within one (1) hour of receiving it .Unused food will be disposed of immediately thereafter .5. Prepared food .If opened .disposed of in 2 days after opening . The DON acknowledged number three and number five of the policy and procedure contradicted each other, and she was not able to clarify both statements The DON acknowledged and agreed the policy and procedure did not include the provision for the facility to provide education or material for family or visitors regarding safe food handling practices.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when: 1. A full sheet d...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to store, prepare, and distribute food in accordance with professional standards for food service safety when: 1. A full sheet deep metal pan of egg salad prepared on March 15, 2022, was found in the reach-in refrigerator without food temperature monitoring for the cool down process; 2. Three various sized cooking pans, readily available for use, had dry and heavy black residue buildup on the cooking surface; 3. Several various sized plastic containers and metal pans were stacked and stored wet; and 4. The kitchen staff did not utilize the correct manufacturer's directions to sanitize the dishes for the manual dishware washing using the 3-compartment sink. These failures had the potential to cause food-borne illness in a medically vulnerable resident population who consumed food from the kitchen. The facility census was 95. Findings: 1. On March 14, 2022, at 3:02 p.m., a full sheet deep metal pan of egg salad prepared on March 14, 2022, was observed in the reach-in refrigerator. Its temperature was taken and was 59.9 Fahrenheit (F). A concurrent interview and record review of the cooling log was conducted with [NAME] 1. [NAME] 1 stated the egg salad was done at 2:30 p.m., and put in the refrigerator. [NAME] 1 reviewed the cooling log and stated he did not do the cool down process or monitor the temperature for the egg salad. He stated he did the cool down process for the boiled eggs starting from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Cook 1 stated he started to pour the cooled down eggs into the processor then added celery, mayonnaise, and relish to mix into the egg salad. He stated he did not do the cooling process and did not take the temperature to monitor the cooling down process. [NAME] 1 stated he was not sure about the cooling process for the egg salad. On March 14, 2022, at 3:10 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Dietary Supervisor (DS). The DS stated [NAME] 1 needed to start the cooling process once the egg salad was done. On March 18, 2022, at 9:45 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Registered Dietitian (RD). The RD stated [NAME] 1 should have followed the cooling process and record the temperature in the cooling log. A review of the undated departmental policy and procedure titled, COOLING AND REHEATING POTENTIALLY HAZARDOUS FOODS (PHF) also called Time/Temperature Control for Safety (TCS), read, .Potentially hazardous foods shall be cooled within 4 hours to 41 F or less if prepared from ingredients at ambient temperature, such as reconstituted foods .Use cool down log . 2. During the follow up kitchen observation on March 15, 2022, at 9:38 a.m., three various sized cooking pans hanging on the pots and pans rack, ready to use, were observed to have dry heavy black residue buildup on the cooking surface. During a concurrent interview with the DS, she verified the three cooking pans had heavy black buildup and were not cleanable. The DS stated the black buildup might chip and could contaminate the food. The DS stated they needed new cooking pans. On March 18, 2022, at 9:47 a.m., an interview was conducted with the RD. The RD stated, To follow the facility's policy and take care of the issues. A review of the undated departmental policy and procedure titled, SANITATION, indicated, .All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair . 3. During the kitchen initial tour on March 14, 2022, at 9:50 a.m., and 10:25 a.m., there were two 2-quart (a unit of liquid capacity), three eight-quart and three four-quart plastic containers, and five one-quarter (1/4) sheet and one half (1/2) sheet metal pans were found stacked wet and stored in the clean storage areas. During a concurrent interview with the DS, she stated those containers and metal pans needed to be completely air-dry before being stored away. On March 18, 2022, at 9:48 a.m., an interview was conducted with the RD. The RD stated, To follow the facility's procedure. A review of the undated departmental policy and procedure titled, DISH WASHING was conducted. It indicated, .Dishes are to be air dried in racks and before stacking and storing . 4. During the kitchen initial tour on March 14, 2022, at 10 a.m., Dietary Aide (DA) 1 verbalized the process of manual dishware washing by using the three-compartment sink. DA 1 stated the sanitizing step was to immerse the washed dishes in the sanitizing solution for 45 seconds and stated she followed the instructions posted on the wall. A review of the instructions posted on the wall indicated the immersion time for all washed items was 45 seconds. A review of the instructions printed on the tub of the sanitizer solution indicated, Sanitization of food processing equipment, utensils, and other food contact articles .sanitizing by immersing articles .(200-400 ppm [parts per million - unit of measurement] active quaternary [a chemical sanitizer to sanitize the dishes]) for at least 60 seconds . A concurrent interview was conducted with the DS. The DS stated she was not aware that the posted immersion time was incorrect. She stated she needed to contact the manufacturer to confirm the immersion time information. During a follow up interview with the DS on March 15, 2022, at 9:15 a.m., she reviewed a new poster for instructions for the three-compartment sink dishwashing from the manufacturer and confirmed the immersion time should be at least 60 seconds. On March 18, 2022, at 9:50 a.m., an interview was conducted with the RD. The RD stated kitchen staff should follow the manufacturer's guideline when operating the three-compartment sink.
CONCERN (F)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain the ice machine in safe operating condition when the ice machine was not cleaned, and the manufacturer's manual was ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to maintain the ice machine in safe operating condition when the ice machine was not cleaned, and the manufacturer's manual was not followed. This failure had potential to cause food-borne illness in a highly susceptible population of 90 out of 95 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings: A review of facility document titled, Physician Orders List, dated March 14, 2022, indicated 90 residents were on diets and received food from the kitchen. During an observation of the ice machine on March 14, 2022, at 11:25 a.m., there were significant amounts of black and gelatinous residue found behind the bottom of the harvester (a part of ice machine looks like a panel where a sheet of ice cubes slides into the storage bin during the harvest cycle) and could be easily removed with a white paper towel. In addition, there were white deposits found located on the top at the side of the ice storage bin. During an interview on March 14, 2022, at 11:25 a.m. and the follow up interview on March 14, 2022, at 3:41 p.m., with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS), he stated the maintenance department was responsible to do deep cleaning for the ice machine monthly and there was a technician from an outside company to clean the ice machine every two months. The MS stated the last deep cleaning for the ice machine was on February 27, 2022. He stated the technician from the outside company was responsible to clean the harvester part and he was not supposed to clean that area. The MS stated he did not take components of ice machine apart except the hose to clean. He stated he was not licensed and just tried his best to clean the ice machine. He stated he was responsible to run the cleaning and sanitizing cycles of the ice machine and cleaning the ice storage bin during the deep cleaning monthly. The MS stated he used the cleaning solution to pour into the machine and run the cleaning cycle for 20-45 minutes, then ran the sanitizing cycle for 20-45 minutes with sanitizing solution, and next to rinse with warm water for few cycles. For the ice storage bin, the MS stated he would use four drops of bleach mixed with 12 ounces of water to clean the interior area of the bin with a clean cloth, and then he would use plain water to rinse and let it dry before making ice. The MS acknowledged that he did not follow the proper steps to clean and sanitize the ice machine. He stated he never received training from anyone, but learned by mistakes and what the surveyors taught him during the prior annual surveys. He added he learned from the employees who worked for the industrial supply store by asking questions about the ice machine. The MS stated he did not follow the manufacturer's manual because he did not have one. He stated he followed the steps of cleaning and sanitizing instructions inside the ice machine cover. During an interview with the technician from the outside company (TOC) on March 14, 2022, at 4:33 p.m., he stated he provided cleaning service for the ice machine every two months, and he replaced the filter for the ice machine during each of his visits. He stated he would clean the machinery part for the ice machine. He stated he would use the cleaner solution to run the cleaning cycle for 45 minutes and then using plain water to run two cycles as rinsing. Then the ice machine started making ice and needed to discard first two batches of ice and the ice could be used when making the third batch. He stated he followed the manufacturer's manual. During the follow up interview on March 15, 2022, at 8:31 a.m., the MS provided the manufacturer's manual from the TOC, and stated the manual was not for the right model. He stated he did not know the model number of the ice machine and could not obtain the right manufacturer's manual. A review of the cleaning and sanitizing instructions inside of the ice machine titled, Scale Removal and Sanitizing Instructions, undated, indicated there were 22 steps to clean and sanitize the ice machine. The ice machine needed to use cleaning solution for the cleaning cycle and sanitizing solution for the sanitizing cycle. In addition, components of the ice machine needed to be taken apart to clean and sanitize with cleaning and sanitizing solutions respectively. A review of an undated departmental policy and procedure titled, Ice Machine Cleaning Procedures, read, .the ice machine needs to be cleaned and sanitized monthly. The internal components cleaned monthly .information about the operation, cleaning and care of the ice machine can be obtained from owner's manual, the manufacturer and /or in the directional panel on the inside of the ice machine .
Nov 2019 10 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed, for one of seven residents (Resident 40) reviewed, to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed, for one of seven residents (Resident 40) reviewed, to ensure the resident was afforded the right to receive or refuse medical care and/or treatment. Resident 40, who did not have the capacity to make decisions, sign the acknowledgements for advance directive (AD - written instruction such as living will or durable power of attorney for health care about the provision of care and services the resident preferred when he is no longer able to decide for himself) and Bed Hold Notification. This failure had the potential for the resident to receive unnecessary care/treatment and services. Findings: On November 5, 2019, at 12:02 p.m., an observation was conducted with Resident 40. Resident 40 was observed in bed, agitated, and was swinging his arms and appeared to be talking to himself. Resident 40 was unable to answer questions appropriately when an interview was attempted. On November 6, 2019, Resident 40's record was reviewed. Resident 40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (type of mental illness) and anxiety. Resident 40's face sheet indicated he was self-responsible. The facility's acknowledegement form for an AD and Bed Hold Notification indicated it was signed by Resident 40 on August 2, 2019. The History and Physical (H&P), completed by Resident 40's physician on August 5, 2019, indicated Resident 40 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. In addition, the physician further documented, .confusion at times .can not (sic.) answer question . The Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) dated August 9 and 30, 2019, indicated Resident 40 had a short term and long term memory problem, and moderately impaired cognitive skills for daily decision making. The facility form titled, BEHAVIOR MANAGEMENT TEAM, dated August 14, 2019, September 11, 2019, and October 9, 2019, indicated Resident 40 was alert with confusion and disorientation. On November 6, 2019, at 11:35 a.m, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 was interviewed. LVN 1 stated she was the charge nurse assigned to Resident 40. LVN 1 stated Resident 40 was able to make his simple needs known but was not capable of making medical decisions. On November 6, 2019, at 11:45 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated she had clarified Resident 40's H&P with the physician and the physician made an error in her entry on the August 5, 2019's H&P. The DON stated Resident 40 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. The DON further stated the error in the decision making capacity of the resident should have been picked up and clarified when the comprehensive assessment on Resident 40 was conducted on August 9, 2019. The DON further stated the facility should not have let Resident 40 sign the acknowlegements for AD and Bed Hold Notification upon admission because he did not have the capacity to understand and make decisons. The facility's policy and procedure titled, EPPLE COMMITEE (Surrogate Commitee for Healthcare Decision Making), revised 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .When it is identified by the Physician and facility staff that a resident is not capable of making medical treatment/health care decisions and there is no responsible party or surrogate decision maker . 1. Social Service staff will clarify that the resident does not have a responsible party or surrogate decision maker . When #1 has been clarified, the IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) and the resident's primary physician become the resident's responsible party or surrogate decision maker . The primary care physician and ID Team (Epple Commitee) will be responsible party to sign consent and other related documents for the resident .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on obervation, interview, and record review, the facility failed, for one of 21 residents (Residents 16) reviewed, to ensure the medication hydrocortisone (corticosteroid hormone medication used...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on obervation, interview, and record review, the facility failed, for one of 21 residents (Residents 16) reviewed, to ensure the medication hydrocortisone (corticosteroid hormone medication used to treat blood/hormone/immune system disorders, cancer and severe allergies) was given at breakfast, with food or milk, as ordered by physician. This failure had the potential for the resident to experience side effects of the medication if not given as ordered by the physician; and Findings: On November 7, 2019, at 8:51 a.m., a medication pass observation was conducted on Resident 16 with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 2. LVN 2 prepared Resident 16's medications that included one tablet of hydrocortisone 5 milligrams (mg) that had a label instruction to give one tablet daily at breakfast and to give it with food or milk. On November 7, 2019, at 9 a.m., LVN 2 administered the hydrocortisone tablet to Resident 16 without giving the medication with food or milk. On November 7, 2019, at 9:37 a.m., an interview with a concurrent record review was conducted with LVN 2. LVN 2 verified the instruction on the label of the hydrocortisone tablet. LVN 2 stated the label indicated to give the hydrocortisone tablet at breakfast with food or milk. LVN 2 stated Resident 16 had his breakfast earlier between 7:10 a.m. to 7:30 a.m. LVN 2 checked Resident 16's Medication Administration Record (MAR) for November 2019. Resident 16's MAR indicated to give the hydrocortisone 5 mg tablet at 7 a.m., with breakfast. LVN 2 stated she should have given the hydrocortisone 5 mg tablet to Resident 16 at breakfast with food or milk as ordered by the physician. On November 7, 2019, Resident 7's record was reviewed. Resident 7 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses that included gastro-esophageal reflux disease (type of stomach disease in which stomach acid or bile irritates the food pipe lining) and malignant neoplasm (cancer) of the pituitary. The physician's order dated May 7, 2019, indicated to give one tablet of hydrocortisone 5 mg by mouth daily at breakfast, with food or milk for malignant neoplasm of the pituitary. On November 7, 2019, at 10:08 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated LVN 2 should have administered the hydrocortisone tablet to Resident 16 at breakfast, with food or milk, as ordered by the physician. The DON stated the medication should have been given with food so the resident would not experience the medication's side effect such as upset stomach, and/or nausea and vomiting. According to Lexicomp (drug reference), .Hydrocortisone .side effects of this drug .upset stomach or throwing up .drug best taken .Use this drug as ordered by your doctor .Tablets .Take tablet with food . The facility's policy and procedure titled, .Medications given with food, revised 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Food and beverages can be given with the residents medication if the physician has ordered for it .When a resident has an order allowing him/her to eat or drink with the medication, the nurse shall give the medication as ordered by the physician .
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed, for one of four residents (Resident 23) reviewed for li...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed, for one of four residents (Resident 23) reviewed for limited Range of Motion (ROM), to ensure the change in the resident's ROM on his right elbow was identified and addressed by the facility. This failure had the potential for the resident to develop further contracture (shortening or hardening of the muscles, tendons, or other tissues, often leading to rigidity and deformity of joints)on his right elbow if left untreated. Findings: On November 5, 2019, at 9:54 a.m., an observation with a concurrent interview was conducted with Resident 23. Resident 23's right arm and hand were observed to be flaccid (limp) and he supported it with his left hand while being interviewed. Resident 23 stated he had weakness on his right arm and hand and he did not do exercises on it. On November 7, 2019, Resident 23's record was reviewed. Resident 23 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included hemiplegia/hemiparesis (muscle weakness or paralysis to one side of the body that can affect arms, legs, and facial muscles). The facility's document titled JOINT MOBILITY ASSESSMENT (JMA), indicated the following: - On July 16, 2018, Resident 23 had within functional limits (WFL - no limitation in ROM) ROM on his right elbow; and - On May 16, 2019, Resident 23 had a Moderate to Severe (M/S- only able to do 25 to 50% of ROM)) ROM on his right elbow. The document further indicated the Physical Therapist (PT) documented on May 16, 2019, .CONTINUE WITH THE RNA (Restorative Nurse Assistant) program . There was no documented evidence Resident 23 had a physician's order for RNA program exercises. The Minimum Data Set (MDS- an assessment tool) indicated the following: - On May 13, 2018, Resident 23 did not have impairments on the functional limitation in ROM to his upper and lower extremity; and - On May 13, 2019, Resident 23 had an impairment on the functional limitation to one side his upper and lower extremity. There was no documented evidence the change in Resident 23's functional limitation in ROM was addressed by the facility. In addition, there was no documented evidence a care plan was initiated to help prevent a further decline in Resident 23's ROM on his right elbow when it was identified on May 16, 2019. On November 7, 2019, at 3:52 p.m., Resident 23's record was reviewed with the PT. The PT verified he conducted the JMA on Resident 23 on May 16, 2019. The PT stated he identified Resident 23 had a change in the ROM on his right elbow from July 16, 2018 to May 16, 2019. The PT stated Resident 23 developed a limitation on the ROM on his right elbow. The PT stated it was identified when he did the JMA on Resident 23 on May 16, 2019. The PT verified Resident 23 did not have a physician's order for RNA program exercises to his right arm since the change in the functional ROM was identified in May 16, 2019. The PT stated he made an error when he documented for Resident 23 to continue with RNA program on May 16, 2019. The PT further stated the change in the functional ROM of Resident 23's right elbow should have been referred to the physician for further evaluation and appropriate treatment. The PT stated this was not done. On November 8, 2019, Resident 23's record was reviewed with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON reviewed Resident 23's MDS dated [DATE] and May 13, 2019. The DON stated Resident 23 developed a change in the ROM on his right elbow. The DON stated this was considered a change in the ROM and it should have been referred to the physician for the appropriate treatment to help prevent further contracture. She further stated a care plan should have been developed to help prevent further contracture of Resident 23's right elbow when it was identified by the PT in May 16, 2019, and MDS in May 13, 2019. The facility's undated policy and procedure titled, Prevention of Decline in Range of Motion, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Resident who enter the facility without limited range of motion will not experience reduction in range of motion unless the resident's clinical condition demonstrated that a reduction in range of motion if unavoidable . The facility shall establish and utilize a systemic approach for prevention of decline in range of motion, including the assessment of range of motion, appropriate care planning and preventive care . Licensed nurses will assess range of motion on admission/readmission, quarterly, and upon significant change .Resident who exhibit limitations in range of motion, initially and thereafter, will be referred to the therapy department for a focused assessment of range of motion . Based on comprehensive assessment, the facility will provide treatment and care in accordance with the professional standards of practice. This includes, but is not limited to .Appropriate services (specialized rehabilitation, restorative, maintenance) .Appropriate equipment (braces or splints) .Assistance as needed (active assisted, passive, supervision) . Interventions will be documented on the resident's person-centered care plan in accordance with recognized needs and the resident's preferences . Residents will receive services from restorative aides or therapists as needed .
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, for one of 21 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Reside...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed, for one of 21 residents reviewed for unnecessary medications (Resident 51) to ensure monitoring for adverse consequences (such as signs and symptoms of bleeding and/or bruising) of anticoagulant medication (Apixaban- medications that reduce or prevent blood from clotting), since ordered on September 27, 2019. This failure had the potential for the resident not to be monitored for the adverse effect of Apixaban such as bruising and bleeding. Findings: On November 5, 2019, at 10:28 a.m., an observation was conducted with Resident 51. Resident 51 had multiple bluish skin discolorations on her bilateral forearms. On November 6, 2019, at 3:28 p.m., an observation, interview, record review, was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4. LVN 4 confirmed Resident 51 had multiple bluish skin discolorations on her bilateral forearms. Resident 51 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included anemia (iron deficiency). The physician's order dated September 27, 2019, indicated, .Apixaban 2.5 milligram (mg) one tablet two times a day (bid) by mouth . There was no documented evidence Resident 51's bluish skin discoloration on her bilateral forearms were identified by the facility. In addition there was no documented evidence Resident 51 was monitored for the adverse effect of Apixaban. On November 7, 2019, at 11:05 a.m., the Director of Nurses (DON) verified and stated there was no documented evidence Resident 51 was monitored for the adverse effect of Apixaban. The DON further stated Resident 51 should have been monitored for adverse effects of Apixaban. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Anticoagulation,dated October, 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .The staff should use a warfarin flow sheet or comparable monitoring tool to follow trend in anticoagulant dosage and response .If an individual on anticoagulation therapy shows signs of excessive bruising, hematuria, hemoptysis, or other evidence of bleeding the nurse will discuss the situation with the physician before giving the next scheduled dose of anticoagulant .
CONCERN (D)

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

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 for two of six residents (Residents 55 and 40) reviewed for unnecessar...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed for two of six residents (Residents 55 and 40) reviewed for unnecessary medications to ensure: 1. For Resident 55 the physician failed to document the rationale for the continued use of Ativan, (a medication used to decrease anxiety), as needed (PRN) beyond the 14 days as required; and 2. Resident 40 the physician failed to document the rationale for the continued use of Ativan PRN beyond the 14 days as required. This failure had the potential for Residents 55 and 40 to receive unnecessary medications. Findings: 1.On November 8, 2019, Resident 55's record was reviewed. Resident 55 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses which included anxiety. Resident 55's physician order dated January 11, 2019, indicated to give Ativan 1 milligram (MG), as needed (PRN) for anxiety, manifested by (M/B) episodes of restlessness and verbalization of anxiety. The physician's order for PRN Ativan did not have a stop date of 14 days as regulatory requirement. There was no documented evidence the physician documented an assessment to justify the rationale on the use of PRN Ativan beyond the 14 days. On November 8, 2019, at 10:25 a.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with (LVN) 5. LVN 5 stated there was no documented evidence in Resident 55's record that the physician provided a rationale for the continued use of Ativan beyond the 14 days. On November 9, 2019, at 10:28 a.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with the Director of Nursing (DON). The DON stated there was no documented evidence that Resident 55's physician provided a rationale for the continued use of Ativan beyond the 14 days. The DON further stated Resident 55's physician should have provided an assessment to justify the rationale for the continued use of PRN Ativan beyond the 14 days. 2. On November 5, 2019, at 12:02 p.m., an observation was conducted on Resident 40. Resident 40 was observed in bed, agitated, and was swinging his arms and appeared to be talking to himself. Resident 40 was unable to answer questions appropriately when an interview was attempted. On November 6, 2019, Resident 40's record was reviewed with Registered Nurse (RN) 1. Resident 40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included anxiety. The physician's order dated August 20, 2019, indicated to give Ativan 0.5 milligram one table by mouth every six hours as needed (PRN) for anxiety manifested by persistent restlessness. The physician's order for PRN Ativan did not have a stop date of 14 days as regulatory requirement. There was no documented evidence the physician documented an assessment to justify the rationale on the use of PRN Ativan beyond 14 days. In a concurrent interview, RN 1 stated the physician should have documented the reason for the PRN Ativan to be used beyond 14 days. RN 1 stated there was no documented evidence the physician documented the rationale for the PRN Ativan to be used beyond 14 days. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Use of Psychotropic Drugs, revised 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, PRN orders for psychotropic drugs are limited to 14 days, except as provided if the attending physician or prescribing practitioner believes that it is appropriate for the PRN order to be extended beyond 14 days. He or she should document their rationale in the resident's medical record and indicate the duration of the PRN order .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

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, for one of 21 residents (Resident 1), to ensure the med...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed, for one of 21 residents (Resident 1), to ensure the medication Emtriva (anti-viral medication used to treat HIV {type of viral infection}) was available and administered to the resident in a timely manner as ordered by the physician. This failure resulted in a significant medication error. Findings: On November 5, 2019, at 10:26 a.m., Resident 1 was observed lying in bed, alert and verbally responsive. Resident 1 stated she did not receive her HIV medication for four days. Resident 1 further stated the Licensed Nurses (LN) told her they will call the pharmacy to order her HIV medication, but until now the LN did not give her medication. On November 5, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3. LVN 3 stated Resident 1's Emtriva 200 mg was not available. LVN 3 confirmed the Emtriva 200 mg was due to be given on November 5, 2019, at 9 a.m. LVN 3 further stated he will call the pharmacy and order the medication (Emtriva). On November 6, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 1's record was reviewed. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included HIV. The History and Physical dated October 10, 2019, indicated, .Has the capacity to understand and make decision . The physician's order dated October 8, 2019, indicated, .Emtriva 200 mg one tablet by mouth every day for HIV . The Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated November 5, 2019, indicated the medication Emtriva 200 mg was due to be given at 9 a.m. daily. Resident 1's MAR for the date of November 5, 2019, the 9 a.m. dose, indicated Resident 1's Emtriva 200 mg was not given to the resident. On November 6, 2019, at 10:02 a.m., an observation, interview, and record review was conducted with LVN 3. LVN 3 stated Resident 1 was scheduled to receive Emtivra 200 mg on November 5, 2019, at 9 a.m. LVN 3 further stated he did not administer the medication Emtriva on November 5, 2019, because the medication was not available. LVN 3 stated the medication should have been given to Resident 1 timely as ordered by the physician. On November 6, 2019, at 10:26 a.m., an observation, interview, and record review was conducted with LVN 4. LVN 4 stated he worked on November 4, 2019. LVN 4 stated Resident 1 was scheduled to receive Emtivra 200 mg on November 4, 2019, for 9 a.m. LVN 4 further stated he administered the medication Emtriva on November 4, 2019. LVN 4 stated he got the medication Emtriva 200 mg from a medication bottle. There was no evidence of an Emtriva medication bottle. LVN 4 confirmed he was unable to provide the medication bottle of Emtriva administered to Resident 1 on November 4, 2019, at 9 a.m. On November 6, 2019, at 10:35 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident 1. Resident 1 stated the LN did not administer her medication Emtriva on November 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 2019. Resident 1 stated she asked the LN multiple times to give her medication, but the LN told Resident 1 they needed to call the pharmacy to order her medication Emtriva. On November 7, 2019, at 8:48 a.m., an interview was conducted with the facility's contracted Pharmacist. The Pharmacist stated the Emtriva 200 mg capsule were delivered on the following dates: June 1, 2019, delivered 27 capsules; June 28, 2019, delivered 30 capsules; July 28, 2019, delivered 31 capsules; August 28, 2019, delivered 31 capsules; and September 20, 2019, delivered 30 capsules. The Pharmacist further stated Resident 1 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], and the facility did not fax a physician's order for Emtriva 200 mg daily for the resident. The Pharmacist stated the facility ordered the Emtriva 200 mg via fax on November 5, 2019, at 2:52 p.m. The Pharmacist stated the Emtriva 200 mg (30 capsules) were delivered stat (within four hours) on November 5, 2019, at 6:55 p.m. On November 7, 2019, at 2:26 p.m., an interview, and record review was conducted with LVN 5. LVN 5 confirmed Resident 1 was transfered to the acute hospital on September 26, 2019, and re-admitted to facility on October 8, 2019. LVN 5 confirmed the last time the medication Emtriva 200 mg (30 capsules) was delivered on September 20, 2019. LVN 5 stated the LN who verified and faxed the admission physician orders on October 8, 2019, at 10:29 p.m., to the pharmacy did not order the Emtriva 200 mg daily for Resident 1. LVN 5 stated the Emtriva 200 mg was not ordered until November 5, 2019, at 2:52 p.m, and delivered on November 5, 2019, at 6:55 p.m. LVN 5 confirmed the medication Emtriva for Resident 1 was not administered on November 1, 2, 3,4, and 5, 2019, due to the medication unavailability. LVN 5 further stated the licensed nurses should have ordered the medication Emtriva 200 mg on October 8, 2019, when Resident 1 readmitted to the facility. LVN 5 stated the medications for Resident 1 should have been given timely as ordered by the physician. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Administering Medication, revised 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frames .
CONCERN (D)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe, sanitary practices for infection prevention for one of 21 residents reviewed (Resident 70) when an undated and u...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure safe, sanitary practices for infection prevention for one of 21 residents reviewed (Resident 70) when an undated and unlabeled plastic jar containing brownish liquid and Jalapeno mixture was stored at the resident's bedside. This failure had the potential to result in the development of food-borne illnesses and the growth of microorganism in vulnerable residents. Findings: On November 5, 2019, at 12:13 p.m., an observation and concurrent interview was conducted with Resident 70. Resident 70 was observed lying in bed awake, alert and able to verbalize his needs. A covered plastic container half filled with cut up mix vegetables with Jalapenos and brownish liquid was observed on top of Resident 70's bedside table. The container was undated and unlabeled. In a concurrent interview, Resident 70 stated the container was filled with Jalapeno mix from the can. Resident 70 stated he would request the staff to open the container when he wanted to eat the food item during meals. Resident 70 further stated a family member brought the food item from home. Resident 70 did not remember when a family member brought the food item from home. On November 5, 2019, at 3 p.m. the plastic container with mix vegetables and Jalapenos was still observed at the resident's bedside table. On November 5, 2019, at 3:30 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 was interviewed. LVN 1 stated she was not aware of the plastic container containing the Jalapeno mix was at the Resident 70's bedside. LVN 1 stated the Jalapeno mix should have been dated, labeled with Resident 70's name and stored in the resident's refrigerator. On November 7, 2019, at 11 a.m., an interview was conducted with the Administrator. The Administrator stated food items brought by a family member from home should be stored in the designated resident's refrigerator located inside the medication storage area. The Administrator stated facility's staff should have identified the risk of leaving food items left unrefrigerated at Resident 70's bedside. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Infection Prevention and Control Program, dated October 16, 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .It is a policy of this facility to establish and maintain an infection prevention and control program designated to provide a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent the development and transmission of communicable diseases and infection . The facility's policy and procedure titled, Food Receiving and Storage, dated October 16, 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Foods shall be received and stored in a manner that complies with safe food handling .All foods belonging to residents must be labeled with the resident's name, the item and the use by date .
CONCERN (E)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On November 5, 2019, at 3:23 p.m., Resident 40's record was reviewed. Resident 40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A p...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 4. On November 5, 2019, at 3:23 p.m., Resident 40's record was reviewed. Resident 40 was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A physician's order dated November 3, 2019, indicated Resident 40 had opened blisters on his right upper superior buttock (Site #1), right inferior buttock (Site #2), and right upper mid-buttock (Site #3). The physician's order further indicated to cleanse the opened blisters with normal saline, pat dry and apply triple antibiotic ointment, leave open to air for 14 days. The care plan dated August 2, 2019, indicated, .AT RISK FOR OCCURENCE OF PRESSURE ULCER/SKIN BREAKDOWN .AS EVIDENCED BY .Bowel Incontinence (inability to hold stool) .Urine Incontinence (inability to hold urine) .Approach Plan .staff will monitor skin daily during ADL (Activities of Daily Living) care .Nursing Assistants to notify charge nurse for any skin problem during care .LVN/RN (Registered Nurse) will assess any skin prblem noted, identify unusual skin problems .Notify physician for any alteration in skin integrity/skin breakdown . The facility document titled. NON-PRESSURE SORE SKIN PROBLEM REPORT, dated November 3, 2019, indicated the following assessment on Resident 40's opened blisters to his right buttock area: - Right upper superior buttock (Site #1) open blister 3.5 centimeter (cm - unit of measurement) by (x) 1.5 cm, pink in color with no drainage; - Right inferior buttock (Site #2) 1.8 x 1 cm, pink in color with no drainage; and - Right upper mid-buttock (Site #3) 2 cm x 1.2 cm, pink in color with no drainage. There was no documented evidence the facility indicated Resident 40 had a previous skin breakdown on Resident 40's right buttock (three sites) before it developed into open blisters. The Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) document titled, DAILY BODY CHECK REPORT, dated October 31, 2019 to November 2, 2019, indicated the CNAs had identified old scabs and old skin scratches on Resident 40's buttocks area. The form also indicated the licensed nurses acknowleged through signature they were made aware of the skin problems identified and documented by the CNAs. There was no documented evidence the skin problems identified by the CNAs on Resident 40's buttock area, from October 31 to November 2, 2019, were further assessed by the licensed nurses and were referred to the physician for treatment orders. On November 6, 2019, Resident 40's record was reviewed with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 6. LVN 6 stated there was no documented evidence a previous skin breakdown was identified on Resident 40's right buttock area (three sites) before it developed into open blisters. LVN 6 further stated the opened blisters on Resident 40's buttocks appeared like previous scratchmarks but she did not see previous treatment order for it. LVN 6 stated before the skin breakdown developed into opened blisters it should have started as a redness first or fluid filled blisters. She further stated if the previous skin breakdown was identified by the licensed nurses and treated earlier the opened blisters (three sites) on Resident 40's right buttock could have been prevented. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed, for four of 21 residents reviewed (Residents 51, 1, 83, and 40), to ensure: 1. For Resident 51, the licensed nurses identified, assessed, monitored, and referred to the physician the multiple skin discolorations identified on the resident's bilateral forearms on November 5, 2019. This failure had the potential for the resident to not be monitored for complications related to the multiple skin discolorations such as bleeding, skin tears, and infection; 2. For Resident 1, the facility failed to administer the Emtriva (medication used to treat Human Immunodeficiency Virus{HIV- type of virus infection}for five days as ordered bythe physician. This failure resulted in Resident 1 to miss doses of the medication and had the potential to not receive the desired therapeutic effect; 3. For Resident 83, the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) did not report the multiple rashes on the resident's Right Lower Extremity (RLE) to licensed nurses. This failure had the potential for the resident to not be monitored for complications related to the rash such as bleeding, infection and receive the appropriate treatment timely; and 4. For Resident 40, the licensed nurses identified, and address a skin breakdown on the resident's right buttock before the area worsened. This failure resulted in the development of opened blisters to the resident's right buttock. Findings: 1. On November 5, 2019, at 10:28 a.m., an observation was conducted for Resident 51. Resident 51 had multiple bluish skin discolorations on her bilateral forearms. On November 6, 2019, at 3:28 p.m., an observation, interview, and record review was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4. LVN 4 confirmed Resident 51 had multiple bluish skin discolorations on her bilateral forearms. Resident 51 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses which included anemia (iron deficiency). The physician's order dated September 27, 2019, indicated, .Apixaban (Eliquiz- anti-coagulant medication) 2.5 milligram (mg) one tablet two times a day (bid) by mouth - Deep Vein Thrombosis (DVT- a blood circulation disorder that causes the blood vessels outside of your heart and brain to narrow, block, or spasm) . The Minimum Data Set (MDS - an assessment tool) dated September 10, 2019, was reviewed. Resident 51 required extensive assistance in bed mobility and total assistance to transfer. In a concurrent interview, LVN 4 stated if a skin discoloration, skin trauma was identified on a resident, the resident should be assessed and the physician should be notified for treatment orders. LVN 4 further stated a care plan should have been developed and initiated to prevent complications related to the skin discolorations. LVN 4 stated there was no documented evidence the multiple skin discolorations on Resident 51's bilateral forearms were addressed and monitored by the licensed nurses. On November 7, 2019, at 11:05 a.m., an interview, and record review was conducted with the Director of Nurses (DON). The DON stated the discolorations on Resident 51's bilateral forarms should have been identified, assessed, and monitored by the licensed nurses. The DON further stated Resident 51's physician and responsible party should have been notified by the licensed nurses. 2. On November 5, 2019, at 10:26 a.m., Resident 1 was observed lying in bed, alert and verbally responsive. Resident 1 stated she did not receive her HIV medication for four days. Resident 1 further stated the Licensed Nurses (LN) told her they will call the pharmacy to order her HIV medication, but until now the LN did not give her medication. On November 5, 2019, at 10:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3. LVN 3 stated Resident 1's Emtriva 200 mg was not available. LVN 3 confirmed the Emtriva 200 mg was due to be given on November 5, 2019, at 9 a.m. LVN 3 further stated he will call the paharmacy and order the medication (Emtriva). On November 6, 2019, at 9:30 a.m., Resident 1's record was reviewed. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and re-admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included HIV. The History and Physical dated October 10, 2019, indicated, .Has the capacily to understand and make decision . The physician's order dated October 8, 2019, indicated, .Emtriva 200 mg one tablet by mouth every day for HIV . The Medication Administration Record (MAR) dated November 5, 2019, indicated the medication Emtriva 200 mg was due to be given at 9 a.m. daily. Resident 1's MAR for the date of November 5, 2019, the 9 a.m. dose, indicated Resident 1's Emtriva 200 mg was not given to the resident. On November 6, 2019, at 10:02 a.m., an observation, interview, and record review was conducted with LVN 3. LVN 3 stated Resident 1 was scheduled to receive Emtivra 200 mg on November 5, 2019, for 9 a.m., dose. LVN 3 further stated he did not administer the medication Emtriva on November 5, 2019, because the medication was not available. LVN 3 stated the medication should have been given to Resident 1 timely as ordered by the physician. On November 6, 2019, at 10:26 a.m., an observation, interview, and record review was conducted with LVN 4. LVN 4 stated he worked on November 4, 2019. LVN 4 stated Resident 1 was scheduled to receive Emtivra 200 mg on November 4, 2019, for 9 a.m. LVN 4 further stated he administered the medication Emtriva on November 4, 2019. LVN 4 stated he got the medication Emtriva 200 mg from a medication bottle. There was no evidence of an Emtriva medication bottle. LVN 4 confirmed he was unable to provide the Emtriva medication bottle he used to administer the Emtriva 200 mg dose on November 4, 2019, at 9 a.m. On November 6, 2019, at 10:35 a.m., an interview was conducted with Resident 1. Resident 1 stated the LN did not administer her medication Emtriva on November 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 2019. Resident 1 stated she asked the LN multiple times to give her medication, but the LN told Resident 1 they needed to call the pharmacy to order her medication Emtriva. On November 7, 2019, at 8:48 a.m., an interview was conducted with the facility's contracted Pharmacist. The Pharmacist stated the Emtriva 200 mg capsules were delivered on the following dates: June 1, 2019, delivered 27 capsules; June 28, 2019, delivered 30 capsules; July 28, 2019, delivered 31 capsules; August 28, 2019, delivered 31 capsules; and September 20, 2019, delivered 30 capsules. The pharmacist further stated Resident 1 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], and the resident did not have a physician order for Emtriva 200 mg daily. The pharmacist stated the facility ordered the Emtriva 200 mg via fax on November 5, 2019, at 2:52 p.m. The Pharmacist stated the Emtriva 200 mg (30 capsules) were delivered stat (within four hours) on November 5, 2019, at 6:55 p.m. On November 7, 2019, at 2:26 p.m., an interview, and record review was conducted with LVN 5. LVN 5 confirmed Resident 1 was transfered to the acute hospital on September 26, 2019, and re-admitted to facility on October 8, 2019. LVN 5 confirmed the last time the medication Emtriva 200 mg (30 capsules) was delivered on September 20, 2019. LVN 5 stated the LN who verified and faxed the admission physician orders on October 8, 2019, at 10:29 p.m., to the pharmacy did not order the Emtriva 200 mg daily. LVN 5 confirmed the Emtriva 200 mg was not ordered until November 5, 2019, at 2:52 p.m, and delivered on November 5, 2019, at 6:55 p.m. LVN 5 confirmed the medication Emtriva for Resident 1 was not administered on November 1, 2, 3,4, and 5, 2019, due to the medication unavailability. LVN 5 further stated the licensed nurses should have ordered the medication Emtriva 200 mg on October 8, 2019, when Resident 1 readmitted to the facility. LVN 5 stated the medications for Resident 1 should have been given timely as ordered by the physician. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Administering Medication, revised 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Medications must be administered in accordance with the orders, including any required time frames . 3.On November 5, 2019, at 3:57 p.m., a concurrent observation and interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 for Resident 83. CNA 1 stated he just gave Resident 83 a bedbath. Resident 83 was observed with multiple rashes on the right lower extremity (RLE). CNA 1 confirmed Resident 83 had rashes on the RLE. On November 6, 2019, at 1:36 p.m., a concurrent observation and interview was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 6. LVN 6 confirmed Resident 83 had multiple rashes on the RLE. LVN 6 stated she was not aware of Resident 83's rashes. On November 6, 2019, Resident 83's record was reviewed. Resident 83 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including cerebrovascular disease (also called stroke - a condition when blood supply to the brain is stopped either by a blockage or the rupture of a blood vessel). On November 6, 2019, at 3:40 p.m., a concurrent interview and review of CNA's Daily Body Check Report assessment form dated November 5, 2019, p.m.shift and November 6, 2019, noc (night shift) shift was conducted with LVN 1. The Daily Body Check form indicated CNA 1 identified the multiple rashes on Resident 83's RLE on November 5, 2019, p.m. shift. LVN 1 stated the assessment form completed by CNA 1 on the p.m. shift indicated the rashes on Resident 83's RLE was identified. LVN 1 stated the form was not acknowledged by the signature of the licensed nurses. LVN 1 stated the November 6, 2019, noc shift CNA's Daily Body Check Report form did not identify Resident 83's rashes on her RLE. On November 6, 2019. at 3:57 p.m., a concurrent interview and record review was conducted with LVN 7. LVN 7 confirmed CNA 1 had identified Resident 83's multiple rashes on the RLE in the Daily Body Check Report on November 5, 2019, p.m. shift. LVN 7 stated CNA 1 did not report Resident 83's multiple rashes during her shift to the licensed nurses. LVN 7 stated CNA 1 should have reported the resident's skin condition changes to the licensed nurses. LVN 7 stated when CNA 1 identified the multiple rashes on Resident 83's RLE, CNA 1 should have reported to the licensed nurses and the licensed nurses should have reported and obtained treatment orders from the physician. LVN 7 stated there was no documented evidence this procedure was done. The facility's policy and procedure titled, Activities of Daily living (ADLs), dated October 16, 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated, .During ADL care observe the resident's skin for any redness, rashes, broken skin .and document and report findings as indicated to the supervisor .
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 ensure discontinued medications were not stored in the...

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 discontinued medications were not stored in the medication cart readily available for use. This failure increases the risk for the licensed nurses to administer discontinued medications to the residents and may result in medication error. Findings: On November 7, 2019, an inspection of the medication cart with an interview and record review was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 7. Stored inside the medication cart readily available for use were the following: - One box (25 count of 3 milliliter (ml) solutions) of Albuterol 0.83 % (medication used to treat difficulty of breathing) inhalation solution, labeled as ordered for Resident 22; and - 19 tablets of hydroxyzine HCL (hydrochloride) 25 milligrams (mg), labeled as ordered for Resident 77. In a concurrent interview and record review, LVN 7 stated she did not see in the November 2019 Medication Administration Record, an active physician's order for the Albuterol inhalation solution for Resident 22 and the hydroxyzine HCL for Resident 77. LVN 7 further stated the medications may have been discontinued. LVN 7 further stated discontinued medications should not have been stored in the medication cart to help prevent medication errors. LVN & stated the discontinued medications should have been removed from the medication cart and stored in the medication room for proper disposal. On November 7, 2019, the following records were reviewed: - Resident 22 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The physician's order for Albuterol 2.5 mg/3ml one unit dose via nebulizer (machine used to deliver inhalation solution medications) every six hours as needed (order date July 1, 2018), was discontinued on September 18, 2018; and - Resident 77 was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE]. The physician's order for Atarax (brand name for hydroxyzine HCL) 25 mg one tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed (order date August 11, 2019), was discontinued on August 25, 2019. On November 8, 2019, at 9:33 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated the discontinued medications for REsidents 22 and 77 should have been removed from the medication cart and stored in the medication room for disposal. She further stated the discontinued medications should not have been left stored in the medication cart because this had the potential for the licensed nurses to administer the medications and may result in medication error. The facility's policy and procedure titled, DISCONTINUED MEDICATIONS, revised 2019 was reviewed. The policy indicated, .Staff shall destroy discontinued medications or shall return them to the dispensing pharmacy in accordance with the facility policy .
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 implement and observe an infection control and prevention program when multiple residents were not provided withthe appropria...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to implement and observe an infection control and prevention program when multiple residents were not provided withthe appropriate hand hygiene prior to eating lunch. This failure had the potential to result in the transmission of infection to an already vulnerable population of residents in the facility. Findings: On November 5, 2019, at 12:15 p.m., a lunch meal dining observation was conducted in the central dining room with multiple residents. At least 14 residents in the dining room were observed to not receive hand hygiene prior to eating lunch. On November 5, 2019, at 12:55 p.m., an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 2. CNA 2 stated she was assigned to the central dining room to pass trays and to assist residents as needed. CNA 2 stated it was not the policy of the facility to provide hand hygiene to the residents prior to eating their meals in the dining room. CNA 2 further stated all residents should have hand hygiene before eating. On November 5, 2019, at 1 p.m., an interview was conducted with CNA 3. CNA 3 stated she was assigned to assist residents in the central dining room for lunch. CNA 3 stated it was not the practice of the facility to sanitize residents' hands before bringing them the dining room for meals. CNA 3 also stated that all residents should have their hands washed or sanitized before eating. On November 5, 2019, at 1:12 p.m., an interview was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 6. LVN 6 stated she was assigned to supervise the lunch meal in the central dining room. LVN 6 stated the residents in the central dining room during the lunch meal observation on November 5, 2019, at 12:15 p.m., did not receive hand hygiene prior to eating their lunch. LVN 6 also stated that every resident should have been provided hand hygiene by the staff before entering the dining room and before eating. She further stated, failure to provide hand hygiene could lead to the spread of communicable infections. On November 6, 2019, at 9:45 a.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) was interviewed. The DON stated the policy of the facility was to wash residents' hands before eating. The DON stated the CNAs should have provided hand hygiene before the lunch meal. She further stated that failure to provide hand hygiene could result in the spread of infections. On November 6, 2019, the facility's policy and procedure titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene dated 2019, was reviewed. The policy indicated the following, .All personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infection to other personnel, residents, and visitors .Before and after eating or handling food .
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+ (80/100). Above average facility, better than most options in California.
  • • No fines on record. Clean compliance history, better than most California facilities.
  • • 12% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 36 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • 27 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 Centinela Grand Inc's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns CENTINELA GRAND INC 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 Centinela Grand Inc Staffed?

CMS rates CENTINELA GRAND INC's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 12%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Centinela Grand Inc?

State health inspectors documented 27 deficiencies at CENTINELA GRAND INC during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 that caused actual resident harm and 26 with potential for harm. Deficiencies causing actual harm indicate documented cases where residents experienced negative health consequences.

Who Owns and Operates Centinela Grand Inc?

CENTINELA GRAND INC 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 ROLLINS-NELSON HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 109 certified beds and approximately 104 residents (about 95% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in PERRIS, California.

How Does Centinela Grand Inc Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, CENTINELA GRAND INC's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2, staff turnover (12%) 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 Centinela Grand Inc?

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 Centinela Grand Inc Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, CENTINELA GRAND INC 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 Centinela Grand Inc Stick Around?

Staff at CENTINELA GRAND INC tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 12%, the facility is 34 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 10%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Centinela Grand Inc Ever Fined?

CENTINELA GRAND INC 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 Centinela Grand Inc on Any Federal Watch List?

CENTINELA GRAND INC 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.