MONTEREY HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP

1267 SAN GABRIEL BLVD, ROSEMEAD, CA 91770 (626) 280-3220
For profit - Individual 96 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
49/100
#633 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: February 2025

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

Overview

Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre has a Trust Grade of D, indicating below-average performance with some concerns regarding care standards. It ranks #633 out of 1155 facilities in California, placing it in the bottom half, and #124 out of 369 in Los Angeles County, meaning only a few local options are better. The facility's trend is improving, with issues decreasing from 21 in 2024 to 17 in 2025, but there are still significant deficiencies, including a critical finding related to inadequate care for a resident with serious mental health issues. Staffing is a strong point, rated 5 out of 5 stars, with a turnover rate of 28% that is better than the state average, and there is average RN coverage. However, the facility does have some concerning incidents, such as failing to provide proper training for staff to care for residents with PTSD and not posting daily nurse staffing information for transparency.

Trust Score
D
49/100
In California
#633/1155
Bottom 46%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
21 → 17 violations
Staff Stability
✓ Good
28% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 20 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Penalties
⚠ Watch
$8,021 in fines. Higher than 97% of California facilities. Major compliance failures.
Skilled Nurses
○ Average
Each resident gets 35 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — about average for California. RNs are the most trained staff who monitor for health changes.
Violations
⚠ Watch
69 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★☆☆
3.0
Overall Rating
★★★★★
5.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 21 issues
2025: 17 issues

The Good

  • 5-Star Staffing Rating · Excellent nurse staffing levels
  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Low Staff Turnover (28%) · Staff stability means consistent care
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover is low (28%)

    20 points below California average of 48%

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

The Bad

3-Star Overall Rating

Near California average (3.1)

Meets federal standards, typical of most facilities

Federal Fines: $8,021

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 69 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Mar 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0635 (Tag F0635)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the licensed staff verified Resident 1 ' s admission orders f...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure the licensed staff verified Resident 1 ' s admission orders from the facility, by reviewing Resident 1 ' s medical history and general acute care hospital (GACH 1) discharge orders upon readmission to the facility on 3/12/2025, for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1), when it failed to: As a result of this deficient practice, Resident 1 had the potential to not receive the care and services, and correct medications needed for the resident ' s diagnosis while in the facility. Findings: During a review of facility ' s admission Record indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted on [DATE] but readmitted back to the facility from GACH 1 on 3/12/2025, with diagnoses that included Schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person ability to think, feel and behave clearly), Bipolar disorder (A disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs). During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 2/23/2025, indicated the resident 1 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 1 Patient ' s Home Medication on Discharge dated 3/12/2025 indicated continue taking the following medications 1.Quetapine (a medication used for Schizophrenia) 150 milligrams oral tablet 1 tab orally 2 times a day During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH 1 Telemetry-Clinical Summary Report dated 3/11/2025 indicated the following medication: 1. Quetiapine give 100 milligrams tablet oral at bedtime, the report indicated the status as active. During a review of a facility document titled Order Summary report dated March 13,2025, indicated an order for the following medication: 1. Seroquel (Quetiapine) oral tablet 100 milligrams, give 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for Schizophrenia manifested by paranoid delusion thinking everyone is against him. During a review of an SMS (short Message Service, refers to standard text messages sent using a cellular signal) sent by Registered Nurse 1 to Physician 1 on 3/12/2025 timed at 10:20 pm, the SMS message indicated 7 images containing Resident 1 ' s face sheet and Facility ' s Order Summary Report with an active order date of 3/13/2025 and a message addressed to Physician 1 stating This is RN 1 from (Facility), Resident 1 is readmitted to the facility, attached is the resident ' s medication list the message showed a read notification of yesterday (3/12/2025) under the message. During a telephone interview with RN 1 on 3/13/2025 at 2:35 PM, RN 1 stated she was the nurse who completed Resident 1 ' s admission orders to the facility on 3/12/2025. RN 1 stated she reviewed Resident 1 ' s GACH Telemetry-Clinical Summary Report based on the medication on the report that indicated active, RN 1 stated she input the medications into Resident 1 ' s facility admission orders. RN 1 stated she did not verbally speak to Physician 1. RN 1 stated that once she completed Resident 1 ' s admission orders she sent Physician 1 an SMS- text message from her personal phone to inform him of Resident 1 ' s admission and medication orders. RN 1 stated this was the common practice at the facility to inform Physician 1. RN 1 stated if Physician 1 did not respond to the message, but the message indicated it was read, it was understood Physician 1 agreed to the medication orders texted to him. RN 1 stated she did not see Resident 1 ' s GACH Patient ' s Home Medication on Discharge documents and only went based on Resident 1 ' s GACH Telemetry-Clinical Summary Report and Resident 1 ' s previous medication while at the facility to input Resident 1 ' s readmission orders. During an interview with on 3/13/2025 at 3:18 AM with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated that during admission and readmission, licensed nurses should be going over the discharge summary list from the originating GACH to the physician. The DON stated sometimes physicians would ask the facility some questions regarding the residents ' GACH stay and the facility ' s admitting nurse will then go over all hospital medications and physicians would tell the licensed nurses what to continue and discontinue. The DON stated all admitting nurses should be calling and verbally talking to the admitting physicians, to ensure the admitting physician agrees with the resident ' s admission orders. A review of facility ' s policy titled admission and Orientation of Residents with a revision date of October 2017, indicated 3. Upon admission, the residents attending Physician will provide the following information to the admissions office: an order for skilled nursing care, the type of diet the resident requires, Medication orders, including medical condition or problems associated with each medication
Feb 2025 15 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to promote respect and dignity to one of one resident reviewed for dignity (Resident 19) who was observed with jeans tied with el...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to promote respect and dignity to one of one resident reviewed for dignity (Resident 19) who was observed with jeans tied with elastic gloves on the belt loop and was falling off, exposing his buttocks and groin area. This deficient practice has the potential to affect the resident's self image, sense of self-worth/ self-esteem and negatively affect the psychosocial being of the resident. Findings: During a review of Resident 19's admission Record indicated the facility initially admitted Resident 19 on 6/2/2008 and readmitted her on 5/24/2022 with diagnoses that included paranoid schizophrenia (a mental disorder characterized by disruptions in thought processes, perceptions, emotional responsiveness, and social interactions) and hyperlipidemia (a condition in which there are abnormally high levels of fats in the blood). During a review of Resident 19's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 1/31/2025, indicated Resident 19 had intact cognition (ability to think and reasonably) and memory. The MDS indicated Resident 19 was independent with eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, personal hygiene and chair/bed-to-chair transfer. During an observation on 2/11/25 at 12:10 PM, in the Television (TV) Room of East Wing, Resident 19 was walking in and out from his room to the TV Room where other residents were watching TV and staff passing through. Resident 19 was wearing a pair of blue jeans with an elastic glove tied on the two belt loops to hold the jeans up on the waist. Resident 19 ' s jeans was loose and kept falling down and he kept pulling the jeans up to his waist. During an observation on 2/12/25 at 11:16 AM, during the resident counsel meeting in the dining room, Resident 19 was wearing the blue jeans with an elastic glove tied on the two belt loops to hold the jeans up to his waist. Resident 19 stood up from a chair and pants fell below his waist, showing his groin areas, then resident turned around to move a chair, showing his crack of his buttocks crack. Resident 19 pulled up his pants and tucked his sweater inside the jeans. During an observation on 2/12/25 PM at 12:04 PM, in the TV Room of the East Wing, Resident 19 was wearing the blue jeans with an elastic glove tied on the two belt loops holding the jeans up to his waist. Resident 19 ' s jeans was loose and felt below his waist, showing his buttocks crack. Resident 19 kept pulling up his jeans when walking. During an observation on 2/12/25 at 2:42 PM, Resident 19 stated he his jeans were falling off and he had to keep pulling them up in place. Resident 19 stated he wanted his pants to be properly fit. During an interview 02/12/25 at 2:43 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 stated Resident 19 likes to wear the same blue jeans every day and they were aware that his jeans was loose and does not fit well on him. CNA 1 stated because of the unfitted jeans, Resident 19 was prone to expose his private body parts in front of other residents, staff and visitors. CNA 1 stated they should do something to alter the waist of pants to ensure it was properly fit for the resident. CNA 1 stated they should not use a glove to tie the waist of the jeans to promote Resident 19 ' s dignity. During an interview on 2/14/25 at 12:16 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated the staff should provide properly fit clothing for the residents to preserve their dignity. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Rights-Quality of Life, dated 3/2017, indicated Each resident shall be cared for in a manner that promotes and enhances the quality of life, dignity, respect, individuality and receives services in a person-centered manner, as well as those that support the resident in attaining or maintaining his/her highest practicable well-being.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to be fully informed by the physician or other professio...

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 be fully informed by the physician or other professional in a language that he can understand for one of three residents reviewed for resident's rights (Resident 56) who signed a consent to receive psychotropic medications ( medications that affects mood and behavior) when: 1.The Health & Physical (H&P) assessment by physician indicated Resident 56 does not have the mental capacity to make medical decisions. 2. Psychiatric notes indicated Resident 56 had cognitive impairments such as loose associations (a thought disorder characterized by a lack of logical connection between ideas or thoughts) and distractibility (the tendency to be easily distracted by external or internal stimuli). The facility allowed the Resident 56 to making medical decision and signed informed consent without a surrogate decision-maker (a person that advocate for the resident) or an interdisciplinary team (IDT) meeting was not conducted to assist the resident with the decision about his healthcare. This deficient practice violated the resident ' s rights and placed Resident 56 to potentially put the resident at risk for receiving inappropriate medical care and lead to irreversible or serious harm. Findings: During a review of Resident 56 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), the facility admitted Resident 56 on 11/10/2023 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder a (mental health condition including schizophrenia and mood disorder symptoms), psychosis (severe mental disorder that cause abnormal thinking and perceptions) and bipolar disorder (a disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs). During a review of Resident 56 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 11/16/2025 indicated, Resident 56 does not have the mental capacity to make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 56's Medical Doctor (MD) notes, dated 1/13/2025, the MDs ' note indicated Resident 56 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 56's psychiatric notes, dated 1/22/2025, the psychiatric note indicated Resident 56 was easily distracted, loose associations (a mental process in which a person speaking quickly from one idea to an unrelated one) and positive for hallucinations (hearing voices when no one is there). During a review of Resident 56's Order Summary Report, dated 2/1/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated an order on 12/21/2024 to give Resident 56 Depakote (a medication used as mood stabilizer) 500 milligrams (mg) by mouth two times a day for bipolar disorder m/b (manifested by) mood liability. Seroquel Oral Tablet ([Quetiapine Fumarate- medication that treats schizophrenia and bipolar disorder]) Give 200 mg by mouth two times a day for schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type m/b auditory hallucination telling him to hurt others. During a review of Resident 56's informed consent dated 2/6/2025, indicated the Physician obtained an informed consent from Resident 56 for the use of Divalproex sodium. During a review of Resident 56's informed consent dated 2/6/2025, indicated the Physician obtained an informed consent from Resident 56 for the use of Seroquel. During a review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool) indicated Resident 56's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) Evaluation, dated 2/8/2025, indicated a total score of 8 indicating a cognitive (the ability to think and process information) impairment). During a review of Resident 56's psychological notes dated 02/11/2025, indicated Insight/Judgment was moderately impaired. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/13/2025 at 1:30PM with the Social Service Director (SSD), SSD stated Resident 56 ' s mental status assessment was not verified by the physician prior to obtaining informed consent. SSD stated that failing to verify accuracy in the mental status assessment before obtaining consent placed the resident at risk of making medical decisions without the ability to fully comprehend the consequences. SSD stated that if the resident lacks capacity and has no surrogate decision-maker, an Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) meeting must be arranged to determine the next steps. SSD stated there should have been a clear and consistent assessment of capacity across all medical documentation. SSD also stated that there was any doubt, a neuropsychological evaluation should have been ordered before obtaining informed consent. SSD was not able to locate the neurophysiological evaluation for Resident 56. During a review of Resident 56's neuropsychological evaluation (an assessment on how well your brain is functioning) notes, dated 2/14/2025, the Neurophysiological evaluation indicated Resident 56 does not have the capacity to make independent healthcare or financial decisions at this time given his major neurocognitive disorder. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Informed Consent, revised 2024, indicated the facility: Initial Determination of the Resident ' s Capacity and Identification of a Decision-maker a. The Resident ' s physician will determine the Resident ' s capacity to make decisions. b. If the Resident is determined to have capacity, the Resident may provide informed consent c. If the resident lacks capacity to provide informed consent, the surrogate decision maker will provide informed consent. d. If the resident lacks capacity to provide informed consent and does not have a surrogate decision-maker, the Facility will convene a Surrogate interdisciplinary team, IDT (refer to Procedure P-NP67B)
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to accommodate the needs of one of three residents review...

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 accommodate the needs of one of three residents reviewed for resident's rights, (Resident 119) in accordance with the facility ' s policy and procedure by failing to ensure the call light (a device used by residents to signal his or her needs for assistance) was within reach of the resident in Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] in the west wing. This deficient practice had the potential for residents who shared Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] in the west wing not able to call the facility staff to ask for help or assistance specially during emergency. Findings: During a review of Resident 119 ' s admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 119 on 9/11/2024 and readmitted him on 2/5/2025 with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a mental disorder characterized by disruptions in thought processes, perceptions, emotional responsiveness, and social interactions) and hypertension (high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 119's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 119 had intact cognition (ability to think and reasonably) and memory. The MDS indicated Resident 119 required setup or clean-up assistance with eating, and supervision or touching assistance with oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, personal hygiene and chair/bed-to-chair transfer. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/12/2025 at 2:25 PM with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, in Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] of the west wing, a call light switch lever was on the wall at the level of the head of door frame of Shower room [ROOM NUMBER]. CNA 1 was standing on the ground and stretched her left arm trying to reach the call light switch, but she could not reach. CNA 1 stated the call light switch was too high, and it was unreachable for residents who needed to use call light to ask for help. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/12/2025 at 2:36 PM with the Maintenance Staff, in Shower Rom 2 of the west wing, the Maintenance Staff stated the string or cord was supposed to attached to the call light switch lever and hanging down along the wall, so the residents could pull the string to activate the call light.The Maintenance Staff stated a short length of string should be attached to the call light switch lever or move the call light switch lever lower to make sure call light was reachable for residents. The Maintenance s Staff stated it was important to keep call lights, including the ones in the shower rooms, within reach for the residents, so they could ask for assistance in case of accident and emergency. During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 7 AM with Resident 119, Resident 119 stated he could feel safe if the call light was within reach in the shower room incase he needed help and he could call for help. During an interview on 2/14/25 at 12:21 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated all call lights, including the ones in the residents ' rooms, restrooms and shower rooms, should be within reach at all times to ensure residents ' needs and safety were met, especially during emergency. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure titled, Communication-Call System, dated 10/9/2024, indicated The Facility will maintain a communication system to allow residents to call for staff assistance from their rooms and toileting/bathing facilities and The Call alert device will be placed within the resident's reach.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed for right to priv...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of two residents reviewed for right to privacy (Resident 41 and 119) were provided with privacy when using the common restroom and common shower room by failing to ensure: The window in Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] in the [NAME] Wing had stained-glass window film peeling off which let other people in the patio look thorough the window and see the residents when in the shower room. The window in Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] in the East Wing ' s had stained-glass window film that were peeling off which let other residents, staffs and visitors from the patio see the residents when using the restroom. This failure violated the resident ' s rights for privacy and the potential to result in Resident 41 not wanting to shower because she was feeling unsafe and exposed when showering, and Resident 119 feeling uncomfortable using the restroom. This practice also had the potential for other residents ' privacy to be violated. Findings: 1. During a During a review of Resident 41 ' s admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 41 on 12/17/2024 with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder (a mental disorder characterized by disruptions in thought processes, perceptions, emotional responsiveness, and social interactions) and hyperlipidemia (a condition in which there are abnormally high levels of fats in the blood). During a review of Resident 41's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 12/24/2024, indicated Resident 41 had intact cognition (ability to think and reasonably) and memory. The MDS indicated Resident 41 required setup or clean-up assistance with eating, and supervision or touching assistance with oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, personal hygiene and chair/bed-to-chair transfer. During an observation on 2/11/2025 at 12:30 PM, in the Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] in the [NAME] Wing, the stained-glass window film on window next to the front patio were peeling off, which let the window become see through from the front patio. Some residents were observed walking in the front patio, passing by the window. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/12/25 2:29 PM with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1, in the Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] in the [NAME] Wing, CNA 1 stated the privacy window film on the window were peeling off and she did not remember for how long the film had been peeled off. CNA 1 stated female residents in the west wing used this shower room to shower. CNA 1 stated the Maintenance painted the windows yesterday. CNA 1 stated the window to the shower rooms and restrooms should not be see through to ensure residents ' privacy. 2. During a During a review of Resident 119 ' s admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 119 on 9/11/2024 and readmitted him on 2/5/2025 with diagnoses that included schizophrenia and hypertension (high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 119's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 119 had intact cognition (ability to think and reasonably) and memory. The MDS indicated Resident 119 required setup or clean-up assistance with eating, and supervision or touching assistance with oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, personal hygiene and chair/bed-to-chair transfer. During an observation on 2/11/2025 at 12:33 PM, patches of the privacy window film on the Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] in the East Wing ' s window were peeling off, which let the window become see through from the front patio. Some residents were observed walking in the front patio, passing by the window. During an interview on 2/12/2025 at 2:39 PM with the Maintenance, the Maintenance stated the residents shared Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] and Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] regularly. The Maintenance stated privacy window films on the windows of Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] in the [NAME] Wing and Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] in the East Wings were peeling off and he did not know for how long the privacy films had been peeled off, which caused these windows to become see through. The Maintenance stated the Housekeeper (HSKP) told him to paint over the privacy windows with paints yesterday, so he just painted them yesterday. The Maintenance stated the staff should fix the peeling privacy windows earlier to ensure residents ' privacy when they were showering and using the restroom. During an interview on 2/12/2025 at 4:34 PM with the HSKP, the HSKP stated to paint over the peeling privacy windows had been the facility's ongoing project since the privacy issue that was identified from the survey last year. The HSKP stated she just reminded the maintenance to paint over these windows yesterday. The HSKP stated they were aware that the privacy window films were peeling off for the windows in the restrooms and shower rooms before, but she did not know for how long it had been like that. The HSKP stated the staff should fix these windows in the restrooms and shower rooms earlier and make sure these windows were covered at all times to ensure residents' privacy. During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 6:58 AM with Resident 41, Resident 41 stated she always closed the window when she was showering so no one could see her naked. Resident 41 stated she could not see well and did not know the privacy film on the window in Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] in the [NAME] Wing was peeling off and anyone passing by could see through. Resident 41 stated if she knew it, she would not shower if someone could see through the window from the front patio when she was showering. Resident 41 stated she wanted her privacy. During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 6:59 AM with Resident 119, Resident 119 stated he would not be comfortable if other residents were able to peek through the window and watching him using the restroom. During an interview on 2/14/25 at 12:18 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated the windows in the restrooms and shower rooms should be covered and not seeing through at all times to protect residents ' privacy. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Rights, dated 1/2012, indicated State and federal laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of the Facility. These rights include, but are not limited to, a resident ' s right to .D. Privacy and confidentiality. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Resident Rights-Quality of Life, dated 3/2017, indicated Facility Staff promotes, maintains, and protects resident privacy, including bodily privacy, when assisting with personal care and during treatment procedures.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive resident specific care plan for two of twelve residents reviewed (Resident 68 and 11) by failing to e...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive resident specific care plan for two of twelve residents reviewed (Resident 68 and 11) by failing to ensure: 1. Resident 68's care plan was developed to address discharge planning before discharged from the facility on 12/2/2024. These deficient practices had the potential to result in confusion of Resident 68 ' s care and discharge process and negatively affect the resident's psychosocial wellbeing. 2. Resident 11's care plan was developed to address management and triggers for the Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD, a disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event). As a result of this deficient practice the resident did not received interventions to prevent and aggressive behaviors towards staffs and residents that could result in futher decline in psychosocial wellbeing. Findings: 1. During a review of Resident 68's Record of admission indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 68 on 10/10/2024 with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a mental disorder characterized by disruptions in thought processes, perceptions, emotional responsiveness, and social interactions) and depression (a common mental health condition characterized by persistent feelings of sadness, hopelessness, and loss of interest in activities). During a review of Resident 68's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 12/2/2024, indicated Resident 68 had intact cognition (ability to think and reasonably) and memory. The MDS indicated Resident 68 was independent with eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, personal hygiene and chair/bed-to-chair transfer. During a review of Resident 68's Baseline Care Plan, dated 10/11/2024, indicated social services goals was to maintain medication management and assist with safe discharge planning, and Resident 68 ' s placement assessment and social services to follow up and support as needed. During a review of Resident 68's Physician Order, dated 12/2/2024, indicated the physician ordered to discharge Resident 68 from the facility on 12/2/2024. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/14/2025 at 4:01 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), Resident 68 ' s care plan was reviewed. The ADON stated Resident 68 was discharged from the facility to a transition care facility on 12/2/2024, but the staff did not develop a comprehensive care plan to address his discharge planning before his discharge. The ADON stated the Social Services Director (SSD) was responsible to initiate the discharge care plan. The ADON stated the care plan for discharge planning was important because all the interdisciplinary team members could review it and intervene as the discharge plan indicated to ensure a smooth discharge process for the resident. During an interview on 2/14/2024 at 4:10 PM with the SSD, the SSD stated she only developed a baseline care plan when Resident 68 was admitted to the facility, but there were no specific interventions for his discharge. The SSD stated she did not develop a comprehensive care plan to address Resident 68 ' s discharge planning. The SSD stated it was important to develop a discharge planning care plan with specific goals and interventions for the resident to avoid confusion in the resident's care and discharge process. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, dated 9/7/2023, indicated All goals, objectives, interventions, etc. from the current baseline care plan will be included in the resident's comprehensive care plan. 2. A review of Resident 11 ' s admission Record, the facility admitted Resident 11 on 6/20/2023 and readmitted Resident 11 on 1/17/2025 with diagnoses which included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), schizophrenia (a mental illness that was characterized by disturbances in thought), bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression [mental health condition that caused persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest in activities] to elevated periods of emotional highs), and PTSD. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Letter of Conservatorship (a legal document that appointed a conservator to make decisions on behalf of another person), dated 12/16/2024, the Letter of Conservatorship indicated, Resident 11 was gravely disabled due to a mental health disorder and reappointed Family member (FM) 1 and FM 2 as Resident 11 ' s conservator. During a review of Resident 11 ' s care plans, initiated on 1/17/2025, the care plan indicated resident had a behavior problem related to schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. The care plan ' s interventions included to anticipate the resident ' s needs, assist the resident in developing healthy coping skills, and monitor behavior episodes and attempt to determine underlying cause. During a review of Resident 11 ' s H&P, dated 1/18/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 11 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Baseline Care Plan document, dated 1/20/2025, the document indicated Resident 11 was admitted with diagnoses that included schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, PTSD, anxiety (increase feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), depression, auditory and visual hallucination, suicidal ideation (SI, intrusive thoughts about death and dying oneself ), homicidal ideation (HI, intrusive thoughts of harming another person ), and substance abuse. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 1/24/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 11 was cognitively intact and hallucinated. The MDS indicated Resident 11 had anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and PTSD. The MDS indicated Resident 11 was taking antipsychotics and antidepressants on a routine basis. During a review of Resident 11 ' s care plan, initiated on 1/24/2025, the care plan indicated resident prefers to keep type of trauma private to avoid re-traumatization. The care plan ' s interventions included encourage resident ' s family ' s involvement, report psychological distress to the nurse, and to review resident ' s coping skills as much as possible. During a telephone interview on 2/14/2025 at 9:39AM with Family Member (FM) 1, FM 1 stated Resident 11 had a history of childhood trauma and PTSD. FM 1 stated, the facility never asked her about Resident 11 ' s history of PTSD and childhood trauma. FM 1 stated, Resident 11 has serious deep trauma and fear of particular gender. FM 1 stated, the facility only treated Resident 11 for the voices in his head but never addressed the deep trauma Resident 11 experienced. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 3:33PM with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated any resident within the facility could have experienced some type of trauma in their past that may trigger the resident and re-traumatize them. During a concurrent record review and interview on 2/14/2025 at 3:33PM with RN 1, Resident 11 ' s care plan regarding Resident 11 ' s behavioral problems related to his schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and PTSD was reviewed. RN 1 stated, Resident 11 did not need another care plan related to his PTSD diagnosis because his PTSD has already been addressed in the care plan related to his behavioral problems. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 4:07PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated, it was expected that the staff create a separate care plan that addressed Resident 11 ' s PTSD. The ADON stated, the care plan created a guideline of how to care for the resident. The ADON stated, a care plan was important for a resident with PTSD because a care plan helps dictate the resident ' s care, how to deal with the resident ' s behaviors, and identify possible triggers that may re-traumatize the resident. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedures titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, dated 8/24/2023, the P&P indicated the baseline care plan should address resident-specific health and safety concerns to prevent decline or injury and would identify needs for supervision, behavioral interventions, and assistance with activities of daily living, as necessary. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, dated 8/24/2023, the P&P indicated the baseline care plan must reflect the resident ' s objectives and include interventions that address their needs to promote continuity of care and communication among nursing home staff, increase resident safety, and safeguard against adverse events. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, dated 8/24/2023, the P&P indicated additional changes or updates to the resident comprehensive care plan will be made based on the assessed needs of the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide one of four residents that was reviewed for t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide one of four residents that was reviewed for trauma informed care, (Resident 11) who was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD, a disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event) with culturally competent (cultural competence involves valuing diversity, conducting self-assessments, avoiding stereotypes, managing the dynamics of difference, acquiring and institutionalizing cultural knowledge, and adapting to diversity and cultural contexts in communities), trauma-informed care (an approach to delivering care that involves understanding, recognizing and responding to the effects of all types of trauma) according to professional standards of practice and accounting for the resident ' s experience and preferences to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause the resident ' s re-traumatization. This failure resulted in Resident 11 experiencing re-traumatization and increased visual and auditory hallucinations (perceptual experiences in the absence of real external sensory stimuli) and paranoid delusions (misconceptions or beliefs that were firmly held, contrary to reality) of homophobia (irrational fear, hatred, or intolerance of people who are homosexual, lesbian community) that resulted in multiple hospitalization transfers to the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH). This failure had the potential to endanger the health, safety, welfare, dignity, and respect of Resident 11, other residents, and all staff members of the facility. Findings: During a review of Resident 11 ' s admission Record, the facility admitted Resident 11 on 6/20/2023 and readmitted Resident 11 on 1/17/2025 with diagnoses which included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), schizophrenia (a mental illness that was characterized by disturbances in thought), bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression [mental health condition that caused persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest in activities] to elevated periods of emotional highs), and PTSD. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS, resident assessment tool), dated 6/27/2023, Resident 11 ' s cognitive (a person ' s mental process of thinking, learning, remembering, and using judgement) skills were slight impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 11 experienced hallucinations. The MDS indicated Resident 11 ' s active diagnoses included schizophrenia, and there was no documented evidence Resident 11 had an active diagnosis of PTSD. The MDS indicated Resident 11 received antipsychotic (medications used to treat mental health conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and depression) medication on a routine basis. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Social Services Assessment document, dated 6/27/2023, the document indicated Resident 11 did have a history of recent trauma in the form of grief, separation, or death. This document indicated there was no documented evidence Resident 11 ' s triggers. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Psychiatric Evaluation and Assessment document, dated 7/25/2023, written by Psychiatrist 1, indicated Resident 11 had paranoid delusions of someone putting a penis up his rectum (the final section of the large intestine that stored stool until it passed out of the body through the anus). The document indicated Resident 11 had auditory and visual hallucinations of cartoon bugs saying, he is going to take his manhood. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Psychological Consultation document, dated 8/11/2023, written by Psychologist 1, the document indicated Resident 11 recounted several events varying from childhood abuse, exposure to domestic violence, and chopping up people with [NAME] when I was five. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Application for Assessment, Evaluation, and Crisis Intervention or Placement for Evaluation and Treatment (MH 302 NCR) document, dated 1/9/2024, Resident 11 ' s conservator (a legally chosen person to act or make decisions for another person who needs help) had contacted the police due to Resident 11 ' s increased aggressive behaviors. The document indicated the conservator stated Resident 11 paced around the house, slamming doors, breaking household items, and was paranoid his family was stealing his money. The document indicated the conservator stated Resident 11 had hit a family member in the face. During a review of Resident 11 ' s MH 203 NCR, dated 1/9/2024, the document indicated Resident 11 denied hitting anyone and stated, I am being persecuted by men, gay (a person who was sexually or romantically attracted to people of the same gender or sex) men are trying to rape me every day. The document indicated Resident 1 stated men are troubling me; they are racist against straight people. During a review of Resident 11 ' s GACH 1 Inpatient Psych Progress Note (Final Report), dated 1/12/2024, this Final Report was written by Psychiatrist 2, indicated during the Resident 11 ' s examination, Resident 11 complained to the staff that men outside of the hospital think he is gay. The Final report indicated Resident 11 stated men accuse me of looking and dressing like I am gay and denied that anyone in his family molested (unwanted or improper sexual advances towards someone) Resident 11. The Final Report indicated Resident 11 stated all gay men want to do is have sex with men. During a review of Resident 11 ' s GACH 1 Psych Inpatient Progress Note (Progress Note), dated 4/10/2024, written by Medical Student 1 under Psychiatrist 3, the Progress Note indicated Resident 11 self-reported he was molested by his father (mother not sure if patient as in fact molested by father, but does describe father as a pedophile [a person who was sexually attracted to children]), patient frequently reports delusions and visual hallucinations surrounding sexual assault (sexual contact or behavior without the explicit consent of the other person) and being targeted by homosexual men, raising concern for complex PTSD. The Progress Note indicated, Resident 11 reported daily substance use, but Resident 11 continued to have delusions and hallucinations even when not using substances, which decreased the likelihood of Resident 11 having purely substance-induced psychotic disorder. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Multidisciplinary Care Conference document, dated 4/18/2024 and 7/18/2024, the document indicated Resident 11 ' s non-pharmacological intervention were activities. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Baseline Care Plan document, dated 4/19/2024, the document indicated Resident 11 was admitted with diagnoses that included schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, PTSD, auditory and visual hallucinations, and polysubstance abuse (the use of multiple drugs or substances at the same time). The document indicated the Social Services goals included Resident 11 maintaining psychosocial well-being. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Trauma Inform Care Assessment document, dated 4/19/2024, the document indicated Resident 11 did not experience any event that was unusually or especially frightening, horrible, or traumatic. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Social Services Assessment document, dated 4/21/2024, the document indicated Resident 11 did not have a history of recent trauma. During a review of Resident 11 ' s MDS, dated [DATE], Resident 11 ' s was cognitively intact, and Resident 11 had hallucinations. The MDS indicated Resident 11 had bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and PTSD. The MDS indicated Resident 11 was taking antipsychotics. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Initial Psychiatric Evaluation, dated 4/25/2024, written by Psychiatrist 1, the document indicated Resident 11 had paranoid schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and psychotic disorder with auditory and visual hallucinations. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Psychological Consultation document, dated 5/31/2024, written by Psychologist 1, the document indicated Resident 11 self-reported he had traumatic history. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Interdisciplinary Team (IDT, a collaborative approach from multiple medical disciplines who work together towards the goal of the residents) Note, dated 6/24/2024, the IDT note indicated Resident had been having visual and auditory hallucinations, and Resident 11 stated that he was heterosexual and did not want to be perceived as a different sexual orientation (the emotional, romantic, or sexual attract a person feels towards another person). During a review of Resident 11 ' s Psychological Evaluation and Consultation (Psychology Evaluation), dated 6/25/2024, written by Psychologist 1, the Psychology Evaluation indicated Resident 11 self-reported a history of trauma-related symptoms. The Psychology Evaluation indicated Resident 11 vaguely endorsed past childhood emotional abuse directed at by him family members. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Quarterly Social Services Progress Notes, dated 7/17/2024 and 10/13/2024, the progress notes indicated Resident 11 did not experience any trauma. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Multidisciplinary Care Conference document, dated 10/22/2024, the document indicated Resident 11 will attend the activities of his choice and use his headphones as a non-pharmacological intervention. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Letter of Conservatorship (a legal document that appointed a conservator to make decisions on behalf of another person), dated 12/16/2024, the Letter of Conservatorship indicated, Resident 11 was gravely disabled due to a mental health disorder and reappointed Family member (FM) 1 and FM 2 as Resident 11 ' s conservator. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Change in Condition Evaluation (CoC), dated 1/2/2025, the CoC indicated Resident 11 was experiencing an increase of delusions and auditory hallucinations manifested by Resident 11 yelling that people were stealing his money and trying to make him gay. The CoC indicated the Psychiatrist 1 was notified and recommended Risperdal (antipsychotic medication that treats mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder) 4 milligrams (mg, unit of mass) twice a day. During a review of Resident 11 ' s CoC, dated 1/9/2025, the CoC indicated Resident 11 continued to have increase hallucinations and physical aggression. The CoC indicated Resident 11 ' s Primary Care Physican (PMD) 1 was notified and recommended Resident 11 be transferred to GACH 2. During a review of Resident 11 ' s care plans, initiated on 1/17/2025, the care plan indicated resident had a behavior problem related to schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. The care plan ' s interventions included anticipate the resident ' s needs, assist the resident in developing healthy coping skills, and monitor behavior episodes and attempt to determine underlying cause. During a review of Resident 11 ' s History and Physical (H&P, a comprehensive physician ' s note regarding the assessment of the resident ' s health status), dated 1/18/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 11 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Social Services Progress Notes, dated 1/20/2025, the progress notes indicated Resident 11 did not experience any trauma. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Baseline Care Plan document, dated 1/20/2025, the document indicated Resident 11 was admitted with diagnoses that included schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, PTSD, anxiety (increase feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), depression, auditory and visual hallucination, suicidal ideation (SI, intrusive thoughts about death and dying oneself ), homicidal ideation (HI, intrusive thoughts of harming another person ), and substance abuse. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Multidisciplinary Care Conference document, dated 1/20/2025, the document indicated Resident 11 will be encouraged to attend the activities of his choice as his non-pharmacological intervention. During a review of Resident 11 ' s MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 11 was cognitively intact and hallucinated. The MDS indicated Resident 11 had anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and PTSD. The MDS indicated Resident 11 was taking antipsychotics and antidepressants on a routine basis. During a review of Resident 11 ' s care plan, initiated on 1/24/2025, the care plan indicated resident prefers to keep type of trauma private to avoid re-traumatization. The care plan ' s interventions included encourage resident ' s family ' s involvement, report psychological distress to the nurse, and to review resident ' s coping skills as much as possible. During a review of Resident 11 ' s CoC, dated 1/30/2024, the CoC indicated Resident 11 had increased agitation and physical and verbal aggression towards staff. The CoC indicated PMD 1 was notified and recommended to continue monitoring Resident 11. During an observation on 2/11/2025 at 11:09AM in the facility ' s locked front patio, Resident 11 was wearing personal clothes standing still, arguing and talking to himself, and leaning forward. During and observation on 2/12/2025 at 1:20PM in the facility ' s hallway connecting the enclosed locked front patio and the enclosed locked back patio, Resident 11 was seen yelling at the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON attempted to de-escalate and redirect Resident 11 back to his room. Resident 11 yelled, you probably just want to fuck me in the ass (impolite term that may refer to the buttocks) you faggot (a slur used to refer to gay men or other people of the queer community)!, while Resident 11 walked down the hallway back to his room with other staff members following him. During an observation on 2/13/2025 at 8:30AM in the facility ' s television room, Resident 11 was standing calmly and quietly in line waiting to receive his morning medications from the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN, unable to identify). During a telephone interview on 2/14/2025 at 9:39AM with FM 1, FM 1 stated Resident 11 had a history of childhood trauma and PTSD. FM 1 stated, the facility never asked her about Resident 11 ' s history of PTSD and childhood trauma. FM 1 stated, Resident 11 had serious deep trauma and homophobia. FM 1 stated, the facility only treated Resident 11 for the voices in his head but never addressed the deep trauma Resident 11 experienced. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 3:00PM with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2, CNA 2 stated that she did not know about any residents with PTSD. CNA 5 stated, if a resident became aggressive, she would try to redirect the resident, call for the charge nurse, and ask for help. CNA 5 stated, Resident 11 was normally quiet but if someone asked him to do something and he was in a bad mood, Resident 11 would respond in an agitated tone and loud voice and ask to be left alone. CNA 5 stated, Resident 11 would yell fuck and other curse words when he was angry towards the CNAs and LVNs. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 3:33PM with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated, any of the residents within the facility could have experienced some type of trauma in their past that would trigger and re-traumatize them. RN 3 stated, he would redirect, provide reassurance, and adopt a calm and assertive voice for any resident within the facility. RN 3 stated, he was unaware of any resident who had PTSD as a diagnosis. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/14/2025 at 3:33PM with RN 1, Resident 11 ' s admission Record was reviewed. The admission Record indicated Resident 11 was diagnosed with PTSD on 4/17/2024. RN 3 stated, Resident 11 had an official diagnosis of PTSD but cannot recall if Resident 11 had any triggers. RN 3 stated, Resident 11 would make homophobic comment such as you faggot, you like to take it in the ass, and you ' re a fucking homo (slur for a gay person), and curse words such as fuck and fuck you when he was angry towards male staff members. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/14/2025 at 3:33PM with RN 3, Resident 11 ' s CoC, dated 2/12/2025 was reviewed. The CoC indicated, Resident 11 was having behavioral changes. RN 3 stated, Resident 11 was verbally aggressive, making himself bigger, and attempted to hit staff members and other residents. RN 3 stated, the PMD 1 recommended Resident 11 to be transferred to GACH 2. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 3:45PM with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated, the staff should assess the resident with a PTSD diagnosis for their triggers. The ADM stated, if a resident refused to disclose their trauma and if the resident had a family member or a conservator, the staff should contact the resident ' s family members or conservator to assess the resident ' s trauma and their triggers. The ADM stated, if there was no available family member or conservator, it was the responsibility of the facility to continue to assess for the resident ' s triggers and to prevent exposure to the resident. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 4:07PM with the ADON, the ADON stated, it was important to assess a PTSD resident for their triggers. The ADON stated, it was important to know the resident ' s triggers to prevent the resident from harming himself, other residents, and staff members. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedures (P&P) titled Trauma Informed Care - Screening, Training, and Care Integration Program, revised 7/10/2019, the P&P indicated the facility will ensure PTSD residents will receive culturally competent trauma informed care and consider the resident ' s experience and preferences to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident. The P&P indicated the types of traumas included but were not limited to traumatic grief or separation and witness to domestic or community violence. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled Trauma Informed Care - Screening, Training, and Care Integration Program, revised 7/10/2019, the P&P indicated if the resident or responsible party does not want to disclose the traumatic event or circumstances, the IDT will not proceed to care planning, but Social Services will discuss it with the resident or responsible party during their quarterly or change of condition review. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled Trauma Informed Care - Screening, Training, and Care Integration Program, revised 7/10/2019, the P&P indicated the IDT will implement a plan of care to address potential trauma triggers and prevent re-traumatization. The P&P indicated that trauma - informed interventions were interdisciplinary and must look at all aspects of care; including the environment, relationship, and care delivery. The P&P indicated, if the resident refused to talk about their traumatic experience, the IDT must focus on triggers and interventions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary behavioral health care and services for one of four residents reviewed (Resident 11) to attain or maint...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide the necessary behavioral health care and services for one of four residents reviewed (Resident 11) to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being which encompassed the resident's whole emotional and mental well-being. This failure resulted in Resident 11's, who was diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome (PTSD, a disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event), continued behavior of agitation, yelling, and attempts to hit staff members. Cross reference with F699 and F726 Findings: During a review of Resident 11 ' s admission Record, the facility admitted Resident 11 on 6/20/2023 and readmitted Resident 11 on 1/17/2025 with diagnoses which included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), schizophrenia (a mental illness that was characterized by disturbances in thought), bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression [mental health condition that caused persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest in activities] to elevated periods of emotional highs), and PTSD. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Social Services Assessment document, dated 6/27/2023, the document indicated Resident 11 did have a history of recent trauma in the form of grief, separation, or death. This document indicated there was no documented evidence Resident 11 ' s triggers. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Letter of Conservatorship (a legal document that appointed a conservator to make decisions on behalf of another person), dated 12/16/2024, the Letter of Conservatorship indicated, Resident 11 was gravely disabled due to a mental health disorder and reappointed Family member (FM) 1 and FM 2 as Resident 11 ' s conservator. During a review of Resident 11 ' s care plans, initiated on 1/17/2025, the care plan indicated resident had a behavior problem related to schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. The care plan ' s interventions included anticipate the resident ' s needs, assist the resident in developing healthy coping skills, and monitor behavior episodes and attempt to determine underlying cause. During a review of Resident 11 ' s History and Physical (H&P, a comprehensive physician ' s note regarding the assessment of a resident ' s health status), dated 1/18/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 11 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Baseline Care Plan document, dated 1/20/2025, the document indicated Resident 11 was admitted with diagnoses that included schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, PTSD, anxiety (increase feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), depression, auditory and visual hallucination, suicidal ideation (SI, intrusive thoughts about death and dying oneself ), homicidal ideation (HI, intrusive thoughts of harming another person ), and substance abuse. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment), dated 1/24/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 11 was cognitively intact and had hallucinations. The MDS indicated Resident 11 had anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and PTSD. The MDS indicated Resident 11 was taking antipsychotics and antidepressants on a routine basis. During a review of Resident 11 ' s care plan, initiated on 1/24/2025, the care plan indicated resident prefers to keep type of trauma private to avoid re-traumatization. The care plan ' s interventions included encourage resident ' s family ' s involvement, report psychological distress to the nurse, and to review resident ' s coping skills as much as possible. During an observation on 2/11/2025 at 11:09AM in the facility ' s locked front patio, Resident 11 was wearing personal clothes standing still, arguing and talking to himself, and leaning forward. During and observation on 2/12/2025 at 1:20PM in the facility ' s hallway connecting the enclosed locked front patio and the enclosed locked back patio, Resident 11 was seen yelling at the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON). The ADON attempted to de-escalate and redirect Resident 11 back to his room. Resident 11 yelled, you probably just want to fuck me in the ass (impolite term that may refer to the buttocks) you faggot (a slur used to refer to gay men or other people of the queer community)!, while Resident 11 walked down the hallway back to his room with other staff members following him. During a telephone interview on 2/14/2025 at 9:39AM with FM 1, FM 1 stated Resident 11 had a history of childhood trauma and PTSD. FM 1 stated, the facility never asked her about Resident 11 ' s history of PTSD and childhood trauma. FM 1 stated, Resident 11 had serious deep trauma and homophobia. FM 1 stated, the facility only treated Resident 11 for the voices in his head but never addressed the deep trauma Resident 11 experienced. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 3:00PM with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 2, CNA 2 stated that she did not know about any residents with PTSD. CNA 5 stated, Resident 11 was normally quiet but if someone asked him to do something and he was in a bad mood, Resident 11 would respond in an agitated and loud voice and ask to be left alone. CNA 5 stated, Resident 11 would yell fuck and other curse words when he was angry towards the CNAs and Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs). During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/14/2025 at 3:33PM with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, Resident 11 ' s admission Record was reviewed. The admission Record indicated Resident 11 was diagnosed with PTSD on 4/17/2024. RN 3 stated, Resident 11 had an official diagnosis of PTSD. RN 3 stated, Resident 11 would make homophobic comment such as you faggot, you like to take it in the ass, and you ' re a fucking homo (slur for a gay person), and curse words such as fuck and fuck you when he was angry towards male staff members. During an interview on 2/14/2024 at 3:45PM with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated, it was important to assess a resident with a diagnosis of PTSD for their triggers to prevent exposure to the resident and to prevent re-traumatization. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 4:07PM with the ADON, the ADON stated, it was important to identify a PTSD resident ' s triggers to prevent re-traumatization. The ADON stated, it was important to identify a PTSD resident ' s triggers because if the resident was re-triggered, the resident may be harmful to himself, other residents, and the staff members. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Behavior/Psychoactive Medication Management, revised 1/25/2025, the P&P indicated if a resident exhibits mood or behavior problems upon admission, assessment will be conducted to address the resident ' s mood or behavioral status. The P&P indicated, the facility will identify the contributing factors related to the resident ' s mood/behavior and the non-medication interventions to be implemented. The P&P indicated, the Behavior Management/Psychoactive Review Committee will review the effectiveness of non-medication interventions.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents (Resident 28) does not receive Bactrim (Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim an antibiotics or medicati...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of three residents (Resident 28) does not receive Bactrim (Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim an antibiotics or medication used to treat infection) unnecessarily by indicating in the physician's order how long the medication should be administered. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 28 to develop antibiotic resistance (medication not effective to treat infection) and results in adverse reaction (undesirable effect) health outcomes. Findings: During a review of Resident 28 ' s admission Record (Face Sheet), the facility admitted Resident 28 on 5/30/2024 with diagnoses that included heart failure (failure of the heart to meet the body ' s demand), asthma (a chronic lung condition that causes inflammation and narrowing of the airways, making it difficult to breathe), schizophrenia (is a serious mental health condition that affects how people think, feel and behave) and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). During a review of Resident 28 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/2/2024 indicated, Resident 28 does not have the mental capacity to make medical decisions. During a review of Resident 28's Minimum Data Set (MDS-a federally mandated resident assessment tool), dated 12/3/2024, indicated the resident ' s cognitive (the ability to think and process information) skills for daily decisions making was moderately impaired, and needed Setup or clean-up assistance from the staff for the activities of daily living. During a review of Resident 28's Order Summary Report (a physician ' s order), dated 2/14/2025, the Order Summary Report indicated an order on 5/31/2024 to give Resident 28 Bactrim DS Oral Tablet 800-160 MG (Sulfamethoxazole-Trimethoprim a medication used to treat infection) give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for HIV (Human Immunodeficiency Virus. It is a virus that attacks the body's immune system) without the stop date or how long the medication will be administered. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/14/25 at 12:21 PM, with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), IPN stated Resident 28 had been receiving Bactrim since admission to the facility due to a diagnosis of HIV. IPN stated, she was not aware that the resident was still receiving the antibiotic, as there was no documented end date for the prescription. IPN stated that Resident 28 remained on the antibiotic for an extended period, significantly exceeding the recommended 14-day course for Bactrim. IPN stated prolonged use of antibiotic can cause resistance to the antibiotic. IPN stated she will contact the physician to discontinue the antibiotic, as it had been prescribed for nearly a year without reassessment. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Antibiotic Stewardship , revised 2021, indicated The Facility will implement an Antibiotic Stewardship Program (ASP) to promote appropriate use of antibiotics optimizing the treatment of infection, reducing the threat of antibiotic resistance, reducing adverse events associated with antibiotic use and improve outcomes for Residents.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0726 (Tag F0726)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate competencies in skills and techniques necessary to care for one of one resident (Resident 11) reviewed for competent nu...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide appropriate competencies in skills and techniques necessary to care for one of one resident (Resident 11) reviewed for competent nursing staff to care for resident with a diagnosis of Post-Trauma Stress Syndrome (PTSD, a disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a traumatic event) that was identified through the resident assessments. This failure resulted in Resident 11 not receiving the appropriate skills related to his trauma and PTSD as identified through his resident assessments. This failure resulted in the staff not receiving the appropriate competencies and skill set needed to care for residents with trauma or PTSD to ensure resident safety and to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the resident. Findings: During a review of Resident 11 ' s admission Record, the facility admitted Resident 11 on 6/20/2023 and readmitted Resident 11 on 1/17/2025 with diagnoses which included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior), schizophrenia (a mental illness that was characterized by disturbances in thought), bipolar disorder (sometimes called manic-depressive disorder; mood swings that range from the lows of depression [mental health condition that caused persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest in activities] to elevated periods of emotional highs), and PTSD. During a review of Resident 11 ' s History and Physical (H&P, a comprehensive physician ' s note regarding the assessment of the resident ' s health status), dated 1/18/2025, the H&P indicated Resident 11 did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 11 ' s Minimum Date Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 1/24/2025, the MDS indicated Resident 11 was cognitively intact and hallucinated. The MDS indicated Resident 11 had anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and PTSD. The MDS indicated Resident 11 was taking antipsychotics and antidepressants on a routine basis. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 2:38PM with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated she did not have any in-services related to trauma or PTSD. The DSD stated, their behavioral management in-services did not include PTSD. The DSD stated, the list of topics to for Certified Nurse Assistants (CNAs) in-services did not include PTSD. The DSD stated, she did not bring up the topic of PTSD or trauma-informed care to the Administrator (ADM) or the Director of Nursing (DON). The DSD stated, if the corporate specialist requested for PTSD in-services, she would provide the in-service. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 3:00PM with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated she cannot recall if she received an in-service on trauma or PTSD. CNA 2 stated she does not know any resident diagnosed with PTSD. CNA 2 stated, when Resident 11 was in a bad mood and talking to himself, she would report Resident 11 ' s behavior to the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) Charge Nurse. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 3:10PM with CNA 3, CNA 3 stated she had not been trained how to care for a resident with trauma or PTSD. CNA 3 stated, she was not aware of any resident diagnosed with trauma or PTSD. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 3:15PM with CNA 4, CNA 4 stated she did not receive any in-services or related to trauma or PTSD. CNA 4 stated, she was not aware of any resident who had trauma or PTSD within the facility. CNA 4 stated, it was very important to know how to care for residents with PTSD to avoid triggering their trauma. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 3:33PM with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated there are always in-services related to behavioral symptoms. RN 1 stated, he may have received an in-service maybe once in the past year related to trauma and PTSD. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 4:07PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated it was important to learn how to handle with a PTSD resident ' s behavior when their trauma has been triggered. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedures (P&P) titled Trauma-Informed Care - Screening, Training, and Care Integration Program, revised 7/10/2019, the P&P indicated staff will be educated as to the specific needs of the residents who have experienced trauma. The P&P indicated that re-traumatization means unintentionally causing harm through practice, policies, and/or activities that are incentive to the needs of the resident. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled Trauma-Informed Care - Screening, Training, and Care Integration Program, revised 7/10/2019, the P&P indicated, the staff will received trauma-informed care training regarding the core principles of trauma-informed care. These principles include, but are not limited to: -What and how of Trauma Care -The impact of Trauma on the Brain -Understanding Trauma; Chronic vs. Acute -Creating an Environment of Safety and Security -Strategies for Early Identification of Trauma -PTSD and Psychiatric Disorders -Approaches to minimize triggers -Relationship between trauma and substance abuse. During a review of the facility ' s Facility Assessment, revised 12/18/2024, the Facility Assessment indicated common psychiatric, or mood disorders diagnoses included PTSD. The Facility Assessment indicated, specific care practices related to mental health and behavior included identifying and implementing interventions to help support residents with issues such as trauma or PTSD. The Facility Assessment indicated the Staffing training/education and competencies section included competencies specific for caring for residents who have mental and psychosocial disorders, as well as residents with a history of trauma and/or PTSD and implementing non-pharmacological interventions.
CONCERN (E)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to post nurse staffing information daily in a prominent location that was readily accessible to residents and visitors for viewin...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to post nurse staffing information daily in a prominent location that was readily accessible to residents and visitors for viewing in accordance with the facility's policy and procedure titled Nursing Department - Staffing, Scheduling & Postings. This deficient practice resulted in inaccessibility of the accurate daily number of clinical staff giving direct care to the residents. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview in the presence with the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) on 2/13/2025 at 9:50 AM, there was no visible daily nurse staffing information posted. The ADON stated, there should be Nurse Staffing Postings readily accessible and visible for the residents and visitors. The ADON stated, the Director of Staff Development (DSD) was responsible for posting the staff information daily at the beginning of the shift. During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 10 AM with the DSD, the DSD stated, she posted the nurse staffing information on the visiting window for only the visitors to view. The DSD stated, the facility ' s residents did not have access to the window so they would not be able to view it. The DSD stated, she did not know that the residents should have access to the nurse staffing information. During an interview on 2/14/2025 at 3:50 AM with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated, it was the resident right to be informed about the nurse staffing information so the postings should be accessible for viewing in the residents ' area. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Nursing Department - Staffing, Scheduling & Postings, revised 2018, the P&P indicated, Nurse Staffing Postings must be in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility ' s proper sanitation and food handling practices by failing to ensure the Dietary Aide 1 (DA 1) adhere to...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow the facility ' s proper sanitation and food handling practices by failing to ensure the Dietary Aide 1 (DA 1) adhere to properly securing hair with the hairnet without any hair exposed when assisting tray line ( process of preparing meals for the residents from the food preparation area to the meal trays) for 69 out of 69 residents residing in the facility. This deficient practice had the potential to result in foodborne illnesses (also called food poisoning caused by eating contaminated food (transfer of bacteria, viruses, toxins [poisons] from the environment to the food ingested). Findings: During a dining observation on 2/13/25 12:19 PM, the DA 1 had hair exposed outside and visible outside of the hairnet while assisting the cook with the preparation of the meal rays. In a concurrent interview DA 1 stated it was important to secure all hair within the hairnet to prevent contamination and the risks of infection or illness associated with exposed hair that could contaminate the food being prepared. During an interview on 2/13/25 12:29 PM, [NAME] 1 stated that while DA 1 wore a hairnet, they had not the kitchen staffs had to ensured that all the hair was properly contained, allowing some no hair to be exposed. The cook stated the risks associated with this deficiency, including the potential for contamination in food preparation areas and the facility ' s compliance with health and safety regulations. During an interview on 2/14/25 2:29 PM with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated whoever enters the kitchen should be wearing hair net and to ensure no hair was exposed. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures titled, Dietary Department - Infection Control, revised in 2024, indicated Cover hair, beard, and mustache with an effective hair restraint, such as hats, hair coverings, or nets while in any kitchen and food storage areas.
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 provide proper infection control practices for 69 of 69 sampled resident by failing to ensure the facility's Water Management...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide proper infection control practices for 69 of 69 sampled resident by failing to ensure the facility's Water Management Program followed the approved national, state, and local measures to prevent and monitor the growth of Legionella (water-borne opportunistic bacteria) These failures had the potential to contribute to poor infection control, improper cleaning and disinfection of the resident's clothing and linens, growth of Legionella within the facility's water system which can lead to Legionnaires' disease (a serious pneumonia [lung infection] that can be fatal) which would affect all the residents and staff within the facility, and potential to cause a facility fire by not tracking when lint screens were cleaned out from the clothes dryer. Findings: During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 10AM with the IP, the IP stated the facility does not test for Legionella unless there were 10 or more cases of pneumonia in the facility because testing for Legionella was very costly. The IP stated, there were five water heaters throughout the facility and the water heaters were flushed once a month, usually at the beginning of the month. During a concurrent record review and interview on 2/13/2025 at 10:00AM with the IP, the facility ' s Water Heater Legionella Management Plan for November 2024, December 2024, and January 2025 were reviewed. The Water Heater Legionella Management Plan indicated the water heaters by the Breakroom, East Wing, [NAME] Wing, Laundry, and Kitchen were documented evidence under good and there was no documented evidence bad. The IP stated she did not know what good or bad meant. The IP stated the last time the facility ' s water heaters were checked was in January 2025. The IP stated it looked like the facility ' s water heaters had not been flushed for February 2025. During a concurrent record review and interview on 2/13/2025 at 3:30PM with the IP, the facility ' s Water Management Plan, revised 2/6/2024, was reviewed. The IP indicated the facility ' s Water Management Plan did not have anything specific to legionella water management. The IP stated, she did not know if the Legionella Water Management Plan was based on a national standard. The IP stated, she did not know what Maintenance meant by flush the boilers. The IP stated, I go by what Maintenance and MS tell me. During a record review of Direct Supply TELS. Work History Report, dated for January and February 2025, the document indicated on 11/30/2024, 12/31/2024, and 1/31/2025, Maintenance marked the task description of water heater: flush to remove impurities, test pressure relief valve was marked done. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/13/2025 with the IP, the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Water Management, revised 5/25/2023, was reviewed. The P&P indicated the facility will survey the facility using a risk assessment to determine its risk for Legionella growth and spread. The IP stated, she did not know about a risk assessment. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled Water Management, revised on 5/25/2023, the P&P indicated the facility will develop and utilize water management strategies, using the Core Elements of a Water Management Plan, to reduce the risk of growth and spread of Legionella and other opportunistic water-borne pathogens in facility water systems. The P&P indicated the facility will follow national, state, and local guidelines to determine control measures based on the risk assessment and how to monitor them. During a review of the facility ' s P&P titled Water Management, revised on 5/25/2023, the P&P indicated physical and chemical measures recommended by the American Association of Heating Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASRAE) that may be applied for the prevention and control of Legionella include, but are not limited to: Quarterly measurement of water quality throughout the system to ensure charges that may lead to Legionella growth are not occurring. Quarterly maintenance and monitor of disinfectant and other chemical levels in cooling towers and hot tubs. During a review of the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) document titled Developing a Water Management Program to Reduce Legionella Growth & Spread in Buildings, dated 6/24/2021, the document indicated it was important to: Identify building water systems for which Legionella control measures are needed Assess how much risk the hazardous conditions in those water systems pose Apply control measures to reduce the hazardous conditions, whenever possible, to prevent Legionella Growth and spread. Make sure the program is running as designed and is effective. During a review of the State Operational Manual (SOM), revised 8/8/2024, the SOM indicated the facility must be able to demonstrate its measures to minimize the risk of Legionella and other opportunistic pathogens in building water system such as by having a documented water management program. The SOM indicated the water management plan must be based on national accepted standards, for example the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air Conditioning Engineers, the CDC, and the U.S Environmental Protection Agency. The SOM indicated, the control measures may include visible inspections, use of disinfectant, and temperature. The SOM indicated, monitoring such controls include testing protocols for control measures, acceptable range, and documenting the results of testing and should also include established ways to intervene when control limits are not met.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, and sanitary environment for 69 or 69 residents, staff and the public by failing to: 1. Ensure t...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, functional, and sanitary environment for 69 or 69 residents, staff and the public by failing to: 1. Ensure the facility's washing machine Lint Cleaning Log for 2/12/2025 and 2/13/2025 were completely filled out to indicate the facility's lint screens (lint trap, a device that catches lint and debris from laundry) were cleaned from the clothes dryer. These failures had the potential to cause a facility fire by not tracking when lint screens were cleaned out from the clothes dryer. Findings: During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/13/2025 at 8:50AM with Laundry Services (LS), the facility's Lint Cleaning Log for 2/10/2025 to 2/12/2025 was reviewed. The Lint Cleaning Log indicated on 2/12/2025 at 4:00PM there was no documented evidence the lint screens were cleaned for two of three dryer machines. The LS stated, on 2/13/2025 at 8:30AM, there was no documented evidence the lint screens were cleaned for three of three dryer machines. The LS stated the lint screens were cleaned every 2 hours on at 8AM, 10AM, 12PM, 2PM, 4PM, and 6PM schedule. The LS stated it was important to clean the lint screens because of the possibility of a fire. During a concurrent interview and record review at 2/13/2025 at 8:50AM with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the facility's Lint Cleaning Log for 2/10/2025 to 2/12/2025 was reviewed. The IP stated, according to the lint cleaning log, the last dryer lint screen check was done on 2/12/2025 at 4PM for one dryer machine. The IP stated, she cannot be sure the last schedule person on 2/12/2025 cleaned the lint screens because it was not documented. The IP stated, if the lint screens were not cleaned regularly, there was a potential for a fire throughout the facility. During a review of the facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled Laundry - Safety, revised 1/1/2012, the P&P indicated all machines and appliances are checked daily to make sure they are clean, operating correctly free of defects .
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0911 (Tag F0911)

Minor procedural issue · 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 four (4) out of twenty-two (22) resident's roo...

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 four (4) out of twenty-two (22) resident's rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 5, 20, and 26) accommodated no more than four residents in each room. The 4 resident rooms consisted of 2 (two) - twelve (12) bed capacity rooms, 1 (one), seven (7) bed capacity room, and 1 (one), six (6) bed capacity rooms. This deficient practice had the potential adversely affect the delivery of care, quality of life, safety and violate the resident's rights for privacy. Findings: During the entrance conference interview, the Administrator (ADM) on 2/11/2025 at 9:20 AM, the ADM stated there were four rooms in the facility that occupied more than four residents in each room, but the facility had a waiver (a permit approved by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for rooms that did not meet the regulation requirement) in place and would like to request an additional waiver this year. The ADM stated, the multiple beds per room had no impact on care of the residents. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/11/2025 at 10:30 AM with Resident 51 in room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident 51 was observed walking around with his front wheel walker (a device that gives additional support to maintain balance or stability while walking) with no restriction. Resident 51 stated he had no concern with resident's space or the number of residents in his room. During an interview on 2/12/2025 at 11 AM with Resident 65, Resident 65 stated he was sharing a room (room [ROOM NUMBER]) with other residents. Resident 65 stated, he had no concerns with the number of the residents in his room. During a review of the facility ' s Client Accommodations Analysis form, dated 2/12/2025, indicated the facility had 4 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 5, 20, and 26) that had more than four residents per room. During a review of the facility's request for additional room waiver dated 2/12/2025, indicated the arrangement of the rooms provided adequate space for nursing care, for wheelchair (a chair fitted with wheels for use as a means of transport by a person who is unable to walk as a result of illness, injury, or disability) access. The multiple beds per room and did not adversely affect the health and safety of the residents. The request indicated the following resident bedrooms were: room [ROOM NUMBER] (12 beds) 12 residents, 79.1 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (6 beds) 6 residents, 92.8 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (12 beds) 12 residents, 87.1 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (7 beds) 7 residents, 79.8 sq. ft per resident. During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 2:06 PM with Resident 119 in room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident 119 stated he was sharing room [ROOM NUMBER] with other residents. Resident 119 stated the room size was okay and stated that the wheelchair and other equipment were used for other residents without any restrictions. Resident 119 stated, he did not have any issue with the room size. During the survey, from 2/11/2025 to 2/14/2025, there were no observed adverse effects as to the adequacy of space, nursing care, comfort, and privacy to the residents. The residents residing in the affected rooms (Rooms 1, 5, 20, and 26) with an application for variance were observed to have enough space to move freely inside the rooms. Each resident inside the affected rooms had beds and lockers. There was adequate room for the operation and use of the wheelchairs, walkers, or canes. The room variance did not affect the care and services provided to the residents when nursing staff were observed providing care to the residents. During a review of the facility's Resident Census from the last Health Recertification Survey with exit date of 3/15/2024 indicated the residents that occupied Rooms 1, 5, 20, and 26 were not the same residents that occupies Rooms 1, 5, 20, and 26 during this current Health Recertification Survey from 2/11/2025 to 2/14/2025.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of ...

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 a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of measurement) per resident for twelve (12) out of twenty-two (22) resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31). The 12 resident rooms consisted of 1 (one), twelve (12) bed capacity room, 1 (one), seven (7) bed capacity room, 2 (two), four (4) bed capacity rooms, 2 (two), three (3) bed capacity rooms, and 6 (six), two (2) bed capacity rooms. This deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact the quality-of-care and the ability to of the nursing care to safely provide care and privacy to the residents. Findings: During an entrance conference with the Administrator (ADM) on 2/11/2025 at 9:20 AM, the ADM stated multiple rooms in the facility did not have the required 80 square feet of space per resident, but the facility had a room waiver (a permit approved by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for rooms that did not meet the regulation requirement) in place and would like to request an additional waiver this year. The ADM stated, the room size had no impact on the care of the residents. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/11/2025 at 10:30 AM with Resident 51 in room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident 51 was observed walking around with his front wheel walker (a device that gives additional support to maintain balance or stability while walking) with no restriction. Resident 51 stated he had no concern with resident's space in his room. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/11/2025 at 10:51 AM with Resident 29 in room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident 29 was observed moving around the room in her wheelchair (a chair fitted with wheels for use as a means of transport by a person who is unable to walk as a result of illness, injury, or disability) with no restriction. Resident 29 stated, she had no issue with the space in the room. During an interview on 2/12/2025 at 9:55 AM with Resident 56, Resident 56 stated, he was sharing room [ROOM NUMBER] with other residents and had no concerns with his room size. During a review of the facility ' s Client Accommodations Analysis form, dated 2/12/2025, indicated the facility had 12 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31) that measured less than the required 80 square footages per resident in multiple bed capacity rooms. During a review of the facility's request for room waiver, dated 2/12/2025, indicated the arrangement of the rooms provided adequate space for nursing care, for wheelchair access, and did not adversely affect the health and safety of the residents. The request indicated the following resident bedrooms were: room [ROOM NUMBER] (12 beds) 12 residents 56x20 sq. ft., 79.1 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 11x12 sq. ft., 63 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 11x12 sq. ft., 63 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 11x12 sq. ft., 63 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 12x13 sq. ft., 75 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 12x12 sq. ft., 70 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (4 beds) 4 residents 12x23 sq. ft., 67 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (7 beds) 7 residents 25x23 sq. ft., 79.8 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 12x14 sq. ft., 66.5 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (4 beds) 4 residents 12x25 sq. ft., 72 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 3 residents 12x20 sq. ft., 78 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 3 residents 12x20 sq. ft., 78 sq. ft per resident. During an interview on 2/13/2025 at 2:06 PM with Resident 119 in room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident 119 stated he was sharing room [ROOM NUMBER] with other residents. Resident 119 stated the room size was okay and stated that the wheelchair and other equipment were used for other residents without any restrictions. Resident 119 stated, he did not have any issues with the room size. During the survey, from 2/11/2025 to 2/14/2025, there was no observed adverse effects related to the inadequate room size during nursing care. The residents residing in the affected rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31) with an application for variance were observed to have enough space to move freely inside the rooms. Each resident inside the affected rooms had beds and lockers. There was adequate room for the operation and use of the wheelchairs, walkers, or canes. The room variance did not affect the care and services provided to the residents when nursing staff were observed providing care to the residents. During a review of the facility's Resident Census from the last Health Recertification Survey with exit date of 3/15/2024 indicated the residents that occupied Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 were not the same residents that occupies Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 during this current Health Recertification Survey from 2/11/2025 to 2/14/2025.
Jan 2025 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its policy and procedure on resident safety by failing to...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement its policy and procedure on resident safety by failing to provide supervision to one of two sampled residents (Resident 1) who were at high risk for falls. This deficient practice resulted to Resident 1 having an acute subdural hematoma (a blood clot that forms between the brain's surface and its tough outer covering) after he had a fall when he attempted to stand up from a sitting position at the facility's patio without staff supervision. Findings: During a review of the facility ' s investigation summary report, dated 1/7/2025, indicated that on the evening of 1/2/2025, a staff who was in the patio observed Resident 1 sitting on the patio ' s brick seating area. At around 9 PM, Resident 1 stood up using his front-wheeled walker and fell on his right side. The staff who immediately responded to the fall assessed Resident 1 and found a bump and a cut on the resident ' s right forehead. The facility called 911 (a universal emergency number) and sent Resident 1 to a general acute care hospital (GACH) for further evaluation per physician ' s order. During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record indicated that the facility admitted Resident 1 on 1/11/2011 and readmitted the resident on 1/5/2025 with diagnoses that included nontraumatic subdural hemorrhage (a rare condition that occurs without head trauma). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS - a resident assessment tool), dated 3/27/2024, indicated that Resident 1 ' s cognition (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding) was severely impaired. The MDS indicated that Resident 1 required supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues and touching or contact guard assistance as resident completes the activity) from a person when standing from a sitting position. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Change in Condition Evaluation report, dated 12/30/2024, indicated that he fell in the patio prior to the fall incident on 1/2/2025, but did not sustain any injury. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Fall Risk Evaluation, dated 12/30/2024, indicated that Resident 1 had a history of falls in the past three (3) months and had problem maintaining his balance while standing and has a decreased muscular coordination (a condition that causes a loss of muscle control and unsteady movements). During a review of Resident 1 ' s Physical Therapy Evaluation, dated 12/31/2024, indicated that Resident 1 required supervision or touching assistance when transferring sitting to standing. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Physical Therapy Discharge summary, dated [DATE], indicated that Resident 1 required supervision or touching assistance when transferring from chair to bed and vice-versa. During a review of Resident 1 ' s care plan, initiated on 6/23/2021, indicated that Resident 1 was at risk for falls related to psychoactive drug use (substances that include alcohol, caffeine, nicotine, marijuana, and certain pain medicines), had poor safety judgement, and lacked coordination. The care plan ' s interventions included to anticipate and meet the needs of the resident. During a review of Resident 1 ' s GACH Emergency Notes records, dated 1/2/2025, indicated that Resident 1 had a post-fall acute subdural hematoma with a large scalp hematoma overlying the right frontal bone with no depressed skull fracture. During a telephone interview with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 4 on 1/16/2025 at 1:10 PM, CNA 4 stated that he heard a resident fall on the ground when he and CNA 1 were passing cigarettes to the residents in the patio on 1/2/2025 at around 9 PM. CNA 4 stated that he and CNA 1 were far from Resident 1 when he saw Resident 1 on the floor. During an interview with the facility ' s physical therapist (PT 1) on 1/16/2025 at 12:15 PM, PT 1 stated that they evaluated Resident 1 for PT treatment on 12/31/2024 due to a fall incident Resident 1 had on 12/30/2024 and determined in the evaluation that Resident 1 required supervision when standing from a sitting position. The PT stated, Supervision means that a person needs to be close enough to the resident being supervised so that the resident could be caught if he if he loses his balance. During a review of the facility ' s undated policy titled, Resident Safety, version 1.0, revised on 4/15/2021 indicated that the purpose of the policy is to provide a safe and hazard free environment for the residents by establishing a person-centered observation or monitoring system for the resident to address the identified risk factors.
Sept 2024 1 deficiency 1 IJ
CRITICAL (J) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Someone could have died · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 9/3/2021 and readmitted on [DA...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. During a review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 1 on 9/3/2021 and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly) and suicidal ideations (preoccupied thought of hurting or killing self). During a review of a MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 1's had intact cognition (ability to understand and make decisions) and skills for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 1 exhibited little interest or pleasure in doing things and trouble concentrating on things, such as reading the newspaper or watching television on half or more of the day. The MDS indicated Resident 1 also exhibited feeling down, depressed, (severe sadness and hopelessness) and bad about self or being a failure or let self or the family down nearly every day. The MDS indicated Resident 1 was independent with eating, oral hygiene, toileting hygiene, shower/bathe self, personal hygiene, walk 150 feet. A review of the plan of care dated 9/8/2024, indicated Resident 1 was at risk for elopement and wandering with the goal to ensure Resident 1 does not leave the facility unattended. The interventions included the facility will monitor resident's whereabout every hour and will involve resident in purposeful activity. During an interview on 9/18/24 at 3:35 PM, with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3, LVN 3 stated she worked at the Station A on 9/10/2024 from 3 PM to 11 PM. LVN 3 stated she was inside East Nursing Station's main building around 11 PM on 9/10/2024, when she heard a noise coming from the Patio 1, but she did not see anyone on the ground of Patio 1 when she stepped out to the patio. LVN 3 stated, she heard a noise coming from the roof on the East wing building and she saw Resident 1 on top of the roof. During an observation on 9/19/2024 at 12 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3 was observed standing in the breezeway. In a concurrent interview, CNA 3 stated all the red colored painted doors in the main building opens to Patio 1 that were never locked so that residents have 24 hours access to Patio 1. CNA 3 stated a staff was assigned to monitor only the Breeze way from 7 AM- 11PM, and another staff was assigned to monitor the Patio 1 from 7 AM to 11 PM. CNA 3 stated from 11 PM-7AM only one staff was assigned to monitor the Breeze way, Patio 1 and the Patio 2 (total three areas). CNA 3 stated she does not have a full visualization of Patio 1 when standing inside the Breeze way because the walls and the front door of the Breeze way blocks the views in certain areas of Patio 1. CNA 3 stated she had to put her head out or step out of the Breeze way to get a full visualization of Patio 1 and Patio 2. During an interview on 9/19/2024 at 1:54 PM, with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated on 9/10/24 she worked from 3 PM to 11 PM. RN 1 stated at around 11:05 PM, she was in the main building near Patio 1 when LVN 3 from another station notified her that she saw someone on the roof near the Patio 1. RN 1 stated she activated Code [NAME] through the overhead paging system (an audio system that allows for one-way communication to a large audience) and when she ran out of the facility, she found Resident 1 on the driveway of the facility. RN 1 stated in the past she has observed Resident 1 always pacing (walk aimlessly) in the hallways and in Patio 1 during the evenings. During an interview on 9/19/2024 at 2:43 PM, CNA 1 stated Resident 1 always walks around in Patio 1. CNA 1 stated he was assigned to monitor Patio 1 from 3 PM to 11 PM on 9/10/2024 and did not see anyone in Patio 1 before he left in the end of his shift. CNA 1 stated he informed the charge nurse that he was leaving the facility and that there was no staff monitoring Patio 1 when he left the faciity on 9/10/2024 between 11: 03 PM and 11:04 PM. CNA 1 stated he did not report to an incoming CNAs before he left the facility because he did not know if any staff was assigned to monitor Patio 1. CNA 1 stated he did not witness Resident 1 eloped from the facility on 9/10/2024. During a concurrent observation and interview on 9/19/24 at 3:45 PM, with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated a facility staff assigned to monitor the breezeway from 11 PM to 7 AM, was supposed to stay inside the breezeway to monitor the residents. In an observation of the breezeway with the surveyor, the ADON explained, the staff monitoring the breezeway does not have a full view of Patio 1 if staff are monitoring the breezeway. During an interview on 9/20/24 at 9:07 AM, with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated on 9/10/24 at 11PM until 7 AM on 9/11/24 she was the staff assigned to monitor the Breeze way, Patio 1 and Patio 2. LVN 1 stated the staff monitoring the Breeze way usually stayed inside of the Breeze way, but if there was a resident in Patio 1, the staff goes outside to monitor the resident. LVN 1 stated she did not see anyone in Patio 1 when CNA 1 informed her that he was leaving which was around 11 PM on 9/10/2024. LVN 1 stated she did not see how Resident 1 went on top of the roof of the building. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 eloped because she thought no one would pay attention to her since the staff were busy during the change of the shift at 11 PM on 9/10/2024. LVN 1 stated there were blind spots from the Breeze way to the patio which blocks the view in Patio 1 where Resident 1 eloped from. LVN 1 stated she would not be able to see what was going-on in the patio due to the blind spots to Patio 1. During an observation and interview on 9/20/24 at 9:27 AM, Receptionist 1 stated the facility only had one surveillance camera monitoring Patio 1, but the camera could not capture the view of Patio 1 that was close to the main building where Resident 1 and Resident 2 eloped from. Receptionist 1 stated there was no staff assigned to the front office during the night from 11 PM to 7 AM to monitor the residents leaving from the facility in the front lobby or in Patio 1. During an interview on 9/20/2024 at 11:16 AM, LVN 2 stated when the facility readmitted Resident 1 in 8/2024, Family Member (FM) 1 called and stated Resident 1 had a history of eloping from home and was at high risk for elopement. LVN 2 stated she did not add this information to the nursing progress notes and care plan and did not inform any other staff of the resident's behavior of eloping from home. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/20/24 at 12PM, with the ADON, Resident 1's Elopement Evaluation (EE), dated 8/9/24 indicated Resident 1 had a history of elopement and an attempted elopement while at home and in the facility. The EE also indicated Resident 1 verbally expressed the desire to go home, packed belongings to go home and stayed near an exit door. The EE indicated Resident 1 wandered aimlessly and likely to affect the privacy of others. The ADON stated based on the EE, dated 8/9/24, Resident 1 was at risk for elopement. A review of the EE, dated 9/3/24, indicated Resident 1 did not have a history of elopement or attempted to elope while at home and in the facility, and was not at risk for elopement. The ADON stated the EE, dated 9/3/24, was not answered correctly. The ADON stated the licensed nurse might have overlooked the facility's documents of Resident 1 when licensed nurse completed the elopement assessment on 9/3/24. The ADON stated the licensed nurses must review a resident's documents and assess the resident's current condition thoroughly and document the actual condition and assessment of the resident accurately. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/20/24 at 3 PM, with the Administrator (ADM), the Facility Investigation Report, dated 9/11/24, was reviewed. The ADM stated the staff did not see Resident 1 get up to the roof on 9/10/24, and Resident 1 did not tell anyone how and where exactly she climbed up to get to the roof. The ADM stated based on the time and location the noise heard by the charge nurse on 9/10/24 at around 11:05 PM, Resident 1 may have eloped from Patio 1. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/20/24 at 3:10 PM, with the ADM, Nursing Staff Assignments, dated from 9/10/24 to 9/17/24, the ADM stated only one staff assigned from 11 PM to 7 AM to monitor the breezeway, Patio 1 and Patio 2. During an interview on 9/20/24 at 3:15 PM, the ADM stated resident are kept away from Patio 1 at around 7AM, because the staff washes and cleans the grounds of the patio at the time. The ADM stated the grounds were wet and the facility discourages residents from going out to the Patio 1 to prevent fall and injury. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/20/24 at 5:20 PM, with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated the Elopement Evaluation of Resident 1 on 8/9/24 and 9/3/24, was not correctly assessed. Residents were supposed to be evaluated as high risk for elopement, and that affected the care of Resident 1 and 2 regarding the risk of elopement. During a concurrent interview and record review on 9/20/24 at 5:25 PM, with the DON, the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Wandering & Elopement, dated 7/2017, and Resident Safety, dated 4/15/21, were reviewed. The DON stated both versions of the P&P were the most current P&P that the facility followed. The DON stated the accurate assessment and documentation on residents' elopement risk was important so that the appropriate care plan and the intervention could be developed and implemented to prevent elopements. The DON stated providing additional supervision would be the fast and effective way to prevent residents' elopements in the secured facility, including by adding more staff to monitor the front patio and more frequent checking on the residents. A review of the facility's policy and procedure, titled Wandering & Elopement, dated 7/2017,indicated to enhance the safety of residents in the facility, the facility will identify residents at risk of elopement and minimize the possible injury as a result of elopement by ensuring the licensed nurse, in collaboration with the Interdisciplinary Team (IDT- a group of facility staff that help develop the plan of care for the residents) will assess residents upon admission, readmission, quarterly and upon identification of a significant change in condition. The residents at risk of elopement, preventative measures will be documented in the resident's clinical records and will be reviewed and re-evaluated by the IDT. The IDT will develop a plan of care considering the individual's risk factors. Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to prevent two of two residents (Residents 1 and 2) who were assessed at high risk for elopement (an act of leaving a care facility or safe area independently without notifying anyone) from leaving the facility in accordance with the facility's policy for elopement and residents' plan of care by failing to: 1. Provide adequate monitoring and supervision to ensure Resident I, who had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions, and was assessed at risk for elopement with diagnoses of suicidal ideation (thinking about killing yourself) did not elope from the facility on 9/10/2024 during a change of shift [evening shift and night shift) at 11 PM from Patio I. 2. Provide adequate monitoring and supervision to ensure Resident 2, who had no capacity to understand and make decisions, assessed at risk for elopement and with diagnoses of suicidal ideations, did not elope from the facility, on 9/17/2024, during change of shift [night shift and morning shift] at 7 AM from Patio I. 3. Ensure the facility thoroughly investigated on how Resident 1 eloped from the facility and provided interventions to prevent another resident, Resident 2, eloping from the same location in Patio I. 4. Ensure Patio 1, that is in the front patio, and Patio 2 that is in the back patio, were equally monitored and supervised to prevent residents from elopement. 5. Ensure Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 5 immediately informed staff that he saw someone climbing the roof near Patio 1. As a result of these deficient practices, Resident 1 climbed the roof by the facility's main/front patio (Patio I], jumped from the roof out to the facility's parking lot and climbed over the fence. On 9/11/2024, Resident 1 was located and transferred to the hospital for behavior management. On 9/17/2024 (6 days after Resident I eloped from the same facility patio] Resident 2 climbed over the same roof by Patio I, and jumped over the fence of the facility's parking lot. Resident 2 has not been found as of 9/19/2024. The deficient practice had the potential for Resident's 1 & 2 to sustain fall and injury when climbing the roof and struck by motor vehicles. Resident 1 had the potential to be exposed to extreme weather, malnutrition (lack of proper nutrition) and a psychiatric emergency due to a history of suicidal ideations that could lead to death. Resident 2 missed his daily medications including psychotropic medications (medications that affects mood and behavior) that were necessary to ensure he was not a danger to self and others. On 9/19/24 at 1:23 PM, while onsite at the facility, the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) identified an Immediate Jeopardy situation (IJ, a situation in which the provider's noncompliance [not following rules] with one or more requirements of participation has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, harm, impairment, or death of a resident) regarding the facility's failure to provide adequate supervision to the residents in Patio 1. The survey team notified the Administrator (ADM) and the Director of Nursing (DON) of the IJ situation on 9/19/24 at 1:23 PM, regarding the facility's lack of supervision of the residents in Patio 1 that resulted to the elopement of Residents 1 and 2 from the facility on 9/10/24 and 9/17/24 respectively. On 9/20/24 at 6:34 PM, the ADM provided an acceptable IJ Removal Plan (a detailed plan to address the IJ findings). On 9/20/24 at 7:45 PM, while onsite and after the surveyor verified/confirmed the facility's full implementation of the IJ Removal Plan through observation, interview, record review, and determined that the IJ situation was no longer present, the IJ was removed onsite in the presence of the ADM and the DON. The IJ Removal Plan dated 9/20/24 included the following: The facility's immediate action to correct noncompliance that has caused or is likely to cause serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment, or death to Resident 1, who eloped on 9/10/24, but found immediately, and Resident 2 who eloped on 9/17/24 continued to be missing as of 9/19/24. The facility placed a system in place to ensure: 1. Residents were monitored and supervised when in Patio 1 at all times, in all three shifts. 2. Heightened awareness on security and oversight of all facility exit doors for all three shifts. 3. Residents at risk for elopement are frequently monitored and their whereabouts are always accounted for. 4. Staff were in-serviced on how to care for residents at risk for elopement. 5. Measures are in place to prevent residents from leaving the facility unsupervised for 22 residents at risk for elopement. What corrective actions(s) will be accomplished for those residents found to have been affected by the deficient practice: As of 9/19/24, Resident 1 is currently out of the facility (in the hospital) with anticipated return. As of 9/17/24, Resident 2 is currently out of the facility and has not returned (not found). Police notified on 9/17/2024, and missing person's report filed. Facility contacted local hospitals during every shift to locate the resident. On 9/19/24, the Maintenance Staff removed clutter/items in Patio 1 that may potentially be used by the residents to gain access to climbing over the roof. On 9/17/24, Patio 1 was assigned 24-hour monitoring to ensure residents are monitored and supervised and for are to be on the outer perimeter of Patio 1 on all three shifts when in Patio 1. Outgoing staff monitoring patio stays in Patio 1 until incoming staff to patio monitor arrives. During shift change, incoming and outgoing staff that monitors patio are to position themselves in a spot where they have clear vision of Patio 1 while they are endorsing to other staff. When the staff monitoring patio goes on break, a staff is assigned to relieve them prior to leaving Patio 1. On 9/19/24, the Administrator contacted security agency to secure a contract for unarmed security to provide heightened awareness for security oversight of all facility exit doors and facility egress (the action of going out of or leaving a place) for all three shifts including supervision and monitoring of resident areas. This will begin as soon as the company contracted signs the agreement and will continue until at least 30 days and will be reevaluated for further need based on the Facility's assessment of effectiveness of the implementations for additional monitoring systems. On 9/19/24, the Administrator secured a quote for fencing. The contractor is arriving on 9/19/24 to evaluate the area of concern on the identified area of fencing. A work order will be completed by 9/19/24. Corporate policy committee will be consulted regarding a more updated Elopement policy. How the facility will identify other residents having the potential to be affected by the same deficient practice and the corrective action will be taken: On 9/17 /24, the DON/Designees conducted an audit of the Elopement Binder (the binder used by the facility that list the names of the residents at risk for elopement) to ensure that current residents that are at risk for elopement were included and had a photo identifier unless they refused to have their photo taken. There are currently 21 residents identified to be at risk for elopement. The Elopement Binder was updated to ensure all identified residents are included in the binder. On 9/19/24, the Administrator/designee conducted an observation of the patio area (Patio 1) during the shift change between 7-3 and 3-11 to ensure that the patio is monitored, and residents were always supervised by the staff. No concerns were noted during observation. What measures will be put in place or what systemic changes will you make to ensure that the deficient practice does not recur: On 9/19/24, the Administrator and DON initiated an in - service education to RNs, Licensed Vocational Nurses (LVNs), CNAs, Rehabilitation and Activity staffs, Activities, Business Office, Dietary, Housekeeping, Laundry, Maintenance, Receptionist, Social Services, Medical Records staff. regarding the facility's policy and procedures for Wandering and Elopement, with emphasis on the importance of having the patio area always supervised in all three shifts, caring for residents at risk for elopement, and recognizing changes in condition that may potentially increase the risk of residents leaving the facility unsupervised. This in-service will be completed by 9/20/24. Staff on leave or unscheduled will receive education upon return to work. On 9/19/24, DON initiated an in-service to the nursing staff regarding hourly monitoring of residents who are at risk for elopement. This will be documented on the 'Residents who are at Risk for Elopement Monitoring' form. This in-service will be completed by 9/20/24. Staff on leave or unscheduled will receive education upon return to work. CNAs will conduct room rounds hourly every shift to ascertain all residents are accounted for. The Elopement Binder is placed at each Nurses Station and are reviewed with staff during shift change for any concerns, changes, or new admissions. These binders are updated by the DON/Designee as needed. The ADM will be responsible for monitoring and sustaining compliance. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 2's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 8/1/24 and readmitted the resident on 8/14/24 with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a serious mental health condition that affects how people think, feel, and behave, with paranoia [mistrust of other people] as one of its most dominant symptoms) and suicidal ideations. A review of Resident 2's History and Physical, dated 8/2024 indicated the resident does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and screening tool), dated 5/23/2024, indicated that the resident's cognition (mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and senses) was intact. The MDS indicated that Resident 2 required supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance (a type of assistance where a caregiver places one or two hands on a patient's body to help with balance while the patient performs a task) as resident completes activity and assistance may be provided throughout the activity or intermittently) when performing activities of daily living (ADL) such as eating, toileting, showering, and when performing oral hygiene. A review of Resident 2's care plan, initiated on 8/14/2024, indicated Resident 2 was at risk for wandering and elopement, to ensure the resident does not leave the facility unattended, the interventions included identifying triggers for wandering/elopement attempts, identify if there are patterns and purpose of wandering and monitor the resident's location every hour. A review of Resident 2's Elopement Evaluation (EE) dated 9/11/24 indicated that the resident was recently readmitted (within the past 30 days). Resident 2 also verbally expressed the desire to go home, packed belongings to go home, or stayed near an exit door. During a facility tour on 9/18/24 at 11:30 AM, the ADM demonstrated how Resident 2 climbed the roof from the patio to the other side of the building. The building that the residents in the facility occupied had six red doors that led to Patio 1. The patio had a screen fence approximately 12 feet high, with a door equipped with an alarm system, that led to the office of the ADM in another building. During a concurrent interview with the ADM, 9/18/24 at 11:30 AM she stated Resident 2 used the water pipes attached to the wall of the building to climb to the roof and jumped to the other side of the building to escape the facility. The ADM stated that the six red doors that led to Patio 1 remain unlocked 24 hours a day to enable the residents to freely go to the patio whenever they desired. All the doors and leading to the Patio are supposed to be supervised by staff that monitors the Patio 1. During an interview and concurrent record review with Director of Staff Development (DSD) on 9/18/24 at 2:30 PM, she stated on the night shift (11-7 AM), the staff monitoring the breezeway (an architectural feature similar to a hallway that allows the passage of a breeze) also monitors the patio simultaneously. The ADM stated Patio 1 does not have a dedicated staff to monitor the patio (Patio 1) area between 11 PM and 7AM. A review of the Nursing Staff Assignment dated 9/16/24, 11-7 AM shift, indicated that there was no dedicated staff assigned to monitor Patio 1 during the night shift (11-7 AM). During an interview with CNA 5 on 9/18/2024 at 3 PM, he stated he was assigned to monitor the breezeway on 9/17/24 from 7-3 PM. CNA 5 stated that on 9/17/24 between 7:15 - 7:20 AM, he observed a person from the breezeway climbing the roof in Patio 1 and simultaneously heard a Code [NAME] (an emergency code used by the facility to alert the facility staffs that a resident was missing or eloped [leaving the facility without permission or informing the facility] from the facility's paging system. CNA 5 stated he immediately stepped out of the building from the breezeway to confirm what he saw, but the person was not there anymore. CNA 5 stated he did not report to anyone immediately that he observed someone climbing the roof rather, rather he returned to his post while the rest of the staff looked for Resident 2. CNA 5 stated he learned later on from the other staffs that Resident 2 eloped and was missing. During a concurrent interview and observation on 9/18/2024 at 3 PM with CNA 5, CNA 5 stated he was assigned to monitor Patio 1 and the breezeway. CNA 5 stated the location from where he stood along the breezeway did not have a full and clear view. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4 on 9/19/24 at 12:20 PM, LVN 4 stated during breakfast on 9/17/24 at around 7:15 AM, she found a food tray in the food cart that belonged to Resident 2. LVN 4 stated she looked for Resident 2 everywhere in the building and was unable to locate the resident. LVN 4 then stated she immediately paged Code [NAME] on 9/17/24 at around 7:18 AM. During an observation on 9/19/24 at 3:35 PM, the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) measured the distance from the breezeway where the staff stood to monitor Patio 1 simultaneously. The distance from where the staff stood in the Breezeway to the wall where Resident 2 allegedly climbed to the roof was approximately 97 feet away and the height of the wall was approximately 11 feet and 2 inches. A review of the facility investigation report sent to CDPH, dated 9/23/24, indicated on 9/17/24 during a routine hourly head counts in the morning shift change, Resident 2 was not in his room. The staff informed the licensed nurse, and a Code Green was immediately called at around 7:18 AM that initiated the search for Resident 2. During the search, a member of the search team saw Resident 2 making his way through the football field at the high school adjacent to the facility. The facility called the police on 9/17/24 at 7:27 AM but the resident was nowhere to be found. During an observation of a photo taken at the breeze way from the middle/back position of Patio 1 on 9/19/24 at 12:40 PM indicated the breeze way door frame was blocking full visual of Patio 1. A review of the facility's closed-circuit television (CCTV, also known as video surveillance, is the use of closed-circuit television cameras to transmit a signal to a specific place, on a limited set of monitors) on 9/19/24 at 12:45 PM showed the camera in Patio 1 only captured one side of the patio. The camera does not show side of the patio where Resident 2 climbed to get to the roof of the building.
Aug 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan for one of two sampled Residents (Resident 1) t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to develop a care plan for one of two sampled Residents (Resident 1) that included specific interventions to monitor resident's behaviors who goes out on pass and with had a history of drug abuse. This deficient practice had the potential for residents to not receive appropriate care, treatment, and/or services. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated a readmission to the facility on 5/16/2024 with diagnoses that included encephalopathy (group of conditions that cause brain dysfunction), schizoaffective disorder (mental health condition that is marked by a mix of schizophrenia [mental health condition that affects how people think, feel, and behave] symptoms such as hallucinations [false perception of objects or event involving the senses], delusions [belief or altered reality], and mood disorder symptoms such a depression [mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities], mania [extremely elevated and excitable mood]), and psychoactive substance (mind-altering drug or consciousness-altering drug that change brain function and results in alterations in perception, mood, consciousness, cognition, or behavior) abuse. A review of Resident 1's History and Physical assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident 1 was able to make decisions for activities of daily living. A review of Resident 1's latest comprehensive Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 7/29/2024, indicated the resident was cognitively (ability to think and reason) intact. A review of Resident 1's Physician Order Summary indicated for the following: a) On 8/1/2024, the physician prescribed Resident 1 may go out on pass with mother on 8/3/2024 for lunch, one time only. b) On 8/3/2024, the physician prescribed Resident 1 may go out on pass with brother on 8/3/2024. A review of Resident 1's General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) Consultation Report dated 5/10/2024, timed at 8:33 AM indicated, Resident 1 had a past medical history of schizophrenia, hypertension (high blood pressure), hyperthyroidism (when the thyroid gland makes too much thyroid hormone, speeds up the body's metabolism), depression and drug abuse. The consultation report indicated Resident 1 had a social history of smoking, alcohol and methamphetamine (stimulant [class of drug that increase the activity of the brain] that affects the behavior, mental and central nervous system) use. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 1's care plans on 8/6/2024 at 4:04 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated there was no documented evidence of a care plan initiated for Resident 1's history of drug use and out on pass. The DON stated she was aware Resident 1 had a history of drug use, but was not in Resident's plan of care because he was not actively using any drugs at facility. The DON stated Resident 1 going out on pass was never a part of resident's plan of care because the facility has not initiated care plans for out on pass. During an interview with the DON on 8/6/2024 at 5:13 PM, the DON stated there was communication within the staff to know what interventions need to be done when residents return from out on pass. The DON stated there was no policy, care plan and that interventions/instructions to staff regarding residents plan of care was done verbally, there is nothing on writing. The DON stated the importance of care planning is to make sure there a specific interventions for resident and what to monitor when residents go out on pass. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, dated 11/2018 indicated the facility was to provide person-centered, comprehensive and interdisciplinary care that reflects best practice standards for meeting health, safety, psychosocial, behavioral, and environmental needs of residents in order to obtain or maintain the highest physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Out on Pass dated 1/11/2016 indicated the facility was to provide person-centered, comprehensive and interdisciplinary care that reflects best practice standards for meeting health, safety, psychosocial, behavioral, and environmental needs of residents in order to obtain or maintain the highest physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being.
Jul 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to investigate and attempt to locate one of two sampled r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to investigate and attempt to locate one of two sampled residents, (Resident 1) who was assessed at risk for elopement, had a history of suicidal ideations, and had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions, upon receiving information on 7/13/2024, that Resident 1 was not admitted to the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH 2) on 7/11/2024. As a result, Resident 1 had not been located and currently still missing, after eloping from the ambulance transportation on the way to GACH 2 emergency room (ER). This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 1 ' s physical injuries and change in condition that may lead to hospitalization or death. Findings: During a review of General Acute Care Hospital (GACH 1) records indicated Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with a diagnosis of Psychosis (mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality) and was discharged to Facility on 7/1/2024. During a review of GACH 1 records indicated Resident 1 had worsened symptoms of suicidal ideations (thinking about or planning suicide) with a plan to hang himself. The GACH 1 records indicated that Resident 1 verbalized that when he was taking his psychiatric medication as directed by the physician, the medications were effective. During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] , with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly), post-traumatic stress disorder (disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a terrifying event). During a review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical assessment dated [DATE], indicated Resident 1 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s care plan titled, Risk for Wandering/Elopement identification dated 7/02/2024, indicated a goal that Resident 1 would not leave the facility unattended and Resident 1 ' s safety would be maintained. The care plan interventions indicated the facility would identify if there were triggers for wandering/eloping, identify wandering/elopement and de-escalation behaviors. During a review of Resident 1 ' s care plan titled Resident alleges that he was abused by staff with complaints of pain dated 7/11/2024, indicated interventions that included the facility staff would assess for pain, assessed the resident ' s skin, the interdisciplinary team would meet with Resident 1 and inform the physician. The care plan indicated a new order to transfer Resident 1 to the GACH 2 for evaluation. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Hospital Transfer Form dated 7/11/2024, indicated Resident 1 was transferred to GACH 2 on 7/11/2024 timed at 2 PM. The Hospital Transfer Form indicated a risk alert for Resident 1 had agitation with risk to harm self or others and may attempt to exit. The Hospital Transfer Form indicated the report was given by the facility ' s Registered Nurse (RN1) on 7/11/2024 at 1:15 PM to the GACH 2 Registered Nurse (no name). During a review of the Ambulance Record titled Hospital Care Report dated 7/11/2024 indicated Resident 1 was transported from the facility to GACH 2. The Ambulance Record indicated When Ambulance arrived at GACH 2, we opened doors, explained to resident that report, paperwork needed to be given to [GACH 2] nurse in order to register/admit resident to GACH 2. [Resident 1] took of seatbelts and jumped out of ambulance and began running out of GACH 2 parking lot. During a review of the facility provided record indicated a screenshot of a cell phone text message dated 7/13/2024 timed at 10:38 AM, indicated four people were included in a group text message. The group text message indicated a message from Physician 1 stating Where is this patient (Resident 1) now? followed by a text response from the facility ' s Medical Records Director (MRD) on the same date 7/13/2024 (no time) indicating, Good morning, he (Resident 1) was sent out to the hospital. The text message was followed by a response from Physician 1 indicating Which hospital? MRD responded that Resident 1 was in GACH 2. Physician 1 responded and indicated in the group text message Can ' t find, and indicated in the text message Please track and let me know. GACH 2 Liaison responded in the text message and indicated Resident 1 eloped from our emergency room at 5:06 on July 11. During a review of GACH 2 document titled Certification of No Medical Records dated 7/16/2024, indicated GACH 2 had no record Resident 1 was ever treated at GACH 2. The form included Resident 1 ' s name and date of birth . During an interview on 7/23/2024 at 10:40 AM, with the facility ' s Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated Resident 1 was transferred from the facility on 7/11/2024 for medical evaluation due to Resident 1 making claims he was physically abused by 5 people and was in pain. The ADM stated the facility staff conducted a head-to-toe assessment but did not find any injuries. The ADM stated that Physician 1 was notified, and Physician 1 ordered to transfer the resident to GACH 2 for medical clearance just to check if everything was okay. The ADM stated that at first GACH 2 informed the facility that Resident 1 left GACH 2 against medical advice (AMA). The ADM stated that when the ambulance transporters picked up Resident 1 (on 7/11/2024), that was the last time the facility staff saw Resident 1. During the same interview, on 7/23/2024 at 10:40 AM, with the facility ' s ADM, the ADM further stated that the facility ' s admission Coordinator (AC) called GACH 2 on 7/15/2024 for a follow up call and was notified by GACH 2 that Resident 1 was not admitted in GACH 2. The ADM stated that the AC requested for any documentation from GACH 2 ' s emergency room (ER) but GACH 2 only sent the Certification of No Medical Records indicating that the GACH 2 had no records of Resident 1 being treated or admitted at the GACH. During an interview and concurrent record review on 7/23/2024 at 12:10 PM with the AC, the AC stated as per facility practice, she follows up on residents who have been transferred to GACHs for updates. The AC stated he called GACH 2 to follow up on Resident 1 ' s status on 7/15/2024, when she was notified by GACH 2 that there was no record indicating Resident 1 had ever been admitted to GACH 2. The AC stated she notified the ADM who instructed AC to follow up with GACH 2 ' s Medical Records Department and request any documents about Resident 1 from GACH 2. The AC stated when she received GACH 2 ' s document titled Certification of No Medical Records on 7/16/2024, she gave the document to the ADM. During an interview, on 7/23/2024 between the hours of 1 PM to 1:24 PM, the ADM stated she did not follow up with GACH 2 or the Ambulance company, when she was notified by MRD on 7/13/2024, that Resident 1 was not admitted at GACH 2, because it was a Saturday, and the AC would follow up on Monday. The ADM stated that on 7/16/2024, after receiving documentation from GACH 2 indicating there were no records of Resident 1 ever being admitted to GACH 2, the ADM stated she did not follow up or attempt to locate Resident 1 because Resident 1 had been discharged from the facility ' s care, so it would have been GACH 2 ' s responsibility. The ADM stated she did not report to law enforcement because Resident 1 was self responsible. The ADM stated that even if Resident 1 was not self-responsible, Resident 1 would have been GACH 2 ' s responsibility. During the interview, the ADM called the Ambulance company to verify what happen to Resident 1 on 7/11/2024, and was informed that During an interview and concurrent record review on 7/23/2024 at 2:42 PM with the MRD, the MRD stated she was the facility staff in the group text message with Physician 1 on 7/13/2024, GACH 2 Liaison and Physician 1 ' s Case Manager. The MRD stated she received a group text message on 7/13/2024, from Physician 1 asking Resident 1 ' s whereabouts. The MRD stated she replied to Physician 1 with the location of Resident 1 which was in GACH 2. The MRD stated she saw Physician 1 ' s response and was notified that Resident 1 was not in GACH 2. The MRD stated that Physician 1 questioned what happen to Resident 1 and GACH 2 Liaison replied that Resident 1 had Eloped from GACH 2 on 7/11/2024. The MRD stated that Physician 1 asked Physicians ' 1 ' s Case Manager to follow up and locate Resident 1. The MRD stated she notified the facility's ADM on 7/13/2024 that Resident 1 had eloped. The MRD stated she did not document what happened to Resident 1 and notifying the physician and administrator that Resident 1 had eloped. During a follow up interview and record review of the facility ' s policy on 7/23/2024 with the ADM, the ADM stated she had reviewed all of the facility ' s policies and procedures and could not find a policy that included how the facility would ensure a safe resident discharge/transfer from the facility to another facility. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedures (P&P) titled Resident Safety revised on 4/15/2021, indicated Facility will provide a safe and hazard free environment.
May 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

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 monitor and supervise one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), who was identified and assessed at risk for elopement. As a result, Resident 1 eloped from the facility on 4/30/2024, and remained missing until 5/1/2024, when resident was found at a nearby school football field, next to the facility. This failure had the potential for Resident 1 to sustain injuries from being outside the facility with no access to scheduled medications and shelter needed for his condition which could lead to serious injury, serious harm, serious impairment and/or death. Findings: A review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with the diagnosis of unspecified psychosis (a person ' s thoughts are disrupted and have difficulty recognizing what is real and what is not real), major depressive disorder (mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), and dementia (a group of conditions characterized by impairment of at least two brain functions, such as memory loss and judgment). A review of Resident 1 ' s Elopement Evaluation dated 3/19/2024, indicated the resident was at risk for elopement. A review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical dated 3/20/2024, indicated that the resident had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS – a standardize assessment and care screening tool) dated 3/25/2024 indicated that the resident had severely impaired cognition (the ability or mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding). A review of Resident 1 ' s Change in Condition Evaluation (COC) dated 4/30/2024 timed at 4:00 PM, indicated Resident 1 left the facility without notifying facility staff. The COC indicated Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 reported unable to locate Resident 1 ' s whereabouts and initiated a Code [NAME] (response in the event of a missing or eloping resident) as per facility ' s protocol. During an interview on 5/8/2024 at 11:01 AM, the Administrator (ADM) stated Resident 1 was last seen on 4/30/2024, in the facility between the hours of 3:40 PM to 3:45 PM. The ADM stated Resident 1 was noted missing from the facility during medication pass. The ADM stated facility staff checked the resident ' s rooms, closets and checked if the facility ' s bolted doors and windows were intact. The ADM stated facility staff were also sent out around the facility premises and drove around the facility ' s neighborhood. The ADM stated local law enforcement was called on 4/30/2024 at 5:48 PM, for assistance. The ADM stated the facility ' s maintenance staff and local law enforcement went around the whole facility and checked the facility walls, windows, and ceilings, and found no signs of tampering. The ADM stated the next morning on 5/1/2024 at 7 AM, she received a call from the facility staff that Resident 1 was seen at a high school football field next door to the facility. The ADM stated she was told from facility staff that Resident 1 was compliant and walked back to the facility with the facility staff. The ADM stated a body assessment was completed and Resident 1 had no injuries. The ADM stated Resident 1 said he slept next door and came back to the facility because he was hungry. The ADM stated when Resident 1 was asked why he left the facility, he said I don ' t know. The ADM stated facility staff interviewed Resident 1 and asked for demonstration of what he did when he left the facility. The ADM stated Resident 1 kicked the locked door open from the breezeway (passage connecting two buildings or halves of a building) hallway leading to the outdoor rehabilitation area and climbed on the roof of the south building. The ADM stated Resident 1 was sent out to the acute hospital for evaluation the same day (5/1/2024) he returned to the facility. During a concurrent interview and observation of the facility ' s breezeway area on 5/8/2024 at 12:12 PM, the ADM stated the breezeway area did not have a staff that was scheduled to monitor the area, prior to Resident 1 ' s elopement on 4/30/2024. During a concurrent interview and observation of the surveillance monitor/cameras located in the [NAME] Wing Nursing station on 5/8/2024 at 12:33 PM, the ADM stated there was no assigned staff that watches the surveillance monitor/cameras continuously during the day and evening shifts because there were a lot of staff to supervise residents, during the day/evening shifts. The ADM stated that the facility staff was assigned to continuously watch the surveillance monitor/cameras during the night shift only, due to the previous elopement that occurred in the facility the previous year. During an interview on 5/8/2024 at 2:17 PM, LVN 1 stated at around 3:45 PM, he saw Resident 1 in the facility ' s breezeway area. LVN 1 stated at 4 PM, during medication pass, he went to look for Resident 1, but could not find him. LVN 1 stated he instructed CNA 1 to look around the building to find Resident 1. LVN 1 stated after a few minutes CNA 1 informed him she could not find Resident 1. LVN 1 stated he reported to the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) 1 and a Code Green was called. LVN 1 stated RN 1 then informed the Director of Nursing (DON), ADM, and the local law enforcement. During an interview on 5/8/2024 at 2:27 PM, CNA 1 stated she performed a head count of residents when she arrived at the facility at 3 PM and no residents were noted missing. CNA 1 stated at 4 PM she performed another head count and Resident 1 was missing. CNA 1 stated she searched every room and could not find Resident 1. CNA 1 stated she reported to LVN 1 and a Code Green was called. During an interview on 5/8/2024 at 3:24 PM, the ADM stated that on 4/30/2024, after doing a headcount the ADM went through the locked breezeway door into the back patio (outdoor rehabilitation area) and saw chairs stacked up leading up to the roof. The ADM stated when she saw the stacked up chairs she then checked the surveillance monitor located in the [NAME] Wing Nursing station. The ADM stated in the surveillance video she saw Resident 1 ' s head at the corner of the screen climbing up to the roof. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled Wandering & Elopement, dated 7/2017 indicated the purpose of the policy was to enhance the safety of residents of the facility. The P&P indicated the facility will identify residents at risk for elopement and minimize any possible injury as a result of elopement.
Mar 2024 16 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to keep the copy of an Advance Directive (known as living will, person...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to keep the copy of an Advance Directive (known as living will, personal directive, advance directive, medical directive or advance decision, is a legal document in which a person specifies what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves because of illness or incapacity.) in the medical record for one of five sample residents (Resident 44). This deficient practice had the potential to cause harm and conflict in carrying out the resident 44's wishes for medical treatment and health care decisions leading to irreversible outcomes. Findings: A review of the admission record indicated Resident 44 was admitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included dementia (loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life) and insomnia (sleep disorder). A review of the History and Physical Examination (H&P) dated 5/28/23, indicated Resident 44 is able to make decisions for activities of daily living. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 2/22/24, indicated Resident 44 usually understood or made self-understood to others, but had severe impairment in cognitive skills. The MDS indicated that Resident 44 is independent with eating, oral hygiene, and personal hygiene but required setup or clean-up assistance (helper assists only prior to or following the activity) with toileting hygiene and shower/bathe. During concurrent record review and interview on 3/12/24 at 3:11 p.m., with Licensed vocational Nurse (LVN) 1. LVN 1 stated it is important to have the Advance Directive in the residents' charts to know their wishes are for medical treatment and health care decisions. During concurrent record review and interview on 3/12/24 at 3:52 p.m., with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), stated that Resident 44's Advance Healthcare Directive (AHCD - written statement of a person's wishes regarding medical treatment made to ensure those wishes are carried out should the person be unable to communicate them to a doctor) Acknowledgement form, dated 6/16/23, indicated that Resident 44 has an Advance Directive. The ADON stated if resident have an Advance Directive, the staff should obtain a copy of the Advance Directive and place it in the resident's medical record. The ADON stated that there was no documentation of follow-up was done to obtain a copy of the Advance Directive. A review of the facility's undated policy and the procedure titled Advance Directives, revised on July 2018, indicated that upon admission, the admission staff or designee will obtain a copy of a resident's advance directive. A copy of the resident's Advance Directive will be included in the resident's medical record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0583 (Tag F0583)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident sample (Resident 20) was provided with pr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, and interview, the facility failed to ensure one of one resident sample (Resident 20) was provided with privacy when showering in the common shower rooms. 1. Shower 1 (East Wing [EW]) did not have a privacy curtain in the shower room. 2. Shower 2 EW and Shower 3 EW and Shower 1 [NAME] Wing (WW) had no curtain in the shower room to provide privacy to the residents when dressing after shower. 3. Shower 2 WW had a large window without cover that could see through the shower room and the dressing area. This failure resulted in Resident 20 ' s not feeling safe, feeling exposed when showering or dressing after shower, and resident ' s refusal for shower for fear of somebody looking at him while he was naked. This deficient practice also had the potential for other residents ' privacy to be violated. Findings: A review of Resident 20 ' s admission Record, dated 3/14/24, indicated Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves), and anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness). A review of Resident 20's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive assessment and screening tool) dated 9/21/23, the MDS indicated, Resident 20 was cognitively intact (able to think, remember and reason), needed partial/moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort. Helper lifts, holds, or supports trunk or limbs, but provides less than half the effort) for shower/bathe self, and needed supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity. Assistance may be provided throughout the activity or intermittently) for toileting hygiene, upper and lower body dressing, and personal hygiene. During an interview on 3/12/24 at 9:50 a.m. in Resident 20 ' s room, Resident 20 stated there was not enough privacy in all the shower rooms, including the one that was close to his room (Shower 2 WW). Resident 20 stated, all the shower rooms did not have curtains for privacy between the staff and the resident. Resident 20 stated, Shower 2 WW had a large see through window located right side near the changing area. The window did not have a cover and could not be closed, anyone that stood in the other side of the window could see directly to the shower stall and the changing area. Resident 20 stated, he did not feel safe and did not feel like he had enough privacy and feel exposed during showering or changing his clothes in the facility. Resident 20 added, he ended up refusing showers because of the fear that somebody was looking at him while he was naked. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/12/24 at 2:12 p.m. with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 5 in Shower 1 WW, the shower room had no curtain for provide privacy between the staff and the residents while dressing after shower. CNA 5 stated, she did not realize that there was no privacy when the residents are dressing after shower. CNA 5 stated, for independent residents that did not need help putting on their clothes after shower, she would just look away to provide privacy. During an interview on 3/13/24 at 9:13 a.m. with CNA 6, CNA 6 stated, when assisting residents to shower, she would have to stay inside the shower room, the door would be closed, and it was locked from the outside. CNA 6 stated, Shower 1 EW did not have a curtain for privacy during shower. CNA 6 stated, there was no curtain in Shower 2 EW, Shower 3 EW, Shower 1 WW and Shower 2 WW for privacy when the residents had to come out of the shower stalls to put on their clothes. CNA 6 stated, she could see them naked. CNA 6 stated, there should be more privacy provided during dressing after showering. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/13/24 at 1:01 p.m. with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS) in Shower 2 WW, a large window was observed. The MS measured the window as 48x36 inches (units of length measurement) with 17.5x36 inches of opening area. The MS stated, he was told to keep the window open and confirmed that the window was see-though. The MS stated the window was low according to the floor so any average height person could stand outside and able to look inside with no difficulty. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/13/24 at 1:09 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) in Shower 2 WW, the window was observed opened, the ADON attempted but could not close the window. The ADON stated he did not know why the window could not be closed and why it was see-through. The ADON stated when the window remained opened with no cover, there was no privacy. The ADON stated, no privacy could affect the resident ' s mental health especial if they have mental health problem. The ADON stated, the facility had to respect the residents ' privacy because it was their right. The ADON added, no privacy was not acceptable because they did not want to trigger the residents ' negative emotion. During an observation and interview on 3/14/24 at 1:15 p.m. with the MS in Shower 2 WW and Shower 3 WW, had no curtain observed to provide privacy for the resident ' s dressing after showering. The MS stated, all of the shower rooms had no curtains to provide privacy between the resident and the staff members. The MS stated, there should be more privacy provided because it would affect the resident's mental health. During an interview on 3/14/24 at 3:55 p.m. with CNA 8, CNA 8 stated, when the resident would feel ashamed and embarrassed if he had to be naked in front of the staff member or a stranger while showering or dressing after shower. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Rights - Quality of Life, revised March 2017, the P&P indicated, Facility Staff promotes, maintains, and protects resident privacy, including bodily privacy, when assisting with personal care and during treatment procedures. A review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Resident Rights, revised March 2017, indicated State and federal laws guarantee certain basic rights to all residents of the Facility. These rights include, but are not limited to, a resident's right to: privacy and confidentiality.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and homelike environment by en...

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 a safe, clean, and homelike environment by ensuring the two restrooms had no foul odor for one of three sampled residents (Resident 47) that uses both restrooms. This failure resulted in Resident 47's reported not feeling to be in a homelike environment and had to wear mask when going to the restrooms because he could not breath due to terrible smell of the restroom. Findings: A review of Resident 47's admission Record, dated 3/14/24, indicated Resident 47 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves), anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), and osteoarthritis (inflammation or swelling of one or more joints). A review of Resident 47's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive assessment and screening tool) dated 9/21/23, the MDS indicated, Resident 47 was cognitively intact (able to think, remember and reason) and needed supervision (oversight, encouragement or cueing) for locomotion on unit (how resident moves between locations in his/her room and adjacent corridor on same floor) and limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity, staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance) for toilet use (how resident uses the toilet room, commode, bedpan, or urinal; transfers on/off toilet; cleanses self after elimination). A review of Resident 47's Long Term Care Evaluation, dated 3/7/24, indicated Resident 47 was alert and oriented, communicated verbally, speech was clear, was able to understand and be understood when speaking. During an interview on 3/13/24 at 1:15 p.m. with Resident 47 in Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] [NAME] Wing (WW), Resident 47 stated, there was very little ventilation (an exhaust fan or window in the restroom to rid of air, excess moisture, and odor) in all of the facility ' s restrooms. Resident 47 stated, it was hard for him to breathe when he uses the two restrooms in the facility. During an interview on 3/13/24 at 1:30 pm in front of Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] East Wing (EW) with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 4), CNA 4 stated, Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] EW Smells bad, it smells like urine, but I could call housekeeper right away. CNA 4 stated, Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] EW Usually Smells bad. During an interview on 3/14/24 at 11:10 a.m. with Resident 47, Resident 47 stated the facility ' s restrooms usually smell very bad, especially in Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] East Wing (EW). Resident 47 stated, he noticed that all of the facility ' s restrooms did not have enough ventilation, which could lead to the bad smell that does not going away. Resident 47 stated, he had to wear a mask to cover his nose whenever he went to the restroom because it was hard to breath in the restroom. Resident 47 stated, he did not feel like home because of the terrible smell. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/14/24 at 1:11 p.m. with Maintenance Supervisor (MS) in Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] WW, an exhaust fan was observed on the ceiling. The MS stated the fan was not working and there was no current ventilation system in the facility. The MS stated, he usually keeps the restroom windows open for ventilation. The MS confirmed that the bad smell could last long in the restroom due to not enough ventilation. MS stated, bad smell could prevent the resident from feeling homelike. During an interview on 3/14/24 at 3:55 p.m. with CNA 3, CNA 3 stated, Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] EW usually smell like urine and Restroom [ROOM NUMBER] WW always smell bad. CNA 3 stated she always smell the restroom right away as soon as she walked in the hallway, but she could not describe the smell. CNA 3 stated, ventilation could contribute to the smell long lasting bad smell in the restroom. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Resident Rooms and Environment, revised 1/1/12, indicated the following: The Facility will provide residents with a safe, clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Facility Staff will provide residents with a pleasant environment and personal-centered care that emphasizes the residents' comfort, independence, and personal needs and preferences. Facility Staff aim to create a personalized, homelike atmosphere, paying close attention to comfortable levels of ventilation. Facility Staff will work to minimize the characteristics of the Facility that reflect a depersonalized, institutional setting, including institutional odors.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of Resident 22 ' s admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of Resident 22 ' s admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included DM2 and schizophrenia (a chronic and severe mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves). A review of Resident 22 ' s history and physical, dated 2/23/2023, indicated the resident does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 22 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS, a comprehensive standardized assessment and screening tool), dated 3/1/2024, indicated the resident has intact cognition. Resident 22 ' s MDS also indicated the resident is independent in doing activities of daily living (ADL ' s), including eating, toileting, bathing, dressing, and walking. A review of Resident 22 ' s Order Summary Report, dated 3/13/2024, indicated Resident 22 is prescribed medications for DM2: 1. Glipizide (medication used to decrease blood sugar level) 10mg one tablet by mouth two times a day, ordered on 11/6/2023. 2. Metformin 1000mg (medication used to decrease blood sugar level) one tablet by mouth two times a day, ordered on 3/6/2024. 3. Insulin Glargine 30 (medication used to decrease blood sugar level) units via subcutaneous (part of the skin that is composed of fat) injection at bedtime, ordered on 10/30/2023. 4. Also ordered on 10/30/2023, Insulin Regular (medication used to decrease blood sugar level) via subcutaneous injection (injected with the use of a needle under the skin) as per sliding scale four times a day. If blood sugar is: a. 60 to 150: give 0 units. (a unit of measurement) b. 151 to 200: give 4 units. c. 201 to 250: give 6 units. d. 251 to 300: give 8 units. e. 301 to 350: give 12 units. f. 351 to 400: give 14 units. g. 401 and above: give 16 units and notify the physician. During an interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 on 3/14/2024 at 11:15 AM, LVN 1 stated care plans are used by staff to coordinate the care of residents. LVN 1 stated Resident 22 ' s DM2 should have a care plan for diabetes management. During an interview and concurrent record review with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) 1 on 3/13/2024 at 11:39 AM, Resident 22 ' s care plan was reviewed. RNS 1 stated there was no care plan initiated for Resident 22 ' s DM2. RNS 1 stated Resident 22 ' s should have a care plan in order to properly monitor and control Resident 22 ' s blood sugar and to prevent complications such as hyperglycemia (high blood sugar levels) and hypoglycemia (low blood sugar levels). RNS 1 stated uncontrolled blood sugar levels can lead to dizziness which can lead to Resident 22 to pass out and fall. During an interview and concurrent record review with Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/13/2024 at 12:05 PM, Resident 22 ' s care plan was reviewed. DON stated she cannot find a care plan specific to Resident 22 ' s DM2. DON stated care plans have to be person-centered and for Resident 22, a care plan for DM2 should include goals to monitor and control the DM2. DON further added that a care plan for DM2 should include interventions such as the administration of insulin and other oral medications that are in Resident 22 ' s physician ' s orders. DON further stated licensed nursing staff are all able to initiate care plans. A review of the facility ' s policy titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, Revised 11/2018, indicated the facility was to provide each resident a person-centered care plan to obtain or maintain the highest physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of the resident. Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a comprehensive resident centered care plan was developed for two of two sampled residents ( Resident 20 and Resident 22). 1. A comprehensive person-centered care plan for Resident 20 did not address the reason and alternatuive measures were provided from 1/21/24 to 2/23/24 and 2/29/24 to 3/14/24 (total of 47 days) for refusal to shower. This failure had a potential to negatively affect Resident 20 ' s due to foul body odor, risk to develop skin break down, skin infections (occurs when germs enter the body and multiply, causing illnesses), and rashes. 2. A resident specific care plan for diabetes mellitus type 2 (DM2, constant elevated blood sugar levels) was not developed for Resident 22. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 22 not to receive care and intervention in management of DM2 and lead to complications related to DM2 such as having high or low blood sugar. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 20 ' s admission Record, dated 3/14/24, indicated Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves), anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), osteoarthritis (inflammation or swelling of one or more joints), abnormalities of gait and mobility, and lack of coordination (not able to move different parts of the body together well or easily). A review of Resident 20's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive assessment and screening tool) dated 9/21/23, the MDS indicated, Resident 20 was cognitively intact (able to think, remember and reason), needed partial/moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort. Helper lifts, holds, or supports trunk or limbs, but provides less than half the effort) for shower/bathe self, and needed supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity. Assistance may be provided throughout the activity or intermittently) for toileting hygiene, upper and lower body dressing, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 20 ' s Documentation Survey Report for January, February, and March 2024, indicated Resident 20 was scheduled for bathing on Wednesday and Saturday during the morning shift (7 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.). There was no documented evidence that Resident 20 was assisted to shower from 1/21/24 to 2/23/24 and 2/29/24 to 3/14/24 (total of 49 days). During an interview on 3/12/24 at 9:50 a.m. in Resident 20 ' s room, Resident 20 stated there was not enough privacy provided in all of the shower rooms at the facility. Resident 20 stated, he refused to shower in the facility ' s shower room because of lack of privacy during shower and when changing clothes because of the fear that somebody was looking at him while he was naked. Resident 20 stated, no staff member had asked him why he had been refusing to shower in the shower room. During an interview on 3/15/24 at 10:13 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4, LVN 4 stated, if a resident kept refusing shower, there should always be a care plan to address it because the resident would be at risk for skin problem. LVN 4 stated, the care plan should be specific to which care the resident refused to so that anyone from the care team would know so they could make a goal and monitor for improvement or decline. LVN 4 stated, LVN 4 would make sure Resident 20 ' s refusal to shower be addressed in the care plan so that the care team could monitor for skin problem and resident ' s progress. LVN 4 stated, LVN 4 believed Resident 20 ' s refusal to shower should already be in the care plan. LVN 4 refused care plan record review with the surveyor. A review of Resident 20 ' s care plans indicated no documented evidence that interventions were developed and/or the resident was assessed for the reason of refusal to shower in the shower room, and if alternative measures were provided to assist resident with shower. During an interview on 3/15/24 at 10:50 a.m. with the Director of Staffing Development (DSD), the DSD stated when a resident kept refusing to shower, the charge nurse supposed to find out why the resident refused, let the doctor know and create a care plan to address it. It was important to find out why the resident refused the care to create the appropriate interventions and prevent a decline in the resident ' s ADL function. It was important to let the doctor know and create a care plan because the resident was at high risk for skin infection, and rashes. During a concurrent record review and interview on 3/15/24 at 10:57 a.m. with the Assisted Director of Nurses (ADON), The ADON stated the care plan should be comprehensive and patient-centered and had to be specific to what care the resident had been refusing. The ADON stated, it was important to address Resident 20 ' s refusal to shower due to personal hygiene, skin problems and a risk that the resident could get infected. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, revised November 2018, indicated, the care plan should address resident-specific health and safety concerns to prevent decline or injury, and would identify needs for supervision, behavioral interventions, and assistance with activities of daily living; the comprehensive care plan will be reviewed and revised at the following times: Onset of new problems, To address changes in behavior and care.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, facility failed to meet the professional standards of quality care for one of four sample residents (Resident 5) by failing to clarify with the physician and review the pharmaceutical recommendation whether to administer Ziprasidone (a medication that affects mood and behavior) with food. This deficient practice has the potential to decrease bioavailability (drug become completely available to the body to produce a therapeutic effect) of the Ziprasidone and result in Resident 5 increased mood and behavioral concerns. Findings: A review of Resident 5 ' s admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses of schizophrenia (a serious mental health condition that affects the way a person thinks and communicates with outside world). A review of the History and Physical Examination dated 3/11/24, indicated Resident 5 is able to make decisions for activities of daily living. A review of Resident 5 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 12/20/23, indicated Resident 5 had intact memory and cognition (thought process and ability to reason or make decisions) for daily decision making and required setup or clean-up assistance (Helper assists only prior to or following the activity) with personal hygiene, toileting hygiene, and oral hygiene. During a concurrent observation of medication administration and interview with LVN 1 in the [NAME] Wing hallway on 3/14/24 at 8:34 a.m., LVN 1 was observed preparing Ziprasidone bubble pack (an individual pushes individually sealed tablets through the foil in order to take the medication) for Resident 5. The Ziprasidone bubble pack was observed with label indicating Take with food. During a concurrent observation, interview, and review of Resident 5 ' s Medication Administration Record (MAR), on 3/14/24 at 8:34 a.m., LVN 1 confirmed that Resident 5 ' s attending physician did not prescribe Ziprasidone to be taken with food. A review of Resident 5 ' s Order Summary Report (a summary of all currently active physician orders), dated 3/15/24, indicated on 3/1/24, Resident 5 ' s attending physician prescribed Ziprasidone Hydrochloride (Hcl) by mouth (PO) two times a day for Schizophrenia m/b beliefs that people are spying on him. A review of the manufacturer ' s product instruction for Ziprasidone on WebMD-Drug & Medication website (a national resource website which provides various health, medications topics, and support to those who seek information) with Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) 1, on 3/14/24 at 10:09 a.m., indicated, Ziprasidone to be taken medication by mouth with food as directed by the doctor. In a concurrent interview, RNS 1 stated it was crucial to administer Ziprasidone with food, otherwise the absorption of Ziprasidone is substantially reduced. RNS 1 stated he would notify Resident 5 ' s attending physician to obtain a new order. RNS 1 also stated the licensed nurse received a new order, he/she should verify the physician order against the label to ensure it ' s a correct patient, dose, route, frequency, and other instruction. When in doubt, licensed nurse can consult with pharmacist, physician, and/or DON. A review of the facility ' s undated policy Physician Orders indicated the licensed nurse will confirm that physician orders are clear, complete, and accurate as needed. the policy indicated the medication order will be transcribed onto the appropriate resident administration record.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0676 (Tag F0676)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 20), maintains the ab...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of one sampled resident (Resident 20), maintains the ability to perform ADL (Activities of Daily Living) by failing to assess the reason for the refusal to take a shower and/or provide alternative measures to receive ADL assistance for a total of 47 days from 1/21/24 to 2/23/24 and 2/29/24 to 3/14/24. This failure had a potential to result in Resident 20 ' s decline to perform ADL, risk for body odor that could negatively affect the resident's self-image, skin break down, skin infections (occurs when germs enter the body and multiply, causing illnesses) and rashes. Findings: A review of Resident 20 ' s admission Record, dated 3/14/24, indicated Resident 20 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a serious mental illness that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves), anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), osteoarthritis (inflammation or swelling of one or more joints), abnormalities of gait and mobility, and lack of coordination (not able to move different parts of the body together well or easily). A review of Resident 20's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive assessment and screening tool) dated 9/21/23, the MDS indicated, Resident 20 was cognitively intact (able to think, remember and reason), needed partial/moderate assistance (helper does less than half the effort. Helper lifts, holds, or supports trunk or limbs, but provides less than half the effort) for shower/bathe self, and needed supervision or touching assistance (helper provides verbal cues and/or touching/steadying and/or contact guard assistance as resident completes activity. Assistance may be provided throughout the activity or intermittently) for toileting hygiene, upper and lower body dressing, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 20 ' s Documentation Survey Report for January, February, and March 2024, indicated Resident 20 was scheduled for bathing on Wednesday and Saturday during morning shift (7 a.m. - 3:30 p.m.). There was no documented evidence that Resident 20 was assisted to shower from 1/21/24 to 2/23/24 (total of 33 days) and 2/29/24 to 3/14/24 (total of 15 days). A review of Resident 20 ' s care plan, dated 10/9/22, indicated Resident 20 had potential impairment to skin integrity and the interventions included to keep Resident 20 ' s skin clean and dry. A review of Resident 20 ' s care plan, dated 11/14/22, indicated Resident 20 had an ADL self-care performance deficit related to confusion (a situation in which people do not understand what is happening, what they should do or who someone or something is), disease process (a process in which a disease occurs), and impaired balance (a condition of feeling unsteady or dizzy). To maintain current level of function in ADLs, the interventions included to encourage the resident to participate to the fullest extent possible with each interactions including bathing/showering. During an interview on 3/12/24 at 9:50 a.m. with Resident 20 in Resident 20 ' s room, Resident 20 stated there was not enough privacy provided in all of the shower rooms at the facility. Resident 20 stated, he refused to shower in the facility ' s shower room because of lack of privacy during shower and when changing clothes because of the fear that somebody was looking at him while he was naked. Resident 20 stated, no staff member had asked him why he had been refusing to shower in the shower room. During an interview on 3/14/24 at 4:08 p.m. with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA 9), CNA 9 stated, Resident 20 liked to be respected for his privacy and personal space. CNA 9 stated, Resident 20 had been refusing to take a shower for a while (CNA 9 could not recall how long the resident had been refusing) and she did not ask why the resident refused to shower and just accepted Resident 20 ' s refusal for shower. During an interview on 3/15/24 at 9:39 a.m. with CNA 10, CNA 10 stated, if a resident had been known to refuse shower, she would offer one time and would not come back to the resident to ask again. CNA 10 stated, CNA 10 would let the nurse know if the resident refused showering. CNA 10 stated, Resident 20 had been known to refuse to take a shower. CNA 10 stated she did not ask Resident 20 why he did not want to shower and did not let the charge nurse know that Resident 20 had been refusing to shower because CNA 10 believed that the charge nurse should already be aware. During an interview on 3/15/24 at 10:13 a.m. with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 4, LVN 4 stated, she had been Resident 20 ' s charge nurse for a few weeks and she had never received any CNA ' s report regarding Resident 20 ' s refusing to shower. LVN 4 stated, if a resident kept refusing to shower, the resident could be at risk for skin problem. LVN 4 refused to review records with the surveyor for when and how long Resident 20 had been refusing to shower. During an interview on 3/15/24 at 10:50 a.m. with the Director of Staffing Development (DSD), the DSD stated when a resident kept refusing to shower, the CNA was expected to report it to the charge nurse and the charge nurse supposed to find out why the resident refused, let the doctor know and create a care plan to address the refusal of care. The DSD stated, it was important to find out why the resident refused the care, and to create appropriate interventions to prevent a decline in the resident ' s ADL function. The DSD stated, it was important to let the doctor know and create a care plan because the resident was at risk for skin infection, and rashes. During an interview on 3/15/24 at 2:24 p.m. with the Director of Nurses (DON), the DON stated when a resident refused to shower, the CNA supposed to offer multiple times throughout the day and report it to the LVN, the LVN should convince, explain to the resident why he should shower and find out why he had been refusing to shower and create a care plan for refusal to shower. The DON stated, the care plan should be person-centered so that the type of care the resident refused should be documented. The DON added, failure to address refusal to shower could lead to resident ' s odor, and skin break down. A review of Resident 20 ' s care plans indicated no documented evidence that interventions were developed and/or the resident was assessed for the reason of refusal to shower in the shower room, and if alternative measures were provided to assist resident with shower. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Refusal of Treatment, revised 1/1/12, indicated the following: - Treatment is defined as care provided for purposes of maintaining/restoring health, improving functional level, or relieving symptoms. -When a resident refuses to treatment, the Charge Nurse or Director of Nursing Services (DNS) interviews the resident to determine what and why the resident is refusing. The Charge Nure or DNS will attempt to address the resident ' s concerns and explain the consequences of the refusal. -The Charge Nurse or DNS will document information relating to the refusal in the resident ' s medical record. -The Interdisciplinary Team will assess the resident ' s needs and offer the resident alternative treatments while continuing to provide other services in the Care Plan.
CONCERN (D)

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

Staffing Information (Tag F0732)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staffing information was posted and updated on a daily basis. to ensure sufficient staffs were maintained at the facili...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure staffing information was posted and updated on a daily basis. to ensure sufficient staffs were maintained at the facility to provide care. As a result, the total number of staff and the actual hours worked by the staff was not readily accessible to residents and visitors to ensure the residents receives the care they needed. Findings: During an observation, on 3/13/24 at 10:48 a.m., the staffing information posted in reception station, indicated the date of 3/12/24, and a resident census of 64. On 3/13/24 at 12:13 p.m., the staffing information posted in reception station, was not updated or changed. During an observation and interview on 3/13/24 at 12:13 p.m., with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated that the facility staffing information posted in Reception Station was still not updated or changed. The DSD stated she was the one updating and posting the staffing information. The DSD stated she posted the updated staffing information every day by 9 a.m. The DSD stated the staffing information was not updated and the last time she updated the information was on 3/12/24. The DSD stated that it ' s the facility policy to post staffing information daily at the beginning of each shift to identify and to prevent understaffing. The DSD stated understaffing would not meet the needs to care for the residents, which could lead to adverse injuries. A review of the facility's Policy and Procedure titled, Staffing, scheduling, and postings, revised dated July 2018, indicated the facility will post the nurse staffing data on a daily basis at the beginning of each shift and data must be posted in a prominent place readily accessible to residents and visitors.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services indicated in the facility policy by failing to ensure the Change of Shift Narcotics (drug tha...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide pharmaceutical services indicated in the facility policy by failing to ensure the Change of Shift Narcotics (drug that relief pain, cause state of stupor or sleep, and physical dependence) Reconciliation Records verified by two of wo Licensed Nurses. This deficient practice could lead to inaccurate record of narcotic medication use, loss or misuse of narcotic medication. Findings: On 2/21/2024, the night shift (11 PM to 7 PM shift) licensed nurses did not, count and sign off the Controlled Drugs Count Record (CDCR) at the end of shift with up coming licensed nurse as required in the facility's policy. On 3/3/2024, the day shift (7AM to 3 PM shift) licensed nurses did not perform narcotic count and sign off the CDCR at the end of the shift with up coming licensed nurse as required in the policy. During a concurrent record review of the CDCR and an interview with the Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 on 3/13/24 at 1:05 p.m., the LVN 1 stated CDCR were missing signatures from licensed nurses on 2/21/2024 and 3/3/2024 for the end of the shift narcotic count. The LVN 1 stated narcotic medications must be counted at every shift change by two licensed nurses and compare against the controlled substance administration records to ensure no missing narcotic medication. The LVN 1 stated after completing the count, both licensed nurses are required to put their initial on the CDCR. During an interview with Director of Nursing (DON) on 3/15/24 at 1:21 p.m., the DON stated it is very important the licensed nurses follow the facility's Narcotic Count - Change of Shift policy and procedure (P&P) to help protect them from being accused of mishandling, misusing or missing of the narcotic medications. A review of the facility's undated P&P titled, Narcotic Count - Change of Shift, indicated that the on-coming licensed nurse and off-going licensed nurse will both sign the CDCR located in the back of the Narcotic Record Book.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to label drugs and medical device used in the facility th...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, record review and interview, the facility failed to label drugs and medical device used in the facility that were stored in one of the two med carts and one of two medication room storage, in accordance with currently accepted professional principles by failing to: 1. Label a multi-dose Valproic Acid (a medication used to treat seizure disorder [a sudden, uncontrolled burst of electrical activity in the brain]) bottle without an opened date, stored in Medication Carts (Med Cart 1). 2. Remove three expired foley catheter insertion trays (medical device that helps drain urine from the bladder) stored in Medication Storage Room. This deficient practice had the potential to result in the loss of efficacy of the Valproic Acid and can increased risk of seizures and a potential to result in the use of ineffective medical device for the residents. Findings: 1. During an observation and Medi Cart inspection in the [NAME] Wing Station on [DATE], at 9:49 a.m., in the presence of Licensed Vocational Nurse 2 (LVN 2), a bottle of opened Valproic Acid, labeled with the expiration date of [DATE] and without a label indicating the date the bottle was opened. During a concurrent interview and observation, LVN 2 confirmed that there was no written opened date on the Valproic Acid bottle. LVN 2 stated he was not sure when the bottle was opened. LVN 2 stated whoever opened the bottle, should have placed an opened date on the label. During an interview on [DATE], at 10:09 a.m., with a Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) 1, RNS1 stated Valproic Acid should be discarded after 28 days once it was opened to ensure drug effectivity and potency was maintained. RNS 1 stated licensed nurses should put a label the bottle of when it was opened to know when to discard. A review of the facility's undated policies and procedures (P&P) titled, Labeling of Medication Containers indicated all medications maintained in the facility shall be properly labeled in accordance with current state and federal regulations. Medication labels must be legible at all times. Labels for each medication shall include all necessary information including the date that the medication was dispensed. 2. During an inspection of the Medication Room located at East Wing Station (EWS) on [DATE] at 1:21 p.m., with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), three foley insertion trays were labeled with the expired date [DATE], were found on a shelf in the medication storage room. The ADON verified the trays were expired and stated they should not have been in the medication storage room. A review of facility ' s P&P title, Storage of medications dated [DATE], indicated that outdated, contaminated, or deteriorated medication and those in containers that are cracked, soiled, or without secure closures are immediately removed from stock.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medical Records (Tag F0842)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure accurately document in the Medication Administration Record ...

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 accurately document in the Medication Administration Record (MAR) that insulin was given for one of five sampled residents (Resident 22) that indicated two doses of regular insulin (a medication prescribed to control blood sugar level) were not administered. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 22 not to receive care and intervention in management of DM2 and lead to complications related to DM2 such as having high or low blood sugar. Findings: A review of Resident 22 ' s admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included DM2 and schizophrenia (a chronic and severe mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves). A review of Resident 22 ' s history and physical, dated 2/23/2023, indicated the resident does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 22 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS, a comprehensive standardized assessment and screening tool), dated 3/1/2024, indicated the resident has intact cognition. Resident 22 ' s MDS also indicated the resident is independent in doing activities of daily living (ADL ' s), including eating, toileting, bathing, dressing, and walking. A review of Resident 22 ' s Order Summary Report, dated 3/13/2024, indicated Resident 22 was prescribed regular insulin via subcutaneous injection (injected with the use of a needle under the skin) as per sliding scale four times a day. The amount of insulin depends on the blood sugar level (BS). If the BS was: a. 60 to 150: give 0 units. (units, a unit of measurement) b. 151 to 200: give 4 units. c. 201 to 250: give 6 units. d. 251 to 300: give 8 units. e. 301 to 350: give 12 units. f. 351 to 400: give 14 units. g. 401 and above: give 16 units and notify the physician. During an interview on 3/15/2024 at 8:40 AM, Resident 22 stated she does not refuse to take medications, especially insulin. During an interview and concurrent record review with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 on 3/15/2024 at 8:50 AM, Resident 22 ' s MAR for February 2024 indicated Resident 22 had a BS of 158 and on 2/19/2024 at 6:30 AM and a BS of 203 on 2/21/2024 at 6:30 AM. LVN 3 stated the MAR indicated Resident 22 should have received 4 units of regular insulin for the BS of 158 and 6 units for the BS of 203. LVN 3 stated the nurse documented a code 9 which means the insulin was not given and to see the progress notes. A concurrent review of Resident 22 ' s progress notes conducted with LVN 3 indicated there was no documented evidence the reason for the medication not given. LVN 3 stated he cannot find any entry in Resident 22 ' s progress notes indicating the reason for not administering insulin for the high blood sugar level. During an interview on 3/15/2024 at 9:40 AM with LVN 4, LVN 4 stated he was the nurse in charge of administering Resident 22 ' s insulin on 2/19/2024 at 6:30 AM and 2/21/2024 at 6:30 A.M. LVN 4 stated Resident 22 never refused any medications, including insulin. LVN 4 stated he administered the insulins on those dates and times, but he failed to document in the MAR that insulin was administered. LVN 4 stated this was inaccurate documentation and could lead to the mismanagement of Resident 22 ' s DM2. During an interview and concurrent record review with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 3/15/2024 at 9:11 AM, Resident 22 ' s MAR was reviewed. ADON stated LVN 4 should have charted the medication as administered instead of 9. ADON stated this was inaccurate documentation and put Resident 22 at risk for complications of DM2 such diabetic ketoacidosis (a serious complication of diabetes that can be life-threatening). ADON further stated inaccurate documentation can lead to double dosing of medications. A review of the facility ' s job description for an LVN charge nurse titled, Charge Nurse Job Description, undated, indicated the charge nurse must ensure that documentation is complete and is in compliance with regulations and standards as well as policies and procedures. A review of the facility ' s policy titled, Medication Administration, revised 1/1/2012, indicated the nurse is to chart the drug, administration time, and his/her initial with each medication administration.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0847 (Tag F0847)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure three of three sampled residents (Residents 10, 55, and 44) ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure three of three sampled residents (Residents 10, 55, and 44) who had no mental capacity to understand the terms of the facility ' s binding arbitration agreement (an agreement that allows parties to resolve disputes and lawsuits privately rather than going to the court) does not sign the arbitration agreement. This failure had the potential for Resident 10, 55 and 44 to not understand their rights for a binding arbitration agreement. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 10 ' s admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 10 on 6/15/2023, with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a serious mental disorder in which people interpret reality abnormally) and dementia (the loss of cognitive functioning, thinking, remembering, and reasoning to such an extent that it interferes with a person's daily life and activities. The admission Record indicated Resident 10 was self-responsible. A review of Resident 10's Minimum Data Set ([MDS] a standardized assessment and care screening tool), dated 12/22/2023, the MDS indicated the cognitive (the ability to think and process information) skills for daily decisions making was severely impaired. A review of Resident 10 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 6/15/2023, indicated that Resident 10 can make needs known but cannot make medical decisions, due to dementia, Alzheimer (a brain disorder that slowly destroys memory and thinking skills, and eventually, the ability to carry out the simplest tasks) and schizophrenia. A review of Resident 10 ' s Advance Healthcare Directive (AHCD) Acknowledgement Form dated 6/16/2023 indicated Resident 10 was unable to sign and lacks capacity. A review of Resident 10 ' s Arbitration Agreement, dated 06/26/2023, indicated that the agreement has been explained including in a language that the resident or resident ' s legal representative and/or agent on behalf of resident understands to the resident, or resident ' s legal representative and/or agent on behalf of resident by a representative of the facility in a form and manner the resident understands. The Arbitration agreement indicated the resident or resident ' s legal representative or agent on behalf of resident understood the agreement. The Arbitration agreement indicated Resident 10 electronically signed the agreement. 2. A review of Resident 55 ' s admission Record indicated the facility originally admitted Resident 55 on 5/9/2023, and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included anxiety disorder, depression, psychotic disorder (severe mental disorders that cause abnormal thinking and perceptions), schizophrenia, cognitive communication deficit (difficulty paying attention to a conversation, staying on topic, remembering information, responding accurately, understanding jokes or metaphors, or following directions), and auditory hallucinations. The admission Record indicated Resident 55 Family Member 1 was the responsible party. A review of Resident 55's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the cognitive skills for daily decisions making was moderately impaired. A review of Resident 55 ' s H&P, dated 09/07/2023 and 01/25/2024, the H&P indicated Resident 55 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 55 ' s Arbitration Agreement, dated 05/10/2023, indicated the agreement has been explained including in a language that the resident or resident ' s legal representative and/or agent on behalf of resident understands to the resident, or resident ' s legal representative and/or agent on behalf of resident by a representative of the facility in a form and manner the resident understands. The Arbitration agreement indicated the resident or resident ' s legal representative or agent on behalf of resident understood the agreement. The Arbitration agreement indicated Resident 55 electronically signed the agreement. 3. A review of Resident 44 ' s admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 44 on 5/17/2023, with diagnoses that included anxiety disorder, depression, bipolar disorder (causes extreme mood swings that include emotional highs (mania or hypomania) and lows (depression), psychotic disorder, schizophrenia, and unspecified psychosis not due to a substance or known physiological (physical and chemical processes of the body) condition. The admission Record indicated Resident 44 ' s responsible party was Friend 1, and Friend 1 has power of attorney (POA, a legal document that allows someone else to act on behalf of a person) for financial and care. A review of Resident 44 ' s H&P, dated 4/20/2023, indicated Resident can make needs known but cannot make medical decisions. A review of Resident 44 ' s H&P dated 5/18/2023, indicated Resident 44 was able to make decisions for activities of daily living. A review of Resident 44's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the cognitive skills for daily decisions making was severely impaired. A review of Resident 44 ' s Arbitration Agreement, dated 05/23/2023, indicated the agreement has been explained including in a language that the resident or resident ' s legal representative and/or agent on behalf of resident understands to the resident, or resident ' s legal representative and/or agent on behalf of resident by a representative of the facility in a form and manner the resident understands. The Arbitration agreement indicated the resident or resident ' s legal representative or agent on behalf of resident understood the agreement. The Arbitration agreement indicated Resident 44 electronically signed the agreement. During an interview on 3/15/2023 at 11:50 AM, with Business Office Staff (BS) 1 (covering for Admissions Coordinator), BS 1 stated that the facility had problems getting a hold with resident ' s public guardians, and families to sign with Arbitration Agreement. BS 1 stated signing arbitration agreement was not a requirement to be admitted to the facility. BS 1 stated that if resident is not alert/oriented, does not have the capacity to consent, the facility will contact family or the responsible party, public guardian, or conservator. BS 1 stated the facility review the BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status, used to get a quick snapshot of how well a person is functioning cognitively) and H&P, and the Nurses ' assessments if resident is lucid or confused. If resident has no capacity, the Administrator (ADM) and Director of Social Worker (DSW) were informed to find responsible party. BS 1 stated if resident has no capacity, the facility should not let resident sign arbitration agreement. If there was no responsible party, the ADM may file for conservatorship, find someone that can represent the resident. BS 1 stated the Arbitration Agreement was signed using a tablet, cannot be in paper as the pen they use to sign can be used as a weapon. During an interview on 3/15/2023 at 12:12 PM, The DSW stated if resident has no capacity to make decisions and no responsible party and resident needs to sign a legal document, the DSW stated the facility should refer to public guardian, locate family, ask for neuropsychiatrist evaluation, check BIMS and if high and able to answer, that during admission and resident needs to sign documents, the facility goes by BIMS until H&P is ready. During an interview on 3/15/2023 at 1:31 PM with the ADM, regarding the process for Arbitration Agreements, the ADM stated, the facility does not let resident sign, facility apply for conservatorship, in the meantime, if it is a medical decision needed, we ask IDT, only for medical or treatment decisions, not for arbitration. Arbitration agreements are not required, can be followed up anytime during their stay. If no capacity, leave it blank, do not ask resident to sign. During concurrent interview and record review with the ADM 3/15/2023 at 1:47 PM, Arbitration agreements and H&Ps for Residents 10, 55, and 44 were reviewed. Arbitrations agreements for Residents 10, 55, and 44 have E-signatures by the residents indicated the following information: If the facility presents an arbitration agreement to a resident, the person presenting the arbitration agreement will: a. Explain the agreement to the resident in a form and manner that they understand, including in a language the resident understand; and b. Confirm that the resident understands the agreement. - Presentation of the Arbitration Agreement: When presenting the Arbitration Agreement, the admissions staff must explain what arbitration is in a language and manner that resident or responsible party understands. - Execution and Documentation of the Arbitration Agreement: If the resident lacks capacity at the time of admission, or if a family member signs on their behalf, the director of admission will request documentation regarding the authority of the person signing, such as a durable power of attorney and/or orders of conservatorship.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0919 (Tag F0919)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a call light (device used to alert facility staff assistance as needed by residents) for one out of 11 sampled residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a call light (device used to alert facility staff assistance as needed by residents) for one out of 11 sampled residents (Resident 10). This deficient practice had the potential for the resident facility ' s failure to provide resident 10 with a call light is a serious issue that has the potential to delay care, endanger their safety, and impact their overall well -being. Findings: A review of Resident 10's admission Record indicated the facility admitted the resident on 6/15/2023, with diagnoses including but not limited to schizophrenia (lifelong brain disorder that causes people to interpret reality abnormally), dementia (Impaired thinking, remembering, or reasoning), unsteadiness on feet, and localized edema (swelling caused by excess fluid in body tissues). A review of Resident 10's History and Physical dated 6/15/2023, indicated resident 10 lacks capacity to make medical decisions. History and Physical of Resident 10 indicated Resident 10 has poor coordination and abnormal gait (when a person cannot walk in usual way). A review of Resident 10's Minimum Data Set (MDS- a comprehensive standardized assessment and screening tool) dated 12/22/2023, indicated no attempt to have resident walk 10 feet was done due to safety concerns and requires moderate assistance with all transfers and toileting. A review of Resident 10's Care plan titled the resident is at risk for falls initiated on 12/27/2023 and revised on 12/27/2023 indicated Resident 10 will be free of falls and anticipate and meet the resident's needs. During an observation on 3/12/2024, at 9:54am, Resident 10 was observed in her room, lying in bed, awake. Further observation showed no call light was present or connected to the wall. During an Interview on 3/12/2024 at 10:00am, with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 3, she stated all residents are supposed to have a working call light within reach. When asked why Resident 10 had no call light, CNA 3 stated sometimes the resident removes the call light or throws it away. A review of the facility Policy titled Communication - Call system, revised 1/1/2012, indicated purpose of call system to provide a mechanism for residents to promptly communicate with Nursing Staff. The Facility will provide a call system to enable residents to alert the nursing staff from their rooms and toileting/bathing facilities. Call cords will be placed within the resident ' s reach in the resident ' s room. When the resident is out of bed, the call cord will be clipped to the bedspread in such a way as to be available to a wheelchair bound resident. If call bell is defective, it will be reported immediately to maintenance and replaced immediately.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were handled, prepared, and stored in a manner that prevented foodborne illness (food poisoning) for 63 of 63 res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure foods were handled, prepared, and stored in a manner that prevented foodborne illness (food poisoning) for 63 of 63 residents receiving food from the kitchen, by failing to ensure: a. Expired products were removed from kitchen pantry. b. Food items were dated, labeled, and sealed after opening in the food preparation area, walk in freezer and dry storage area. c. [NAME] 1 wore hair restraint to cover beard and mustache while in kitchen and food storage areas. These failures had the potential to result in harmful bacteria growth and cross contamination (transfer of harmful bacteria from one place to another) that could lead to food borne illness for 63 of 63 medically compromised residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings: a. During concurrent observation and interview on 03/12/2024 at 08:43 AM with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), observed the following in the walk-in refrigerator: - Teriyaki marinade and sauce had labeled that indicated opened date 12/14/2024, use by date (the last date recommended for the use of the product while at peak quality) of 1/14/2024. - Barbeque sauce with date labeled 3/11/2024. The label of the bottle did not indicate an opened date or use by date. - Soy beverage with dates labeled as 3/4/2024, opened date 3/10/2024. The DSS stated she was not sure if the label of 3/11/2024 on the barbeque sauce was open or use by date. The DSS stated the teriyaki marinade sauce, the barbeque sauce and soy beverage were all expired. The DSS stated the residents could get ill or sick if the expired food were served and that the expired products will be taken out of the walk-in refrigerator and will be thrown. b. During concurrent observation and interview on 3/12/2024 at 8:50 AM, with the DSS, observed the following in the dry food storage area: - One package of cookies was opened, not sealed, and no date opened or use by date. - Seasoned salt with label dated 5/28/2020. - Confectioner sugar with sticker label dated 8/2/2021, date written on the box 5/16/2023; with handwritten note on plastic bag opened 1/30/2024. Manufacturer's best by date: 2/27/2020. - Potato chips bag with date labeled 2/19/2024. - Bulk containers of rice, flour, potato slices have no dates opened by and use by dates. In a concurrent interview 3/12/2024 at 8:50 AM, the DSS stated leaving the foods opened unsealed and no labeled of opened date and use by date could cause risk for contamination. The DSS stated the seasoned salt was expired and the salt was for staff use. The DSS stated the confectioners ' sugar date on sticker 8/2/2021 was the delivery date, the handwritten note on plastic bag 1/30/2024 was opened date and 2/27/2023 was manufacturer's best by date. The DSS stated the potato chips bag was expired. The bulk containers for rice, flour, potato slices had no dates and was not sure of the expiration date. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Food Storage Operational Manual - Dietary Services date revised July 25, 2019, indicated that the policy was food items will be stored, thawed, and prepared in accordance with good sanitary practice. All items will be correctly labeled and dated. Dry Storage Guidelines: -Any opened products should be placed in storage containers with tight fitting lids. -Label and date all storage products. c. During an observation on 03/12/2024 at 08:49 AM, observed [NAME] 1 wearing face mask with beard sticking out from under the mask. During an interview on 3/12/24 09:06 AM, the DSS stated [NAME] 1 should have a beard net on, she stated she placed an order for beard nets but has not yet been delivered. The DSS stated [NAME] 1 hair could fall in the food and could cause food contamination. A review of facility ' s P&P titled Dietary Department - Infection Control for Dietary Employees revised November 9, 2016, indicated that to ensure that the dietary department is maintained in a sanitary condition in order to prevent food contamination and the growth of disease producing organisms and toxins (a poison made by certain bacteria, plants, or animals, including insects). All dietary employees will follow infection control policies as established and approved by the facility ' s Infection Control Committee. Personal cleanliness is required in sanitary food preparation. Clean hair - covered with an effective hair restraint while in all kitchen and food storage areas (and beard/mustache covering when applicable).
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide a sanitary environment and implement the faci...

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 a sanitary environment and implement the facility ' s policy and procedure for infection control by ensuring resident ' s clothing and two clean linen carts were stored in the clean designed areas. These deficient practices had the potential to result in the spread of diseases and infection to the residents, the facility staffs, and visitors. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/12/24 at 1:28 p.m. with the Infection Control Nurse (IPN) in Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] East Wing (EW), eleven (11) hangers with clothes were observed hanging on the shower curtain pole with the shower curtain covering the shower stall. The IPN stated, she did not know if the clothes were clean or dirty, or with whom the clothes belong to, why and how long the clothes were placed in the common shower room that all other residents have access to. The IPN stated, the clothes should not be hanging in the common shower room because of infection reason. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/12/24 at 1:35 p.m. with the IPN in the Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] EW, one blue cart with a white towel on top of it was observed next to two brown carts with towels and gowns. Each of the brown cart was observed located in each of the two shower stalls. The IPN stated, the brown carts were used to store clean linens, blue cart were used for dirty linen, and the white towel was dirty and used. The IPN stated, Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] was for residents ' shower only, she had never seen clean linen carts stored in the shower room and the dirty white towel should be inside the blue bag. The IPN stated, the Certified Nurse Assistants (CNA) might have stored the clean linen carts in the shower room after the residents used it, but it should not be acceptable because the clean linens could be contaminated (to soil, stain, corrupt, or infected by contact or association), and when they used the linens for the residents, they could spread infection. During an interview on 3/12/24 at 2:15 p.m. with CNA 2, CNA 2 stated, he was not sure why the clothes were in Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] EW, CNA 2 stated he did not notice the hanging clothes until the surveyor brought it to his attention. CNA 2 stated, he did not know how long the clothes had been there, and he believed they were donated clothes. He brought them back to the laundry right after he was made aware of the clothes. During an interview on 3/13/24 at 1:20 p.m. with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON), the ADON stated, the clean clothes should not be hanging in Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] EW and the two clean linen carts should not be stored inside Shower room [ROOM NUMBER] EW because the shower rooms were shared by all residents, they could be moist which would lead to bacterial growth and contaminate the clean linens. The ADON stated, when using the contaminated linens, they could spread infection and cause a decline in their overall health of the residents. During an interview on 3/13/24 at 3:40 pm with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), the DSD stated, there was a designated area in the back of the facility to store empty linen carts. The CNAs were responsible to fill them up before they made rounds to change their assigned residents ' linen. After the CNAs finished their round, they would need to empty the carts and store them back to the designated area. The DSD stated, they should never store the carts with clean linen, towels and gowns in the common shower room with the dirty linen cart because they could be contaminated and spread infection. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Infection Control-Policies & Procedures, revised January 01, 2012, the P&P indicated, the facility is responsible to facilitate maintaining a safe sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and manage transmission of diseases and infections.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0911 (Tag F0911)

Minor procedural issue · 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 four (4) out of twenty-two (22) resident's roo...

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 four (4) out of twenty-two (22) resident's rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 5, 20, and 26) accommodated no more than four residents in each room. The 4 resident rooms consisted of 2 (two) - twelve (12) bed capacity rooms, 1 (one), seven (7) bed capacity room, and 1 (one), six (6) bed capacity rooms. This deficient practice had the potential adversely affect the delivery of care, quality of life, safety and violate the resident's rights for privacy. Findings: During the entrance conference interview, the Administrator (ADM) on 3/12/24 at 8:55 a.m., the ADM stated there were four rooms in the facility that did not have the required no more than four residents in each room, but the facility had a waiver (a permit approved by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for rooms that did not meet the regulation requirement) in place and would like to request an additional waiver this year. The ADM stated, the multiple beds per room had no impact on care of the residents. During an interview on 3/13/24 at 8:40 a.m. with Resident 20 in room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident 20 stated he had no concern with resident ' s space or number of residents in his room. During an interview on 3/14/24 at 11:10 a.m. with Resident 47 who resided in room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident 47 stated, he had no concern regarding resident ' s space or the number of residents in his room. During three interviews on 3/14/24 at 11:50 a.m. during Resident Council meeting with Resident 18 (room [ROOM NUMBER]), and Resident 59 (room [ROOM NUMBER]), both residents stated there were no concerns brought up by the residents during the monthly Resident Council meeting regarding the number of residents in each room. A review of the facilities Client Accommodations Analysis form dated 3/15/24 indicated, the facility had 4 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 5, 20, and 26) that had more than four residents per room. A review of the facility ' s request for additional room waiver dated 3/15/24 indicated, the arrangement of the rooms provided adequate space for nursing care, for wheelchair (a chair fitted with wheels for use as a means of transport by a person who is unable to walk as a result of illness, injury, or disability) access. The multiple beds per room and did not adversely affect the health and safety of the residents. The request indicated the following resident bedrooms were: room [ROOM NUMBER] (12 beds) 12 residents, 79.1 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (6 beds) 6 residents, 92.8 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (12 beds) 12 residents, 87.1 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (7 beds) 7 residents, 79.8 sq. ft per resident. During the survey, from 3/12/24 to 3/15/24, there were no observed adverse effects as to the adequacy of space, nursing care, comfort, and privacy to the residents. The residents residing in the affected rooms (Rooms 1, 5, 20, and 26) with an application for variance were observed to have enough space for the residents to move freely inside the rooms. Each resident inside the affected rooms had beds and lockers. There was an adequate room for the operation and use of the wheelchairs, walkers (a device that gives additional support to maintain balance or stability while walking,), or canes. The room variance did not affect the care and services provided to the residents when nursing staff were observed providing care to the residents. A review of the facility ' s Resident Census from the last Health Recertification Survey with exit date of 3/31/2023 indicated the residents that occupied Rooms 1, 5, 20, and 26 were not the same residents that occupies Rooms 1, 5, 20, and 26 during this current Health Recertification Survey for 3/12/2024 to 3/15/2024.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of ...

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 a minimum of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of measurement) per resident for twelve (12) out of twenty-two (22) resident rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31). The 12 resident rooms consisted of 1 (one), twelve (12) bed capacity rooms, 1 (one), seven (7) bed capacity room, 2 (two), four (4) bed capacity rooms, 2 (two), three (3) bed capacity rooms, and 6 (six), two (2) bed capacity rooms. This deficient practice had the potential to negatively impact the quality-of-care and the ability to of the nursing care to safely provide care and privacy to the residents. Findings: During an entrance conference with the Administrator (ADM) on 3/12/24 at 8:55 a.m., the ADM stated multiple rooms in the facility did not have the required 80 square feet of space per resident, but the facility had a room waiver (a permit approved by Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services for rooms that did not meet the regulation requirement) in place and would like to request an additional waiver this year. The ADM stated, the room size had no impact on the care of the residents. During an interview on 3/13/24 at 8:40 a.m. with Resident 20 in room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident 20 stated he had no concern with resident ' s space or number of residents in his room. During an interview on 3/14/24 at 11:10 a.m. with Resident 47 in room [ROOM NUMBER], Resident 47 stated, he had no concern regarding resident ' s space or the number of residents in his room. During three interviews on 3/14/24 at 11:50 a.m. during Resident Council meeting with Resident 14 (room [ROOM NUMBER]), Resident 8 (room [ROOM NUMBER]), and Resident 59 (room [ROOM NUMBER]), all three residents who resided in the rooms with less than 80 sq. ft. stated there were no concerns brought up by the residents during the monthly Resident Council meeting regarding the insufficient residents ' room size. A review of the facilities Client Accommodations Analysis form dated 3/15/24 indicated, the facility had 12 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31) that measured less than the required 80 square footages per resident in multiple bed capacity rooms. A review of the facility ' s request for room waiver, dated 3/15/24, indicated the arrangement of the rooms provided adequate space for nursing care, for wheelchair (a chair fitted with wheels for use as a means of transport by a person who is unable to walk as a result of illness, injury, or disability) access, and did not adversely affect the health and safety of the residents. The request indicated the following resident bedrooms were: room [ROOM NUMBER] (12 beds) 12 residents 56x20 sq. ft., 79.1 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 11x12 sq. ft., 63 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 11x12 sq. ft., 63 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 11x12 sq. ft., 63 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 12x13 sq. ft., 75 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 12x12 sq. ft., 70 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (4 beds) 4 residents 12x23 sq. ft., 67 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (7 beds) 7 residents 25x23 sq. ft., 79.8 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (2 beds) 2 residents 12x14 sq. ft., 66.5 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (4 beds) 4 residents 12x25 sq. ft., 72 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 3 residents 12x20 sq. ft., 78 sq. ft per resident. room [ROOM NUMBER] (3 beds) 3 residents 12x20 sq. ft., 78 sq. ft per resident. During the survey, from 3/12/24 to 3/15/24, there were no observed adverse effects related to the inadequate room size during the nursing care and did not affect the and privacy to the residents. The residents residing in the affected rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER], 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30, and 31) with an application for variance were observed to have enough space for the residents to move freely inside the rooms. Each resident inside the affected rooms had beds and lockers. There was an adequate room for the operation and use of the wheelchairs, walkers (a device that gives additional support to maintain balance or stability while walking,), or canes. The room variance did not affect the care and services provided to the residents when nursing staff were observed providing care to the residents. A review of the facility ' s Resident Census from the last Health Recertification Survey with exit date of 3/31/2023 indicated the residents that occupied Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 were not the same residents that occupies Rooms 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 21, 26, 27, 28, 30 and 31 during this current Health Recertification Survey for 3/12/2024 to 3/15/2024.
Feb 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Notification of Changes (Tag F0580)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician for one out of four sampled residents (Residen...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the physician for one out of four sampled residents (Resident 1) when Resident 1 refused to take Olanzapine and Divalproex, psychotropic medications (medications that affect brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) on 2/19/2024. This deficient practice placed the resident and other residents at risk of harm when Resident 1 had a physical altercation with Resident 2 the following day. Findings: A review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record indicated Resident 1 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included restlessness and agitation, bipolar disorder (a mental health illness that causes extreme mood swings), and schizophrenia (mental disorder that affects how a person thinks, feels, and behaves). A review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P), dated 1/31/2024, indicated Resident 1 does not have capacity to make medical decisions. A review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment tool that measures health status in nursing home residents), dated 2/5/2024, indicated Resident 1 can independently do activities of daily living (ADLs). Resident 1 ' s MDS indicated the resident has no functional limitation in the range of motion (ROM- full movement potential of a joint) of both upper extremities (shoulder, elbow, wrist, and hand) and lower extremities (hip, knee, ankle, and foot). A review of Resident 2 ' s admission Record indicated Resident 2 was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE] and was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizophrenia and psychosis (a mental condition in which thought and emotions are affected that contact is lost with external reality). A review of Resident 2 ' s H&P, dated 1/30/2024, indicated Resident 2 does not have capacity to make medical decisions. A review of Resident 2 ' s MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 2 can independently do ADLs. Resident 2 ' s MDS indicated the resident has no functional limitation in the ROM of both upper extremities and lower extremities. A review of Resident 1 ' s Order Summary Report (OSR), dated 2/26/2024, indicated Resident 1 is to be monitored for behavior associated with bipolar disorder as manifested by fluctuation of mood from calm to anger. The OSR also indicated Resident 1 is to be monitored for behavior associated with schizophrenia as manifested by auditory hallucination (a false perception that appears to be real) telling him to hurt others. The OSR indicated Resident 1 is to be administered Divalproex for bipolar disorder twice a day and Olanzapine for schizophrenia at bedtime. A review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes entered on 2/19/2024 at 10:12 PM by Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 indicated the resident refused all PM medications after being offered three times. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/26/2024 at 12:54 PM with LVN 1, Resident 1 ' s Medication Administration Record (MAR) for February 2024 was reviewed. LVN 1 stated Resident 1 refused PM medications, Divalproex 250 milligram (mg) tablet by mouth every 12 hours, scheduled for 2/19/2024 at 6:00 PM, and Olanzapine 10 mg tablet by mouth at bedtime, scheduled for 2/19/2024 at 9:00 PM. LVN 1 stated the medications were ordered to control Resident 1 ' s aggressive behavior. LVN 1 stated she should have notified the physician when the resident refused the medications. LVN 1 stated if Resident 1 does not take the medications, his aggressive behavior would not be controlled. A review of Resident 1 ' s progress notes by Registered Nurse (RN) 1 entered on 2/19/2024 at 9:13 PM indicated the resident was noted with increased agitation [manifested by] throwing things, attempting to strike out and yelling profanity. During an interview with RN 1 on 2/26/2024 at 3:39 PM, RN 1 stated the physician should have been notified when Resident 1 refused all PM medications, including Olanzapine and Divalproex, because he was aggressive that night. RN 1 stated if the physician was notified of the refusal of medication and escalating behavior, the physician might have ordered different interventions to control the resident's behavior. During an interview with RN 2 on 2/26/2024 at 2:30 PM, RN 2 stated the physician should have been notified right away when Resident 1 refused the medications because those medications were ordered to manage Resident 1 ' s aggressive behaviors. RN 2 stated the incident could have been prevented if the physician was notified. During an interview with Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) on 2/26/2024 at 4:14 PM, the ADON stated the nurses should have called the physician that night to communicate that the resident refused the PM medications because the resident was already exhibiting aggressive behavior. The ADON stated the medications were ordered to control the aggressive behaviors and could have prevented the altercation on 2/20/2024 with Resident 2. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 2/26/2024 at 4:14 PM, the DON stated the MAR indicated that Olanzapine and Divalproex were refused by Resident 1 for the PM shift on 2/19/2024. The DON stated there was no entry in the progress notes to know if the licensed nurses communicated to the physician about Resident 1 ' s refusal to take Olanzapine and Divalproex and escalating behavior. A review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes entered on 2/20/2024 at 7:45 AM indicated that Resident 1 threw coffee at Resident 2. The entry indicated Resident 2 responded by striking Resident 1 on the face. A review of Resident 1 ' s care plan (document that outlines the facility ' s plan to provide personalized care to a resident based on the resident ' s needs) for resident ' s physical aggression related to poor impulse control, initiated on 2/19/2024, indicated one of the interventions is to administer medications as ordered. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Medication- Administration revised 1/1/2012, indicated if a resident refuses to take medications after one hour, the refused medications will be destroyed, and the licensed nurse will notify the physician and document in the medical record. A review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Progress Notes, revised 1/1/2012, indicated that progress notes reflect the resident ' s current status, progress or lack of progress, changes in condition, adjustment to the Facility, and other relevant information. A review of the facility ' s P&P titled, Refusal of Treatment revised 1/1/2012, indicated the physician will be notified of refusal of treatment in a time frame determined by the resident ' s condition and potential serious consequences of the refusal. The P&P also indicated the nurse in charge will document the date and time the attending physician was notified and his or her response.
Nov 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0602 (Tag F0602)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent misappropriation of property (the deliberate misplacement, ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent misappropriation of property (the deliberate misplacement, exploitation, or wrongful, temporary, or permanent use of a resident's belongings or money) by failing to provide the trust fund (a legal arrangement that allows an individual to place assets in a special account to benefit another person or entity) to the resident or resident representative upon discharge from the facility, in accordance with the facility ' s policy and procedure on Discharge and Transfer of Residents for one of three sampled residents (Resident 1). These deficient practices resulted in Resident 1 ' s missing $5,091.46 Trust Fund from the date the resident was discharged from the facility on 5/2/23 up until 5/11/23 which caused an increased in Resident 1 ' s sadness and anxiety. Findings: During a review of Resident 1 ' s admission Record, dated 11/3/23, the admission Record indicated, Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included but not limited to major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest, it can affects how a person feel, think and behave and can lead to a variety of emotional and physical problems), anxiety (a group of mental disorders characterized by significant feelings of fear), and osteoarthritis (the most common form of arthritis [inflammation or swelling of one or more joints] that occurs when flexible tissue at the ends of bones wears down), The admission Record also indicated Resident 1 was self-responsible for making medical decisions. During a review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment and care screening tool), dated 5/2/23, the MDS indicated, Resident 1 was cognitively intact (independent with daily decision-making). During a review Resident 1 ' s Discharge Summary/Comprehensive Assessment, dated 5/2/23, the record indicated, Resident 1 was admitted on [DATE] for rehabilitation skilled physical therapy (a medical treatment used to restore functional movements, such as standing, walking, and moving different body parts) and occupational therapy (treatment to promote more independent living) services, behavioral management, and psychotropic medication management and was discharged on 5/2/23 with cognition and psychosocial status of alert and oriented (fully conscious, responsive, aware of the surroundings and able to make decision for oneself.) A review of Resident 1 ' s Discharge Evaluation, dated 5/17/23, the Discharge Evaluation indicated, Resident 1 was the resident representative for herself. During an interview on 11/3/23 at 10:20 a.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated she had close to $6000 USD in her trust fund with the facility before she was discharged from the facility on 5/2/23 and but had not received the monies. During a review Resident 1 ' s Resident Statement Landscape, dated 11/3/23, the record indicated, Resident 1 had a balance of $5091.46 USD as of 5/11/23. During a concurrent interview and record review on 11/3/23 at 2:45 p.m. with ADM, Resident 1 ' s copy of the actual issued check, dated 5/11/23 was reviewed. The record indicated, there was a signature followed by received check 5/11/23 at 12:27 p.m. ADM stated, per Business Office Manager (BOM), there was no record of who collected Resident 1 ' s issued check. ADM stated, the BOM confirmed that the collector was not the resident nor the placement coordinator that came pick up the resident on the day of discharge. ADM stated, the BOM did not know who she issued the check to. During an interview on 11/3/23 at 3:45 p.m. with the ADM, ADM stated that the collector was the Administrator of Resident 1 ' s receiving facility, not the resident. During an interview on 11/7/23 at 11:38 a.m. with Resident 1, Resident 1 stated she did not know that the facility had issued a check to her on 5/11/23. Resident 1 stated, she had never authorized anyone to collect her money. Resident 1 stated, she has not received her money since the discharge day, 5/2/23. Resident 1 stated, the incident caused her sadness and anxiety because of trying to find out what happened to her money. During an interview on 11/7/23 at 11:45 a.m. with the ADM, ADM stated the facility could not provide any record of Resident 1 ' s verbal or written authorization for the receiving facility to collect the issued check for her. During a review of the facility ' s policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Discharge and Transfer of Residents, dated February 2018, the P&P indicated, upon discharge of the resident, all resident funds that are entrusted to the Facility and kept within the Facility are surrendered to the resident/resident representative in exchange for a signed receipt.
Sept 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect Resident 2 from physical abuse by one of three sampled res...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to protect Resident 2 from physical abuse by one of three sampled residents (Resident 1), who had a known history of physical aggression toward staff and other residents by failing to: 1. Supervise Resident 1 to prevent Resident 1 from hitting Resident 2 on 8/27/2023, during the 3 PM to 11 PM shift, after Resident 1 had change of condition manifested by increased verbal/physical aggression and striking out during the 7 AM to 3 PM shift. 2. Ensure that a care plan was initiated when Resident 1 had a change of condition manifested by increased in verbal and physical aggression on 8/27/2023. 3. Follow the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Abuse Prevention, Screening, & Training Program, that indicated the facility identifies, corrects, and intervenes in situations in which abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property and/or mistreatment is more likely to occur. These failures resulted in Resident 1 striking out by hitting Resident 2's left cheek. Resident 2 developed altered level of consciousness (ALOC) and was transferred to the general acute care hospital (GACH) for evaluation via 911 emergency services. Findings: A review of Resident 1's Face Sheet (admission record) indicated Resident 1 was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including schizoaffective ( a mental illness that can affect your thoughts, mood and behavior) disorder, psychosis (a collection of symptoms that affect the mind, where there has been some loss of contact with reality), and auditory hallucinations (perceptual experiences in the absence of real external sensory stimuli). During a review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set [(MDS) a standardized assessment and care screening tool], dated 8/4/2023, the MDS indicated Resident 1's cognitive skills (the mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding through thought, experience, and the senses) were not intact. Resident 1 required supervision with bed mobility, transfer, walk in room, walk in corridor, locomotion on unit, locomotion off unit, and eating. Resident 1 required limited assistance from staff for dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 1's Change of Condition (COC) note, dated 8/27/2023, timed at 10:40 am (morning shift), the COC indicated Resident 1 had an increased verbal and physical aggression. During a review of Resident 1's Change of Condition (COC) note, dated 8/27/2023, timed at 4 pm (afternoon shift), the COC indicated Resident 1 had episodes of responding to internal stimuli that leads to striking at another resident out. During a review of Resident 2's Face Sheet, the Face Sheet indicated Resident 2 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnosis including major depressive disorder, schizoaffective, and hypertension (high blood pressure). During a review of Resident 2's MDS, dated [DATE], the MDS indicated Resident 2's cognitive skills were impaired, and the resident required staff supervision for bed mobility, transfers, walk in room, walk in corridor, locomotion in unit, locomotion off unit, and eating. Resident 2 required extensive assistance with dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. During a review of Resident 2's Change of Condition (COC) note, dated 8/27/2023, timed at 4:10 pm, the COC indicated Resident 2 was struck out on the left cheek with altered mental status, unequal grip strength, generalized weakness noted, pupil reactive to light, verbally responsive with slurred speech. The COC indicated Resident 2 was transferred to the GACH via 911 at around 4:10 pm. During a review of Resident 2's GACH Emergency Department (ED) records discharge instructions dated 8/27/2023 timed at 8:11 pm, indicated ED visit start date of 8/27/2023, and discharged the same date with diagnosis of facial injury. A review of Resident 1's care plan titled The resident with episode of responding to internal stimuli which lead to physical aggression and struck out another resident, initiated on 8/27/2023 indicated interventions that included the following: 1. Assess and address for contributing sensory deficits. 2. COMMUNICATION: provide physical and verbal cues to alleviate anxiety; give positive feedback, assist verbalization of source of agitation, assist to set goals for more pleasant behavior, encourage seeking out of staff member when agitated. 3. Immediately separated resident away from another resident. 4. Informed physician of incident. 5. Informed responsible party of incident. 6. Placed on 1:1 for supervision and safety 7. Transfer to GACH as ordered 8. When the resident becomes agitated: Intervene before agitation escalates; Guide away from source of distress; Engage calmly in conversation; If response is aggressive, staff to walk calmly away, and approach later. On 9/12/2023 at 1:30 pm, during a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 1's care plan titled The resident with episode of responding to internal stimuli which lead to physical aggression and struck out another resident, with LVN 1, LVN 1 stated that the care plan was initiated when Resident 1 struck Resident 2 during the afternoon shift of 8/27/2023. LVN 1 stated that there was no care plan initiated when Resident 1 had a change of condition during the morning shift of 8/27/2023 when Resident 1 had increased verbal and physical aggression towards others. LVN 1 stated she forgot to develop the care plan during the morning shift of 8/27/2023 because she was doing another task. LVN 1 stated she initiated the COC but did not initiate a care plan to keep track of what interventions to implement for Resident 1's COC. LVN 1 stated that if there was a care plan, the facility staff would have interventions to follow to avoid further verbal/physical aggression of Resident 1 towards others (Resident 2). LVN 1 added that on 8/27/2023, Resident 2 was cussing (swearing) in the hallway and patio while pacing, more verbally aggressive/threatening staff than usual and possibly upset about buying candy/food. LVN 1 stated Resident 2 was yelling and screaming. LVN 1 stated that Resident 2 usually talks a lot but on 8/27/2023 during the morning shift, Resident 2 was verbally threatening others as well. LVN 1 stated she could not recall the exact words Resident 2 used. During an interview on 9/12/2023 at 2:40 pm with CNA 1, CNA 1 recalled that what he remembered regarding Resident 2 the last time she seen him was he had been going in and out of the patio more often than usual and had episodes of screaming at others while walking. During an interview on 9/12/23 at 3:35 pm with registered nurse (RN) 1, RN 1 stated that she was standing next to Resident 2 in the hallway when Resident 1 paced around and struck Resident 2 without provocation. RN 1 stated that Resident 2 was hit on his left cheek and had altered level of consciousness. RN 1 stated that 911 emergency services was called for Resident 2 and was transferred out of the facility to GACH for further evaluation. During an interview on 9/12/23 at 4:25 pm with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated that what prompted her to initiate a care plan for Resident 1 on 8/27/2023 is because of the incident of striking out at another resident that happened during the afternoon shift. The DON was unable to provide documented evidence of a care plan being developed for Resident 1's change of behavior on 8/27/2023 during the morning shift. The DON stated it was important to initiate the care plan so facility staff knows what type of care and interventions to provide to Resident 1. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Abuse Prevention, Screening, & Training Program, last revised July 2018, the P&P indicated the facility identifies, corrects, and intervenes in situations in which abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of resident property and/or mistreatment is more likely to occur. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Change of condition Notification, last revised on April 1, 2015, the P&P indicated that the facility would document the change of condition and to update the care plan to reflect the resident's status.
Aug 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for one of two sampled r...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1) by failing to identify Resident 1's risk of elopement (an incident in which a person with cognitive (thought process) loss wanders out of a safe area, such as a home or nursing facility) by locating the resident's whereabouts when the resident was not found in his room by Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 on 8/12/23 during the night (11 PM to 7 AM) shift. CNA 1 did not look for Resident 1 and did not notify the charge nurse (Licensed Vocational Nurse 1) that Resident 1 was not in bed on 8/12/23, during the start of the night shift. In addition, the facility failed to conduct reevaluation of Resident 1's elopement risks, after Resident 1 verbalized frustrations with wanting to go home during psychological consultations on 6/27/23, 7/14/23, and 8/11/23 (one day before Resident 1 eloped from the facility on 8/12/23), in accordance with the facility's policy on Resident Safety. As a result, Resident 1 was able to elope from the facility without staff knowledge on 8/12/23 and was not reported as missing until the next day, 8/13/23 during the morning (7AM to 3 PM) shift. Resident 1 remained missing until 8/15/2023 (3 days). Resident 1 was found in a general acute care hospital (GACH 1) on 8/15/23, due to increasing depression and psychosis. These failures had the potential for Resident 1 to not receive scheduled medications such as blood pressure and antipsychotic medications which could lead to complications or sustain accidents outside the facility and cause serious injury or harm. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated the resident was newly admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of major depressive disorder (mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), severe psychosis (a person's thoughts are disrupted and they have difficulty recognizing what is real and what is not real), and auditory hallucinations (hearing voices in the absence of any speaker) and hypertension (high blood pressure). A review of Resident 1's History and Physical dated 6/22/2023, indicated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardize assessment and care screening tool) dated 6/27/2023 indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition (the ability or mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding). The MDS indicated Resident 1 was able to walk in and out of his room, requiring only supervision without physical support from an assistive device of the facility staff. A review of Resident 1's Medication Administration Records for August 2023 indicated the resident was taking scheduled Carvedilol 6.25 mg, two times a day for blood pressure, and Olanzapine (anti-psychotic medication), 20 mg, one tablet a day for depressive disorder with psychotic symptoms. A review of Resident 1's Psychological Consultation indicated the following dates of visits and information: 1. On 6/27/23, the Psychological Consultation notes indicated topics included in the discussion were problems adjusting to skilled nursing facility placement. The notes indicated Resident 1 expressed frustration with having to be living at the facility since the resident had been homeless for approximately five years. 2. On 7/14/23, the Psychological Consultation Notes indicated Resident 1 verbalized being better and that the depression is gone. The notes indicated Resident 1's verbalized he wanted to stay on his medications and go back home. 3. On 8/11/23, the Psychological Consultation Notes indicated Resident 1 appeared to be on intact mood with appropriate psychosocial functioning, citing volition (in psychology; it is defined as the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action) towards immediate discharge. The notes further indicated discussion of Resident 1's Provoking thoughts and emotions regarding . continued placement and discussed d/c (discharge) challenges . This writer consulted with Social Services and Nursing within the past month. A review of Resident 1's Elopement Evaluation dated 6/20/2023, revealed the following information about Resident 1's elopement risk. The Elopement Evaluation indicated No to all the questions that were answerable by Yes or No, including the questions, Has the resident been recently admitted or readmitted (within past 30 days) and is not accepting the situation? and Has the resident verbally expressed the desire to go home .? The Elopement Evaluation indicated that a score of 1 or higher indicated the resident's risk of elopement. did not indicate a reevaluation of Resident 1's elopement risks. The Elopement Evaluation indicated Resident 1 was not at risk for elopement during the evaluation on 6/20/23, the first day of admission to the facility. The resident's records did not indicate that further reevaluation for elopement risks was conducted after Resident 1 verbalized wanting to go home during psychological consultations on 6/27/23, 7/14/23, and 8/11/23 (one day before Resident 1 eloped from the facility on 8/12/23), when Resident 1 cited volition towards immediate discharge. A review of Resident 1's Situation Background Assessment Response (SBAR) dated 8/13/2023 timed at 9:23 AM indicated that on 8/13/23 at 9 AM, OT 1 reported to the charge nurse (LVN 4) of being unable to find Resident 1. A review of the GACH records titled Acute Nursing Progress Note dated 8/15/2023, indicated that Resident 1 walked in and voluntarily seek mental health evaluation at the GACH on 8/15/23. The GACH notes indicated, Resident 1 looked disheveled, disorganized, confused, and endorsed self-injury due to increasing depression and psychosis. The GACH notes indicated Resident 1 stopped showering three days ago and was unable to sleep. The GACH notes indicated Resident 1 had multiple psychiatric readmissions, would require inpatient hospitalization, but medically stable. A review of the facility's 5 Day Conclusion Letter dated 8/18/23, indicated the Director of Nurses (DON) and ADM was informed of Resident 1's elopement on 8/13/23 at around 9:22 AM. The Conclusion Letter indicated after ADM was notified on 8/13/23 at 9:22 AM, a physical headcount was conducted to account for the presence of all residents residing at the facility. The Conclusion Letter indicated that Resident 1 was last observed on 8/12/23 at around 9:30 PM outside the facility patio, after the resident's smoke break. The Conclusion Letter indicated the ADM reported Resident 1 as missing to the Police Department on 8/13/23 at around 10:27 AM . The facility's Maintenance Supervisor discovered a tampered window and gate, that were immediately fixed the window so it would no longer be opened and repaired the broken gate by installing a more secured gate and added chains around it . The Conclusion Letter indicated that staff education was conducted that included an elopement drill, head counts, monitoring/supervision of residents, shift endorsements, and reporting. The facility's investigation revealed that Resident 1 broke the window by his bed and climbed out. The Letter indicated Resident 1 broke the chain-linked gate in the back of the facility's building and hopped the short barbed wired fence that separated the facility from an outside establishment. During an interview on 8/15/2023 at 11:20 AM, the facility's Administrator (ADM) stated that on 8/13/23, LVN 4 notified ADM that Resident 1 was missing from the facility on 8/13/2023. ADM stated that Resident 1 had been missing for several hours (8/12/23) prior to facility staff reporting Resident 1 missing the following day (8/13/23). ADM further stated as a result of Resident 1's elopement, LVN 1 and CNA 1's employment from the facility would be terminated. During an interview on 8/15/2023 at 11:56 AM, LVN 4 stated that LVN 3 was the charge nurse during the 7 AM to 3 PM shift on 8/13/2023 and was looking for Resident 1 to give his medication. LVN 4 stated LVN 3 could not locate Resident 1. LVN 4 stated that prior to finding out Resident 1's elopement on 8/13/23, the licensed nurses only conducts verbal endorsements every shift, and physical headcounts of residents' whereabouts were not done. During an interview on 8/15/2023 at 12:21 PM, CNA 1 was asked if he saw Resident 1 at the start of his shift (11 PM to 7 AM). CNA 1 stated that on 8/12/23, at the start of his shift (11 PM) all the residents he was responsible for were in their beds except for Resident 1. CNA 1 stated he did not report it because he thought Resident 1 was discharged from the facility. CNA 1 stated Resident 1's bed was empty the entire 11 PM to 7 AM shift but he did not report it to the charge nurse. During an interview on 8/15/2023 at 12:26 PM, LVN 1 (11 PM to 7 AM shift nurse) stated he arrived to work early on 8/12/2023 at around 8:27 PM and saw Resident 1 in the facility's front patio. LVN 1 further stated he conducted a did a physical count of the residents when he arrived at the facility at 8:27 PM but not at the start of his actual shift at 11 PM. LVN 1 stated he received a verbal endorsement from the previous 3 PM to 11 PM shift LVN that every resident was accounted for during shift endorsement. LVN 1 stated he does not do walking rounds unless somebody is reported missing or an incident happened on his shift. LVN 1 stated CNA 1 did not notify him that Resident 1 was not in his bed upon arriving at 11 PM on 8/12/23. LVN 1 stated that is why when the incoming nurse came (LVN 3) on 8/13/23, LVN 1 stated he only gave verbal endorsement that everybody was accounted for. On 8/15/2023 at 1:10 PM, during an observation of Resident 1's room and concurrent interview with the Maintenance Supervisor (MS), MS stated that Resident 1 had broken the window hinges inside his room (to create a wider opening), right next to where Resident 1's bed was located. The MS further stated that Resident 1 went out through the windows above his bed inside the resident's room. The MS stated the resident's window could only be opened approximately 15 degrees that indicated about only one person's arm could fit thru the window's opening. The MS stated that they saw Resident 1's window was closed on 8/13/23, but the hinges were damaged, so now the window could open about 90 degrees, placing the window at a horizontal angle and the opening was large enough for Resident 1 to fit through and climbed out the window and go outside to the [NAME] Side Patio. During an interview on 8/16/2023 at 12:40 PM, the ADM stated that Resident 1 was found and admitted to a GACH emergency department on 8/15/2023 at 3:36 PM. On 8/15/23, at 1:20 PM, during an observation of the facility's [NAME] Side patio yard located at the back of the facility and a concurrent interview with the ADM, the ADM stated the [NAME] Side patio did not have a security camera or a staff monitoring the area prior to Resident 1's elopement on 8/12/23. The ADM stated the facility had installed security camera to conduct 24-hour monitoring surveillance of that side of the facility. The ADM stated the MS found surgical gloves in the facility's South Patio yard fenced gate where the gate was damaged, slightly bent and there was a small hole from the dirt at the base of the gate. The ADM stated that the hole on the ground gave just enough room for Resident 1 to squeeze through the gate to get further thru the South yard at the very back of the facility. During an interview, on 8/16/23 at 2:30 PM with Resident 1's roommate (Resident 2), Resident 2 stated that Resident 1 pulled down the window hard and it made a loud noise because the window broke. Resident 2 further stated after Resident 1 pulled down the window hard, it made the window open horizontal. Resident 2 was asked to further elaborate as to what happened on the day Resident 1 left the facility, Resident 2 stated did not want to elaborate more. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 2:48 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) 1 stated completing Resident 1's initial assessment and elopement evaluation did not find indications the resident wanted to elope or had a history of elopement. RN 1 stated Resident 1 was newly admitted from the facility and was admitted from GACH 1 (on 6/20/23). During an interview, on 8/16/23 at 3:03 PM, LVN 3 (7 AM to 3 PM shift) stated that on 8/13/23 during the morning shift, LVN 1 and LVN 3 did not do a physical headcount of the residents in the facility. LVN 3 stated they would only conduct verbal endorsements during shift endorsements. During an interview, on 8/16/2023 at 4:11 PM, the DON stated the facility had 14 residents residing in the facility assessed as high risk for elopement. The DON stated the facility had created an Elopement Binder to prevent residents from eloping the facility, after Resident 1 eloped from the facility on 8/12/23 A review of a document provided by the facility titled Facility Assessment, updated 7/27/23 indicated the facility's licensed resident beds was at 96, with a daily average resident census between 68 to 72 residents. The Facility Assessment indicated in Special Treatments and Conditions under the category of Mental Health showed the average number of residents admitted and residing in the facility requiring Behavioral Health Needs were between 60 to 73 residents out of the average daily census of 68 to 72 residents. Other special treatments and conditions categorized as Other indicated other resident conditions such as intravenous medications, transfusions, dialysis, ostomy care, hospice care, respite care, isolation for infectious diseases showed an average resident population of 0 to 2 or 0 to 5 residents out of the average daily census of 68 to 72 residents. The Facility Assessment did not indicate specialized services to be provided to the facility's resident population with behavioral health needs such as residents with behavior of wandering and elopement risks. A review of the facility's policy titled, Wandering & Elopement dated 7/2017, indicated, the facility will identify residents at risk for elopement and minimize any possible injury as a result of elopement . The policy indicated that the facility staff member who finds that a resident is missing will alert facility staff and the charge nurse would call a CODE and organize a search. A review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Safety dated 4/15/2021, indicated, residents will be evaluated on admission, quarterly and whenever there is a change in condition to identify circumstance that pose a risk for the safety and wellbeing of the resident . The policy indicated that the IDT will establish a person-centered observation or monitoring systems for the resident to address the identified risk factors.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0741 (Tag F0741)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility's licensed nurses and certified nurse assistant...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility's licensed nurses and certified nurse assistants had the competencies and skills sets to provide care and services needed in the facility to work effectively with residents who had mental health disorders and other behavioral health needs, in accordance with the Facility Assessment on the facility's general resident population and the facility's policy on Staff Competency Assessment. As a result, one of two sampled residents (Resident 1), who had behavioral health needs due to diagnosis of sever psychosis and auditory hallucinations eloped from the facility on 8/12/2023. The facility's Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 1 failed to ensure monitoring and supervision was provided to Resident 1 by locating the resident's whereabouts when the resident was not found in his room on 8/12/23 during the night (11 PM to 7 AM) shift. CNA 1 did not look for Resident 1 and did not notify the charge nurse (Licensed Vocational Nurse 1) that Resident 1 was not in bed on 8/12/23, during the entire night shift. This deficient practice had the potential to place residents at risk for elopement not to receive appropriate supervision and monitoring and place residents at risk for accidents and injury. Findings: A review of Resident 1's admission Record indicated the resident was newly admitted to the facility on [DATE] with the diagnoses of major depressive disorder (mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest), severe psychosis (a person's thoughts are disrupted and they have difficulty recognizing what is real and what is not real), and auditory hallucinations (hearing voices in the absence of any speaker) and hypertension (high blood pressure). A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardize assessment and care screening tool) dated 6/27/2023 indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition (the ability or mental action or process of acquiring knowledge and understanding). The MDS indicated Resident 1 was able to walk in and out of his room, requiring only supervision without physical support from an assistive device of the facility staff. A review of Resident 1's Elopement Evaluation dated 6/20/2023, revealed the following information about Resident 1's elopement risk. The Elopement Evaluation indicated No to all the questions that were answerable by Yes or No, including the questions, Has the resident been recently admitted or readmitted (within past 30 days) and is not accepting the situation? and Has the resident verbally expressed the desire to go home .? The Elopement Evaluation indicated that a score of 1 or higher indicated the resident's risk of elopement. did not indicate a reevaluation of Resident 1's elopement risks. The Elopement Evaluation indicated Resident 1 was not at risk for elopement during the evaluation on 6/20/23, the first day of admission to the facility. The resident's records did not indicate that further reevaluation for elopement risks was conducted after Resident 1 verbalized wanting to go home during psychological consultations on 6/27/23, 7/14/23, and 8/11/23 (one day before Resident 1 eloped from the facility on 8/12/23), when Resident 1 cited volition towards immediate discharge. A review of Resident 1's Situation Background Assessment Response (SBAR) dated 8/13/2023 timed at 9:23 AM indicated that on 8/13/23 at 9 AM, OT 1 reported to the charge nurse (LVN 4) of being unable to find Resident 1. A review of the GACH records titled Acute Nursing Progress Note dated 8/15/2023, indicated that Resident 1 walked in and voluntarily seek mental health evaluation at the GACH on 8/15/23. The GACH notes indicated, Resident 1 looked disheveled, disorganized, confused, and endorsed self-injury due to increasing depression and psychosis. The GACH notes indicated Resident 1 stopped showering three days ago and was unable to sleep. The GACH notes indicated Resident 1 had multiple psychiatric readmissions, would require inpatient hospitalization, but medically stable. A review of the facility's 5 Day Conclusion Letter dated 8/18/23, indicated the Director of Nurses (DON) and ADM was informed of Resident 1's elopement on 8/13/23 at around 9:22 AM. The Conclusion Letter indicated after ADM was notified on 8/13/23 at 9:22 AM, a physical headcount was conducted to account for the presence of all residents residing at the facility. The Conclusion Letter indicated that Resident 1 was last observed on 8/12/23 at around 9:30 PM outside the facility patio, after the resident's smoke break. The Conclusion Letter indicated the ADM reported Resident 1 as missing to the Police Department on 8/13/23 at around 10:27 AM . The facility's Maintenance Supervisor discovered a tampered window and gate, that were immediately fixed the window so it would no longer be opened and repaired the broken gate by installing a more secured gate and added chains around it . The Conclusion Letter indicated that staff education was conducted that included an elopement drill, head counts, monitoring/supervision of residents, shift endorsements, and reporting. The facility's investigation revealed that Resident 1 broke the window by his bed and climbed out. The Letter indicated Resident 1 broke the chain-linked gate in the back of the facility's building and hopped the short barbed wired fence that separated the facility from an outside establishment. During an interview on 8/15/2023 at 11:20 AM, the facility's Administrator (ADM) stated that on 8/13/23, LVN 4 notified ADM that Resident 1 was missing from the facility on 8/13/2023. ADM stated that Resident 1 had been missing for several hours (8/12/23) prior to facility staff reporting Resident 1 missing the following day (8/13/23). ADM further stated as a result of Resident 1's elopement, LVN 1 and CNA 1's employment from the facility would be terminated. During an interview on 8/15/2023 at 11:56 AM, LVN 4 stated that LVN 3 was the charge nurse during the 7 AM to 3 PM shift on 8/13/2023 and was looking for Resident 1 to give his medication. LVN 4 stated LVN 3 could not locate Resident 1. LVN 4 stated that prior to finding out Resident 1's elopement on 8/13/23, the licensed nurses only conducts verbal endorsements every shift, and physical headcounts of residents' whereabouts were not done. During an interview on 8/15/2023 at 12:21 PM, CNA 1 was asked if he saw Resident 1 at the start of his shift (11 PM to 7 AM). CNA 1 stated that on 8/12/23, at the start of his shift (11 PM) all the residents he was responsible for were in their beds except for Resident 1. CNA 1 stated he did not report it because he thought Resident 1 was discharged from the facility. CNA 1 stated Resident 1's bed was empty the entire 11 PM to 7 AM shift but he did not report it to the charge nurse. During an interview on 8/15/2023 at 12:26 PM, LVN 1 (11 PM to 7 AM shift nurse) stated he arrived to work early on 8/12/2023 at around 8:27 PM and saw Resident 1 in the facility's front patio. LVN 1 further stated he conducted a did a physical count of the residents when he arrived at the facility at 8:27 PM but not at the start of his actual shift at 11 PM. LVN 1 stated he received a verbal endorsement from the previous 3 PM to 11 PM shift LVN that every resident was accounted for during shift endorsement. LVN 1 stated he does not do walking rounds unless somebody is reported missing or an incident happened on his shift. LVN 1 stated CNA 1 did not notify him that Resident 1 was not in his bed upon arriving at 11 PM on 8/12/23. LVN 1 stated that is why when the incoming nurse came (LVN 3) on 8/13/23, LVN 1 stated he only gave verbal endorsement that everybody was accounted for. During an interview on 8/16/2023 at 12:40 PM, the ADM stated that Resident 1 was found and admitted to a GACH emergency department on 8/15/2023 at 3:36 PM. During an interview on 8/16/23 at 2:48 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) 1 stated completing Resident 1's initial assessment and elopement evaluation did not find indications the resident wanted to elope or had a history of elopement. RN 1 stated Resident 1 was newly admitted from the facility and was admitted from GACH 1 (on 6/20/23). During an interview, on 8/16/23 at 3:03 PM, LVN 3 (7 AM to 3 PM shift) stated that on 8/13/23 during the morning shift, LVN 1 and LVN 3 did not do a physical headcount of the residents in the facility. LVN 3 stated they would only conduct verbal endorsements during shift endorsements. During a concurrent record review and interview on 8/17/2023 at 11 AM, the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated the CNA's annual competency focused on personal protective equipment (PPE) - equipment worn to minimize exposure to hazards that cause serious workplace injuries and illnesses), hand hygiene and activities of daily living ((ADL) - personal care activities such as bathing and dressing.). The DSD further stated that the LVN's annual competency focused on medication administration, PPE, hand hygiene and ADL's. The DSD further stated there were no resident's behavior topics such as wandering, dementia care and abuse that were included for the annual competency education and training. The DSD stated there were just in-services provided for both the CNAs and licensed nurses. During an interview on 8/17/2023 at 12:12 PM, LVN 5 stated when he was hired the facility had checked off competency for medication administration, hand hygiene, PPE and resident ADLs. LVN 5 further stated the in-services we have monthly was only when something happened in the facility, that had something to do with the resident's behavior such as elopements and deescalating aggressive behavior/s. During an interview on 8/17/2023 at 12:20 PM, CNA 4 stated the facility have in-services once or twice a month about resident behavior. CNA 4 further stated the facility had annual competencies once a year but it was about ADLs and hand washing. During an interview on 8/17/2023 at 12:32 PM, the DON stated the annual competency for licensed nurses focuses on medication administration and resident care and for the CNAs focuses on ADLs and handwashing, but the annual competency did not include the behavioral monitoring such as elopement or aggressive behavior that was covered during in-services. The DON further stated behavioral monitoring in-services was the responsibility of the ADM, the DON and the DSD. The DON further stated if this training/education had been included in the facility's annual competency it would have prevented an elopement from occurring. During an interview on 8/16/2023 at 2:30 PM, Resident 2 stated that Resident 1 was able to break the window hinges by pulling down the top of the window very hard and the window created an opening for Resident 1 to leave the room. During an interview, on 8/16/2023 at 4:11 PM, the DON stated the facility had 14 residents residing in the facility assessed as high risk for elopement. The DON stated the facility had created an Elopement Binder to prevent residents from eloping the facility, after Resident 1 eloped from the facility on 8/12/23 A review of a document provided by the facility titled Facility Assessment, updated 7/27/23 indicated the facility's licensed resident beds was at 96, with a daily average resident census between 68 to 72 residents. The Facility Assessment indicated in Special Treatments and Conditions under the category of Mental Health showed the average number of residents admitted and residing in the facility requiring Behavioral Health Needs were between 60 to 73 residents out of the average daily census of 68 to 72 residents . The Facility Assessment did not indicate specialized services to be provided to the facility's resident population with behavioral health needs such as residents with behavior of wandering and elopement risks. The Facility Assessment did not indicate the facility included staff training/education and competencies included assessments, supervision and monitoring to be provided for the facility's resident population with Behavioral Health Needs that comprised an average of 60 to 73 residents out of the average daily census of 68 to 72. The Facility Assessment did not indicate staff training/education and competencies for residents admitted with elopement risks to the facility and the need for heightened monitoring and supervision. A review of the facility's policy titled, Staff Competency Assessment dated 3/17/2022, indicated competency assessments will be performed upon hire during the employee's 90-day employment period, annually, or anytime new equipment or a procedure is introduced and as needed. The policy further indicates competency assessment is completed in order to evaluate an individual's performance, evaluate group performance, meet standards set by regulatory agencies, address problematic issues and enhance performance reviews.
Mar 2023 22 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Resident Rights (Tag F0550)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of four sampled residents (Resident 70) was...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of four sampled residents (Resident 70) was treated with respect and dignity when assisted with meals during dining. Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 9 assisted Resident 70 with feeding while standing and not at the resident's eye level. This deficient practice failed to honor and maintain Resident 70's dignity and respect which had the potential to negatively affect Resident 70's self-esteem and self-worth and psychosocial wellbeing (a social and emotional wellbeing of a person). Findings: During an observation on 3/28/2023 at 12:56 PM, Resident 70 was sitting in an upright position on the edge of the bed while being assisted by CNA 9 who was standing at the resident's bedside and was not at the resident's eye level, from the time the meal was set up until Resident 70 finished his meal. During an observation on 3/29/2023 at 12 PM, Resident 70 was eating his meal in the dining room, assisted by CNA 9, who was standing beside Resident 70's chair during the entire mealtime. A review of Resident 70's admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Schizoaffective disorder, (a mental illness that can affect a person's thoughts, mood, and behavior) bipolar type (marked by episodes of mania [period of feeling full of energy] and major depression [a mental health disorder characterized by persistently depressed mood or loss of interest in activities causing significant impairment in life), dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), and abnormalities of gait (person's manner of walking) and mobility. A review of Resident 70's History and Physical (H&P), dated 12/28/2022, indicated Resident 70 could make his needs known but could not make medical decisions. A review of Resident 70's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 1/4/2023, indicated Resident 70 had a severe impairment in cognition (ability to understand and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 70 required extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other-non-weight-bearing assistance) with transfer and eating. A review of Resident 70's care plan for nutrition, dated 12/31/2022, indicated Resident 70 had a potential for nutritional problem related to the use of psychotropic medications (medications that affect brain activities associated with mental processes and behaviors) and other mental and health conditions. The interventions included, to keep the resident in a calm, quiet setting at mealtimes with adequate eating time; the resident preferred to sit in the dining room; encourage Resident 70 to socialization and interaction with table mates during meals. A review of facility's Dining Room Feeding Program (a program in the facility to ensure residents who needed assistance with eating were assisted during meals), dated 3/28/2023 and 3/29/2023, indicated Resident 70 was included in the feeding program. During an interview on 3/29/2022 at 12:09 PM, CNA 10 stated Resident 70 could feed himself, but someone need to be always beside him to encourage and prompt him to stay focused on his meal. CNA 10 stated, Resident 70 was included in the Dining Room Feeding Program because he needed assistance with feeding during meals. During an interview on 3/31/2023 at 7:50 AM, CNA 9 stated Resident 70 was able to feed himself, but he needed assistance. CNA 9 stated he should have assisted Resident 70 and other residents who needed feeding assistance while sitting down, and at the same height or eye level so residents will feel comfortable and not feel rushed. During an interview on 3/30/2023 at 4:38 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated the facility's feeding program are for those residents that have difficulty eating, unable to use hand properly, and needed to be fed and/or needed assistance during meals. The ADON stated, Resident 70 was in the feeding program even though he could feed himself. The ADON stated, Resident 70 needed supervision and limited assistance during meals. The ADON stated, the staff assisting residents with feeding during meals should be at the same eye level or at eye level of the residents for better communication, and to provide reassurance that nurses have the time to help the residents to eat and maintain dignity. A review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Resident Rights-Quality of Life revised in March 2017, indicated To ensure that each resident receives the necessary care and services to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental and psychosocial well-being, consistent with the resident's comprehensive assessment and care plan. The P&P indicated the staff will treat cognitively impaired residents with dignity and sensitivity.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0576 (Tag F0576)

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 promote resident's rights to use the telephone to for...

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 promote resident's rights to use the telephone to for one of one sampled resident (Resident 126) who was not assisted by Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 7 to make a telephone call to her family member when requested. This deficient practice violated Residents 126's rights to have a reasonable access to telephone and potentially negatively affected her dignity and self-worth that could lead to psychosocial (an emotional and social wellbeing) outcome such as agitation and social isolation. Findings: During an observation on 3/28/2023 at 9:10 AM, Resident 126 was pacing back and forth from nursing station to the hallway near while holding a piece of paper. Resident 126 was observed talking to the staff who were inside the nurse's station. During an interview with Resident 126 on 3/28/2023 at 9:20 AM, Resident 126 stated she wanted to call her mother and the telephone number was written in a small piece of paper she was holding. Resident 126 stated she asked the staff in the nurse's station, but they were all busy talking. During an observation on 3/28/2023 at 9:21 AM, Resident 126 approached CNA 7, who was standing outside the nurse's station, and asked her for an assistance to make a telephone call, while showing the telephone number written in a piece of paper. Resident 126 was not assisted by CNA 7, and Resident 126 walked away from the nurse's station. A review of Resident 126's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD-a disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a terrifying event), dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning) and cognitive communication deficit (impairment in organization/though organization, sequencing, attention, memory planning, problem solving, and safety awareness). A review of Resident 126's History and Physical (H&P), dated 3/23/2023, indicated Resident 126 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 126's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 3/30/2023, indicated Resident 126 had a severe impairment in cognition (ability to understand and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 126 required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other-non-weight-bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A record review of Resident 126's Initial Activity Evaluation, dated 3/23/2023, indicated it was very important for Resident 126 to be able to use the phone in private. During an interview on 3/28/23 at 9:22 AM, CNA 7 stated residents could access and use the telephone in the nurse's station during the phone schedule time. CNA 7 stated, while pointing to the Phone Times posted in the glass window/divider in the nurses' station, the phone time schedule were 10 AM-11 AM, 4 PM-5 PM, and 7 PM-8 PM. CNA 7 stated she did not assist Resident 126 to use the phone because she did not understand Resident 126 well because she was mumbling. During an interview on 3/31/2023 at 10:05 AM, Registered Nurse (RN) 1 stated, residents were allowed to access telephone in the nurse's station following the posted telephone schedule times with some exception, in case of emergency, and if residents were anxious. calling a family member or friend could help. RN 1 stated sometimes they could use a telephone call outside the schedule time to call family members who could help de-escalate resident's negative behaviors. RN 1 stated it was resident's right to be able to access telephone when needed. During an interview on 3/31/2023 at 10:57 AM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated residents have the right to have reasonable access to telephones especially during phone time schedule so that the residents could communicate with their families, friends when they want to, most importantly for residents diagnosed with PTSD. A review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Telephone Access revised 1/1/2012, indicated telephones were available to all residents and can be in areas that offer privacy. The P&P indicated Residents who need and/or request help in getting to or using telephones are provided with such assistance. A review of facility's admission packet titled California Standard admission Agreement for Skilled Nursing Facilities and Intermediate Care Facilities dated May 2011, indicated Residents of this facility will keep all their basic rights and liberties as a citizen or resident of the United States when, and after, they are admitted . The packet under attachment F titled Resident [NAME] of Rights indicated residents shall have the right to have reasonable access to telephones and to make and receive confidential calls.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and homelike environment for t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe, clean, and homelike environment for two of seven sampled residents (Resident 43 and Resident 60). This deficient practice can potentially affect the resident's mental and psychosocial well-being. Findings: A review of Resident 43's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident 43's History and Physical dated 1/16/2023, indicated diagnoses including anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), hypertension (high blood pressure) and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). A review of Resident 43's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and screening tool) dated 1/20/2023, indicated Resident 43 had moderately impaired cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 43 was assessed needing walker/ wheelchair for mobility device and has no impairment on her functional limitation in range of motion on her upper and lower extremities. A review of Resident 60's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident 60's History and Physical dated 1/19/2023, indicated diagnoses including anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), idiopathic neuropathy (an illness where sensory and motor nerves of the peripheral nervous system are affected, and no obvious underlying etiology is found) and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest) A review of Resident 60's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 60 had intact cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 60 was not using any mobility devices and has no impairment on functional limitation in range of motion on upper and lower extremities. During an interview with Resident 43 on 3/28/2023 at 9:40 AM, Resident 43 stated they could not open the window inside their room because it seems not aligned. Resident 43 stated I want to open it so we can have a little breeze of air. During a concurrent observation in Resident 43's room and interview with Resident 43 on 3/28/23 at 9:41 AM, Resident 43 turned on the overhead lights and stated, it looks like something is growing inside the light. During an observation, there were black colored lines from inside the overhead light covers. During a concurrent observation in Resident 43's room and interview with the Maintenance Supervisor (MTS) on 3/28/2023 at 9:42 AM, the MTS stated, the black colored shadow visible on the overhead light cover were the wires of the fluorescent light inside the overhead light cover. The MTS checked the window inside Resident 43's room, and MTS could not open it. During an observation in Resident 43's room on 3/28/2023 at 9:46 AM, the MTS and Maintenance Assistant (MTA) removed the window screen from the outside and aligned the glass window on the rail and was able to open Resident 43's window. During a concurrent observation in Resident 43's room and interview with Resident 43 on 3/28/2023 at 9:47 AM, Resident 43 stated, look at the wall, it looks like layers of paint, while Resident 43 was pointing at the wall next to her cabinet dresser located at the foot of her bed. During a concurrent observation in Resident 60's room and interview with Resident 60 on 3/28/2023 at 9:57 AM, the window had a duct tape at the bottom frame and a rolled blanket was placed at the windowsill. Resident 60 stated her window leaks, and she could not open it. Resident 60 stated that facility staff started to put a rolled towel at the bottom of the window to prevent water leaks when it was raining last week, and the MTS was aware of it. During a concurrent observation in Resident 60's room and interview with Resident 60 on 3/29/2023 at 7:56 AM, Resident 60's room window had a rolled blanket at the bottom and another blanket was placed on the floor. The rolled blanket was dry. No water was noted the floor. Resident 60 stated she was thankful that no water came into her room last night while it was raining. During a concurrent observation in Resident 43's room and interview with Resident 43 on 3/29/23 at 8:24 AM, Resident 43 stated the walls were patched and just painted over, while pointing at the wall next to the bed across her. Resident 43 stated, The window can be opened easily now, and are working properly. During an interview with Resident 43 on 3/30/2023 at 1:41 PM, Resident 43 stated the floors were stained and pointed at the rusty locker legs inside their room. Resident 43 frowned and stated, it doesn't feel like home to me. It makes me want to leave the facility right now. I want to get away from this place right away. During an interview with Resident 43 on 3/30/2023 at 1:43 PM, Resident 43 stated the baseboards and the vents inside their room were dirty. The bed frames need some painting and rust cleaning. During a concurrent observation and interview with MTS on 3/30/2023 at 2:10 PM, MTS checked the window screen in Resident 43's Room, and stated it was falling out and it can be fixed from the outside. The MTS went outside of the room and pushed the window screen to fit in the window frame. During a concurrent observation in Resident 60's room and interview with Resident 60 on 3/31/2023 at 7:45 AM, the window still had a duct tape and a rolled blanket on the windowsill. During a concurrent observation in Resident 60's room and an interview with MTS on 3/31/2023 at 7:50 AM, the MTS checked Resident 60's window and stated, the window was saturated and the whole window needs to be replaced. The MTS stated he ordered a flexible glass window and planning to fix it as soon as the order comes in. During a concurrent observation in Resident 43's room and interview with the Interim Director of Nursing (IDON) on 3/31/2023 at 7:53 AM, the IDON slid his right index finger on the windowsill and collected some dust. The IDON checked the legs of the resident lockers, and it had some rusts, and the windows screen was coming off from the outside. The IDON stated he agreed that it is not a homelike environment for the residents. A review of the facility's policy titled, Resident Rooms and Environment revised on 1/1/2012, indicated the facility provides residents with a safe and clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Facility Staff will provide residents with a pleasant environment and person-centered care that emphasizes the residents' comfort, independence, and personal needs and preferences. A review of the facility's policy titled Resident Rights- Accommodation of Needs revised on 1/1/2012, indicated the facility's environment is designed to assist the resident in achieving independent functioning and maintaining the resident's dignity and well- being.
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

Free from Abuse/Neglect (Tag F0600)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from abuse by failing ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure that residents are free from abuse by failing to assess, supervise, and develop/implement appropriate care plans for resident's behaviors of wandering (to walk around slowly in a relaxed way or without any clear purpose or direction) into other resident's rooms/space, for one of three sampled residents (Resident 326), in accordance with the facility's policy on Abuse-Prevention, Screening, & Training Program. As a result, Resident 227 hit Resident 326 with a closed fist because Resident 326 kept going near Resident 227's bed. Resident 326 was transferred to the General Acute Care hospital (GACH) on 3/24/23 and sustained a laceration (cut) on the forehead which required sutures. Findings: During an observation on 3/28/23 at 9:06 AM, Resident 326 wandered into Resident 19's room and stood in front of Resident 19's bed. There was an unfolded maroon blanket on Resident 19's bed. Resident 326 started to fold Resident 19's blanket. During the observation, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 15 in the hallway saw Resident 326 and went into Resident 19's room. CNA 15 held Resident 326's left arm and redirect Resident 326 out of Resident 19's room. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/28/23 at 9:08 AM, Resident 326 had a sutured laceration on his mid forehead above his right eyebrow. Resident 326 did not respond when asked what happened to his forehead. Resident 326 shook his head when asked if he had pain. During an interview on 3/28/23 at 9:09 AM, CNA 15 stated Resident 326 usually wandered to other resident's rooms. CNA 15 stated he did not know how Resident 326 sustained the laceration on his forehead. CNA 15 stated Resident 326 would wander in the facility hallways and sometimes would go in other resident's rooms. During an observation and interview on 3/29/23 at 1:43 PM, Resident 326 was sitting in the hallway watching TV. Resident 326 stated he was hit and got the laceration on his forehead. Resident 326 stated he could not remember how he was hit or by whom. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 326's care plans, on 3/29/23 at 2:04 PM, LVN 3 stated she heard about the altercation between Resident 326 and Resident 227 on 3/24/23, but she did not witness the incident. LVN 3 stated the incident occurred in Resident 326 and Resident 227's room because Resident 326 and Resident 227 were roommates. LVN 3 stated Resident 326 wandered to Resident 227's bed and got hit by Resident 227 with a closed fist. LVN 3 stated Resident 326 sustained a cut on the forehead. LVN 3 stated the staff called 911 emergency services and transferred Resident 326 to the GACH emergency room for further evaluation, on 3/24/23. LVN 3 stated Resident 326 returned from the GACH on 3/25/23 with stitches on the lacerated forehead. LVN 3 stated Resident 227 was placed on one-to-one monitoring immediately and was transferred to the GACH for agitation and increased physical aggression on 3/25/23. LVN 3 stated Resident 326 had a behavior of wandering in the facility unit but could not find documented evidence that the facility developed a care plan for wandering. 1. A review of Resident 326's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 326 on 3/21/2023 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), dementia (a term for a range of conditions that affect the brain's ability to think, remember, and function normally), and psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality). A review of Resident 326's History and Physical Examination (H&P), dated 3/21/23, indicated Resident 326 could make needs known but cannot make medical decisions due to dementia. A review of Resident 326's Elopement Evaluation, dated 3/22/23, indicated Resident 326 did not wander and did not wander aimlessly or non-goal directed. Resident 326's Elopement Evaluation further indicated Resident 326's wandering behavior was not likely to affect the safety or well-being of self/other and privacy of others. A review of Resident 326's Progress Notes indicated the following information: a. Dated 3/22/23 timed at 1:22 PM, indicated Resident 326 was ambulating in the hallway near the Nursing Station. b. Dated 3/24/23 timed at 4:10 AM, indicated Resident 326 walking around the hallways . and requires verbal cueing. c. Dated 3/29/23 timed at 4:37 PM, indicated Resident 326 walking in a hallway alert. There were no other progress notes found in Resident 326's medical records for 3/24/23, 3/25/23, 3/26/23 and 3/28/23, that indicated the resident was supervised/monitored for wandering behaviors, and if interventions were implemented. A review of Resident 326's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 3/28/23, indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 326 wandered daily which place him at significant risk of getting to a potentially dangerous place and intrude on the privacy or activities of others. The MDS indicated Resident 326 required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance) with walking in room and locomotion on unit, and extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) with dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. 2. A review of Resident 227's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 227 on 3/15/2023 with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood and behavior) and paranoid personality disorder (a mental health condition marked by a pattern of distrust and suspicion of others without adequate reason to be suspicious). A review of Resident 227's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 227 had moderately impaired cognition (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making, requiring supervision (oversight, encouragement or cueing) with bed mobility, transfer, walk in room and eating, and limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance. A review of Resident 227's Psychological Evaluation and Consultation (Psychological Evaluation), dated 3/21/23, indicated Resident 227 was on Divalproex Sodium {a medication could treat manic (extremely elevated and excitable mood ) bipolar disorder (a disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs)} and Haldol Decanoate (antipsychotic, a medication could treat certain types of mental disorders) for Schizoaffective disorder manifesting by striking others. Resident 227's Psychological Evaluation further indicated per staff Resident 227 exhibits behavioral issues such as verbal hostility, psychomotor agitation). Resident 227's Psychological Evaluation indicated Resident 227 was rated moderate on hostility. A review of Resident 227's Change in Condition Evaluation (COC), dated 3/25/23, indicated the resident had change of condition on behavioral status manifesting physical aggression that included hitting and striking and verbal aggression that included cursing and screaming. The COC indicated Resident 227 hit Resident 326 and resulted in Resident 326 sustaining a cut on the forehead. The COC indicated Resident 227 is alert and oriented x 4 (oriented to time, person, location, and situation) and had a good recollection of the incident. The COC indicated that Resident 227 verbalized I hit him because he keeps going near my bed. I don't want him near me. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 326's care plans and assessment records on 3/29/23, at 3:24 PM, with the Interim Director of Nursing (IDON), the IDON stated he was notified that Resident 326 and Resident 227's altercation happened on 3/24/23 around 11:10 PM. The IDON stated that CNA 17 (evening shift) reported the altercation between Residents 326 and 227 to the charge nurse. The IDON stated Residents 326 and 227 were roommates at the time of the altercation, on 3/24/23. The IDON stated Resident 326 went in Resident 227's space, so Resident 227 hit Resident 326's face with a closed fist. The IDON stated Resident 326 sustained a cut on the forehead and it bled. The IDON stated the facility did not develop care plans for Resident 326's wandering behavior. The IDON stated that when he screened Resident 326 on 3/21/23 upon admission to the facility, the resident did not exhibit wandering behaviors. The IDON stated the report he received from the GACH prior to facility admission indicated Resident 326 was bedbound. The IDON further stated Resident 326 was not ambulatory on the first day of admission to the facility on 3/21/23. The IDON stated he was surprised when Resident 326 started to walk around the unit on the second day. The IDON stated he did not revise Resident 326's admission assessment for wandering and did not develop a care plan for wandering after Resident 326's change of condition on 3/22/23. The IDON stated the facility should have identified and addressed Resident 326's wandering behavior and develop a care plan for wandering immediately on 3/22/23 when the resident started to wander around the facility, so the facility staff could provide adequate monitoring and supervision to prevent possible abuse. During a telephone interview on 3/30/23, at 9:25 AM with CNA 17, CNA 17 stated that on 3/24/23 at 11:05 PM, CNA 17 was standing in the corner of the unit's hallway to monitor both unit hallways. CNA 17 stated he could not see the inside of Residents 326 and 227's room from where he stood and did not see what happened during the altercation between the two residents. CNA 17 stated he heard Resident 326 screaming, and when he went into the room, he saw Resident 326 sitting on the floor with a bleeding forehead. CNA 17 stated the roommate, Resident 227, was alert and standing next to Resident 326. CNA 17 stated Resident 227 was agitated and verbalized hitting Resident 326 because he went close to his bed. CNA 17 stated Resident 326 was a very quiet person. CNA 17 stated that he was not made aware of any specific care plan or instructions that required facility staff to supervise and address Resident 326's behavior, before the altercation happened on 3/24/23. During an interview on 3/30/23, at 4:24 PM, the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated a resident should be assessed for wandering and it was important to develop a care plan for wandering behavior. The DSD stated a resident with wandering behavior required adequate monitoring and supervision to ensure their safety. The DSD further stated the wandering resident would wander to places which were dangerous for them. The DSD stated when the resident wandered to other residents' space, other residents could get offended and cause possible unpleasant interaction and experience possible abuse. During an interview on 3/30/23, at 5:10 PM, with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated CNA 17 was standing in the corner outside of the Dining Room door in the east wing to monitor two adjacent hallways of the facility unit. The ADM stated CNAs conducted hourly rounds and both Resident 326 and Resident 227 were sleeping last time CNA 17 checked on them. The ADM stated from where CNA 17 stood, CNA 17 did not have a visual inside the two residents' room. The ADM stated CNA 17 heard the noise from the two residents' room and went in right away, but the altercation had already occurred. The ADM stated Resident 227 did not have any history of physical aggression and sleep on his bed most of the time, so they thought it would be appropriate to place Resident 326 and Resident 227 in the same room. The ADM stated Resident 326 was not active on the first day in the facility, then, he started to walk around on the next day. The ADM stated the facility staff should have addressed Resident 326's change of condition and should have reassessed the resident right away. The ADM stated a care plan for wandering behavior should have been updated to keep Resident 326 safe because the wandering resident could get into other resident's space. The ADM further stated the facility staff should have monitored Resident 326 more frequently to prevent him from experiencing abuse from other residents. During an interview on 3/30/23, at 5:27 PM, CNA 18 stated CNAs used four-corner-check system where one CNA was assigned to a corner of the building to monitor adjacent hallways. CNA 18 stated they provided visual checks on all residents and conducted hourly rounds for head counts to make sure each resident was safe. CNA 1 stated the charge nurses would inform CNAs which residents had wandering behaviors, and CNAs should pay extra attention to the wandering residents, even at night, by conducting frequent visual checks to make sure they did not wander to unsafe places. During an interview on 3/31/23, at 8:49 AM, CNA 1 stated she observed Resident 326 wandering to different rooms during her morning shifts before the altercation occurred on 3/24/23 and charge nurses were aware of Resident 326's wandering behavior. During an observation on 3/31/23, at 11:44 AM, Resident 326 came out of his room and started walking toward another resident's room (Resident 38), which was across Resident 326's room. When Resident 326 was approaching the door of the other resident's room (Resident 38) walked toward Resident 326 and stood in front of Resident 326. Resident 38 yelled at Resident 326 No! Resident 326 turned around and walked to the other side of the hallway. During the observation, there were no facility staff present to provide monitoring and supervision in the facility unit's hallway where Resident 326 would wander around. During an interview on 3/31/23, at 1:45 PM, the ADM stated Resident 227 admitted he punched Resident 326's face because Resident 326 was in his area and Resident 227 was willful to conduct his action to cause injury on Resident 326. The ADM stated nothing was reported or addressed about Resident 326 having wandering behaviors prior to the resident-to-resident altercation between Residents 326 and 227 on 3/24/23. The ADM stated Resident 326 was vulnerable for abuse, so adequate supervision should have been provided, and the care plans for wandering should have been developed and implemented to prevent this incident from occurring. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Abuse-Prevention, Screening, & Training Program, dated July 2018, indicated The facility conducts resident pre-admission, admission and ongoing assessments (screening) and care planning for appropriate interventions and monitoring of residents with needs and behaviors that might lead to conflict or neglect.
CONCERN (D)

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

MDS Data Transmission (Tag F0640)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS-a resident assessment and care-scr...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the Minimum Data Set (MDS-a resident assessment and care-screening tool) was transmitted timely to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) system for one of 18 sampled residents (Resident 41). This deficient practice had the potential to result in confusion regarding the care and services provided to Resident 41, and a potential to affect the facility's quality of care monitoring system that measures the effective, safe, efficient, patient-centered, equitable (fair), and timely care. Findings: A review of Resident 41's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 41 on 11/15/2022 with diagnoses that included major depressive disorder (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest and can interfere with the daily life) and psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality). A review of Resident 41's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 41 had moderately impaired cognition (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making. Resident 41's MDS indicated Resident 41 required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/31/2023, at 9:05 AM, with Regional Resident Assessment Instrument (RAI) Specialist, indicated a Physician Order, dated 11/21/2022, indicated to transfer Resident 41 to the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH). A review of the Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF)/Nursing Facility (NF) to Hospital Transfer Form, dated 11/21/2022, indicated Resident 41 was transferred to the GACH on 11/21/2022. In an interview the Regional RAI Specialist stated Resident 41 was transferred to the GACH for psychiatric evaluation on 11/21/2022 with seven days bed hold. The Regional RAI Specialist stated Resident 41 was discharged on 11/21/2022. The Regional RAI Specialist stated she did not see in Resident 41's clinical records that Discharge MDS assessment was transmitted to the CMS system since 11/21/2022. During an interview and record review on 3/31/2023, at 9:20 AM, the Regional RAI Specialist stated she checked on Simple LTC (a long-term care software that offers a complete view of claims, MDS, and staffing for skilled nursing facilities) and noted that Resident 41's Discharge MDS assessment was completed on 11/21/2022, but the MDS was not transmitted to the CMS system. The Regional RAI Specialist stated she did not know why Resident 41's Discharge MDS assessment had not been transmitted since 11/21/2022. The Regional RAI Specialist stated Resident 41's Discharge MDS assessment should had been completed and transmitted in 11/2022. During an interview on 3/31/2023, at 4:30 PM, the Interim Director of Nursing (IDON), IDON stated the facility followed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility RAI User's Manual to complete and submit the MDS assessments. During a review of CMS Long-Term Care Facility RAI 3.0 User's Manual, dated 10/2019, indicated Discharge MDS assessment must be submitted within 14 days of the MDS completion date.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0655 (Tag F0655)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of Resident 326's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 326 on 3/21/2023 with diagnoses that inc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of Resident 326's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 326 on 3/21/2023 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), dementia (a term for a range of conditions that affect the brain's ability to think, remember, and function normally), and psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality). A review of Resident 326's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 3/28/2023, indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 326 wandered daily which place him at significant risk of getting to a potentially dangerous place and intrude on the privacy or activities of others. The MDS indicated Resident 326 required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance) with walking in room and locomotion on unit, and extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) with dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 326's Elopement Evaluation, dated 3/22/2023, indicated Resident 326 did not wander and did not wander aimlessly or non-goal directed. Resident 326's Elopement Evaluation further indicated Resident 326's wandering behavior was not likely to affect the safety or well-being of self/other and privacy of others. During an observation on 3/28/2023 at 9:06 AM, Resident 326 wandered into Resident 19's room and stood in front of Resident 19's bed. There was an unfolded maroon blanket on Resident 19's bed. Resident 326 started to fold Resident 19's blanket. During the observation, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 15 in the hallway saw Resident 326 and went into Resident 19's room. CNA 15 held Resident 326's left arm and redirect Resident 326 out of Resident 19's room. During an interview on 3/28/2023 at 9:09 AM, CNA 15 stated Resident 326 usually wandered to other resident's rooms. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 326's care plans, on 3/29/2023 at 2:04 PM, LVN 3 stated Resident 326 had a behavior of wandering in the facility unit but could not find documented evidence that the facility developed a care plan for wandering. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 326's care plans and assessment records on 3/29/2023, at 3:24 PM, with the Interim Director of Nursing (IDON), the IDON stated the facility did not develop care plans for Resident 326's wandering behavior. The IDON stated that when he screened Resident 326 on 3/21/2023 upon admission to the facility, the resident did not exhibit wandering behaviors. The IDON stated the report he received from the GACH prior to facility admission indicated Resident 326 was bedbound. The IDON further stated Resident 326 was not ambulatory on the first day of admission to the facility on 3/21/2023. The IDON stated he was surprised when Resident 326 started to walk around the unit on the second day. The IDON stated he did not revise Resident 326's admission assessment for wandering and did not develop a care plan for wandering after Resident 326's change of condition on 3/22/2023 (within 48 hours of admission to the facility). The IDON stated the facility should have identified and addressed Resident 326's wandering behavior and develop a care plan for wandering immediately on 3/22/2023 when the resident started to wander around the facility, so the facility staff could provide adequate monitoring and supervision to prevent possible abuse. A review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning revised in 11/2018, indicated the following: a. The baseline care plan must include the minimum healthcare information necessary to properly care for each resident immediately upon their admission. It should address resident-specific health and safety concerns to prevent decline or injury, and would identify needs for supervision, behavioral interventions, and assistance with activities of daily living, as necessary. b. The Baseline Care Plan Summary (NP - 04 - Form B) will be developed and implemented, using the necessary combination of problem specific care plans, within 48 hours of the resident's admission. It will include, at minimum, the following information necessary on each care plan to properly care for a resident: I. Initial goals based on the admission orders c. The baseline care plan must reflect the resident's stated goals and objectives, and include interventions that address his or her needs. d. The baseline care plan will be initiated upon admission by the admitting nurse using the necessary combination of problem specific care plans to promote continuity of care and communication among nursing home staff, increase resident safety, and safeguard against adverse events that are most likely to occur right after admission. Based on interview and record review, facility failed to develop baseline care plans for two of three sampled residents (Resident 126 and 326) within 48 hours of admission to the facility. 1. Resident 126's diagnosis for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD-a disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a terrifying event) did not have a baseline care plan upon admission to the facility. 2. Resident 326's wandering (to walk around slowly in a relaxed way or without any clear purpose or direction) behavior did not have a baseline care plan upon admission to the facility. This deficient practices of not identifying individualized goals had the potential to negatively affect Resident 126's and 326 abilities to achieve their highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being and their continuity of care. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 126's admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included PTSD, dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning) and cognitive communication deficit (impairment in organization/though organization, sequencing, attention, memory planning, problem solving, and safety awareness). A review of Resident 126's History and Physical (H&P), dated 3/23/2023, indicated Resident 126 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 126's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 3/30/23, indicated Resident 126 had severe impairment in cognition (ability to understand and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 126 required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other-non-weight-bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 126 had an active diagnosis of PTSD. During an interview on 3/30/23 at 12:56 PM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 stated that baseline care plans were initiated by registered nurses during the resident's admission. LVN 1 stated any licensed nurse would be able to update and/or revise baseline care plan during resident's change of condition and as needed. A concurrent record review of Resident 126's medical records and interview with MDS 1 on 3/30/2023 at 2:40 PM, MDS 1 stated there was no baseline care plan initiated and completed for Resident 126's PTSD. MDS 1 stated baseline care plans were normally initiated and completed by the previous MDS assistant coordinator, MDS 2. MDS 1 stated baseline care plans were initiated upon residents' admission to the facility to make sure that the facility addressed resident's needs starting from the baseline risk assessment, activities of daily living (ADL), cognition, nutritional status, etc., and should be developed within 48 hours from facility admission. MDS 1 stated the baseline care plan for PTSD was very important to ensure that Resident 126's specific behavioral needs and psychological issues were addressed. During an interview on 3/30/2023 at 6:27 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated that person-centered baseline care plan should be developed to render proper care based on resident's needs. The ADON stated baseline care plans should be developed within 48 hours from facility admission for continuity of care. During an interview on 3/31/2023 at 1:35 PM, the Administrator (ADM) stated the ADON, social services staff, activity staff and licensed nurses could initiate baseline care plans.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of Resident 326's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 326 on 3/21/2023 with diagnoses that inc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. A review of Resident 326's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 326 on 3/21/2023 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions), dementia (a term for a range of conditions that affect the brain's ability to think, remember, and function normally), and psychosis (a mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality). A review of Resident 326's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 3/28/2023, indicated Resident 326 had moderately impaired cognition (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making. Resident 326's MDS indicated Resident 326 wandered daily which place him at significant risk of getting to a potentially dangerous place and intrude on the privacy or activities of others. Resident 326's MDS indicated Resident 326 required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance) with walking in room and locomotion on unit, and extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) with dressing, eating, toilet use and personal hygiene. During an observation on 3/28/2023 at 9:06 AM, Resident 326 wandered into Resident 19's room and stood in front of Resident 19's bed. There was an unfolded maroon blanket on Resident 19's bed. Resident 326 started to fold Resident 19's blanket. During the observation, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 15 in the hallway saw Resident 326 and went into Resident 19's room. CNA 15 held Resident 326's left arm and redirect Resident 326 out of Resident 19's room. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/28/2023 at 9:08 AM, Resident 326 had a sutured laceration (on his mid forehead above his right eyebrow. Resident 326 did not respond when asked what happened to his forehead. Resident 326 shook his head when asked if he had pain. During an interview on 3/28/2023 at 9:09 AM, CNA 15 stated Resident 326 usually wandered to other resident's rooms. CNA 15 stated he did not know how Resident 326 sustained the laceration on his forehead. CNA 15 stated Resident 326 would wander in the facility hallways and sometimes would go in other resident's rooms. During an observation and interview on 3/29/2023 at 1:43 PM, Resident 326 was sitting in the hallway watching TV. Resident 326 was smiling. Resident 326 stated he was hit and got the laceration on his forehead. Resident 326 stated he could not remember how he was hit or by whom. Resident 326 stated he was fine now. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 326's care plans, on 3/29/2023 at 2:04 PM, LVN 3 stated she heard about the altercation between Resident 326 and Resident 227 on 3/24/2023, but she did not witness the incident. LVN 3 stated the incident occurred in Resident 326 and Resident 227's room because Resident 326 and Resident 227 were roommates. LVN 3 stated Resident 326 wandered to Resident 227's bed and got hit by Resident 227 with a closed fist. LVN 3 stated Resident 326 sustained a cut on the forehead. LVN 3 stated the staff called 911 emergency services and transferred Resident 326 to the GACH emergency room for further evaluation, on 3/24/2023. LVN 3 stated Resident 326 returned from the GACH on 3/25/2023 with stitches on the lacerated forehead. LVN 3 stated Resident 227 was placed on one-to-one monitoring immediately and was transferred to the GACH for agitation and increased physical aggression on 3/25/2023. LVN 3 stated Resident 326 had a behavior of wandering in the facility unit but could not find documented evidence that the facility developed a care plan for wandering. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/29/2023, at 2: 06 PM, with LVN 3, LVN 3 stated the facility did not develop the care plan for the resident-to-resident altercation between Residents 326 and 227 that occurred on 3/24/2023. LVN 3 stated Resident 326 was sent out to the acute hospital emergency room right away on 3/24/2023 and Resident 227 was transferred to an acute hospital on 3/25/2023, so they did not do a care plan for resident-to-resident altercation for Resident 326 on 3/24/2023. LVN 3 further stated she did not know they have to develop a care plan for the altercation after Resident 326 returned to the facility on 3/25/2023. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 326's care plans and assessment records on 3/29/2023, at 3:24 PM, with the Interim Director of Nursing (IDON), the IDON stated he was notified that Resident 326 and Resident 227's altercation happened on 3/24/2023 around 11:10 PM. The IDON stated that CNA 17 (evening shift) reported the altercation between Residents 326 and 227 to the charge nurse. The IDON stated Residents 326 and 227 were roommates at the time of the altercation, on 3/24/2023. The IDON stated Resident 326 went in Resident 227's space, so Resident 227 hit Resident 326's face with a closed fist. The IDON stated Resident 326 sustained a cut on the forehead and it bled. The IDON stated the facility did not develop care plans for Resident 326's wandering behavior. The IDON stated Resident 326 sustained a cut on the forehead and it bled. The IDON stated Resident 326 was transferred to the acute hospital emergency room on 3/24/2023 and Resident 227 was transferred to an acute hospital on 3/25/2023. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 326's care plans on 3/29/2023, at 3:26 PM, with the IDON, the IDON stated since Resident 326 returned from the acute hospital emergency room to the facility on 3/25/2023, they had not developed a care plan on the resident-to-resident altercation occurred on 3/24/2023 for Resident 326. The IDON stated he thought once the perpetrator and the victim were transferred out of the facility, the facility did not need to do a care plan regarding the altercation anymore, even after Resident 326 returned on 3/25/2023. The IDON stated they should have considered Resident 326 was still vulnerable to be a victim of a future resident-to-resident altercation because of Resident 326's wandering behavior and getting into other residents' space. The IDON stated they should have developed a care plan for the altercation when Resident 326 returned from the emergency room on 3/25/2023. During an interview on 3/30/2023, at 5:10 PM, with the Administrator (ADM), the ADM stated the facility should have developed a care plan addressing the resident-to-resident altercation between Resident 326 and Resident 227 that occurred on 3/24/2023 for Resident 326, so that the facility staff could implement appropriate interventions to protect Resident 326 from future abuse by other residents. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, dated 11/2018, indicated additional changes or updates to the resident's comprehensive care plan will be made based on the assessed needs of the resident, and the comprehensive care plan will also be reviewed and revised at the following times: i. Onset of new problem; ii. Change of condition. Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement comprehensive care plans for two of 18 sampled residents (Resident 33 and 326). 1. For Resident 33 who was involved in a resident-to-resident altercation on 3/24/2023, that resulted in physical injury. 2. For Resident 326 who had wandering behavior and was involved in a resident-to-resident altercation on 3/24/2023, that resulted in physical injury. This defiicient practice had resulted in the in adequate interventions to prevent the residents from wandering and altercations that resulted in injuries to Resident 36 and 326. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 33's admission Record indicated Resident 33 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder (a mental health condition including schizophrenia disorder [a disorder that affects a person 's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly] and mood [a temporal state of mind or feeling] disorder [a general emotional state or mood distorted or inconsistent with the circumstances and interferes with the ability to function]); anxiety disorder (a metal disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities); psychosis (a condition in which someone had lost touch with reality). A review of Resident 33's History & Physical, dated 1/27/2023, indicated Resident 33 can make need known but cannot make medical decisions. A review of Resident 33's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning screening tool), dated 3/9/2023, indicated the resident moderately impaired of cognition. The MDS indicated the resident needed limited assistance for dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The resident needed supervision for bed mobility, transfer, locomotion, and eating. A review of Resident 33's Change of Condition (COC) Evaluation, dated 3/24/2023 timed at 10 AM, Integrated Discharge Team (IDT)'s summary indicated that Resident 33 was standing 10 feet away from Resident 226, when Resident 226 approached Resident 33 and hit her on the left side of the face, it was unprovoked as witnessed by CNA 14. Both residents separated, Resident 33 on assessment with slight redness on the left side of the face, denied any pain, no open wound, no swelling. A review of Resident 33's Physician Orders, dated 3/24/2023, indicated the resident to be transferred to acute for medical evaluation. A review of Resident 33's Social Services Director (SSD) Progress Notes, dated 3/24/2023 timed at 12:47 PM, indicated when Resident 33 was approached, she walked away from SSD and verbalized she did not want to talk at that time. A review of Resident 33's Integrated Discharge Team (IDT) meeting on 3/24/2023 timed at 2:40 PM, indicated IDT met with resident to discuss alleged resident-to-resident interaction that was reported to CDPH, law enforcement and ombudsman. When approached the resident was asked if anything occurred and resident stated, nothing happened, I don't know what you're talking about. The resident was adamant that nothing occurred between her and another resident. Responsible party was made aware. A review of Resident 33's admission summary, dated [DATE] timed at 7:48 PM, indicated the resident came back from acute hospital via ambulance, awake, alert, able to make needs know, denies any pain/discomfort at that time. MD was made aware, and no order given at this time, put resident one on one for safety precaution. A review of Resident 33's Social Service Progress Notes, dated 3/26/2023 timed at 6:19 PM, indicated the SDD interviewed the resident why she was transfer to acute, the resident stated that the resident went to the hospital. The Progress Notes indicated Resident 33 did not recall the interaction with another resident and stated I do not know what you are talking about. Shouted nothing happened. A review of Resident 33's Care Plan, initiated 2/7/2023, indicated Resident 33 had a psychosocial well-being problem (potential) r/t Anxiety and schizoaffective disorder. The care plan indicated that Resident 33 feels safe, denies any altercation occurred on 3/24/2023. Plan reviewed on 3/30/2023. The care plan goals indicated; the resident will demonstrate adjustment to nursing home placement by/through review date. The care plan interventions indicated the following: Consult with Social services, Psych services. Date initiated 2/7/2023. Revision Date: 2/7/2023. The care plan indicated no interventions after the altercation between residents that occurred on 3/24/23. After the revision of the care plan on 3/30/2023, there were no interventions added to prevent the incident from happening again and to promote coping (the thoughts and behaviors mobilized to manage internal and external stressful situations). A review of Resident 33's Nursing Progress Notes, dated 3/27/2023 timed at 2:57 PM, indicated the resident was on monitoring for being hit by peer on left side of her face. No complaint of pain, no swelling, no change in LOC, Level of Consciousness (indicates a patient's level of arousal and awareness), and no respiratory distress noted. All needs met by staff at this time. Will continue monitoring. According to an interview with ADON on 3/31/2023 timed at 9:41 AM, ADON stated, he was informed that Resident 226 was seating in the patio next to the loudspeaker and 10 feet from Resident 33. Resident 226 approached and hit Resident 33 on her face. The ADON stated CNA 14 separated both residents. The ADON stated he assessed both residents and noticed slight redness on Resident 33's left cheek. The ADON stated both residents were transferred to the acute hospital and Resident 226 for psychiatric evaluation and a neuro check was done for Resident 33. A review of facility's policy and procedure: Resident to Resident Altercations, revised on 11/1/2015, indicated that the facility must acts promptly and conscientiously to prevent and address altercation between residents. The policy indicated to make any necessary changes to the Care Plan for any or all the involved residents as necessary. A review of facility's policy and procedure Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Planning, revised on 11/2018, indicated, All goals, objectives, interventions, etc. from the baseline care plan will be included in the resident's comprehensive care plan .Additional changes or updates to the resident's comprehensive care plan will be made based on the assessed needs of the resident.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate monitoring and supervision for three ...

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 adequate monitoring and supervision for three of three sampled residents (Residents 70, 49, and 69) with impaired cognition (ability to understand and reason) and communication deficit (difficulty with thinking and use of language). The facility failed to: 1. Provide adequate monitoring and supervision to Resident 70 with wandering behavior (random or repetitive locomotion/includes [NAME], pacing, directionless movements, and frequently getting lost) and at risk for elopement (a situation in which a resident leaves the premises or a safe area without the facility's knowledge and supervision). This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 70 to be abused, aggravate other residents and involved in resident or staff to-resident altercation which could result in injury,harm and emotional decline. 2. Provide supervision to Resident 49 with behavior of grabbing food that belongs to other resident in an uncovered small food cart. 3. Identify risk for accident for Resident 69 who had no overbed table (a rectangular table that's designed to fit over the bed) and was eating from the meal tray placed on her lap with food plates and drinking glass. These deficient practices had the potential to cause accidental burn, choking, injury or harm to Residents 49 and 69. Findings: 1.During an observation on 3/28/2023 at 9:30 AM, Resident 70 was observed wandering around the hallway unaccompanied by staff and entered in the female resident's room. During an observation on 3/28/2023 at 9:35 AM, Resident 70 was observed wandering around the hallway, unaccompanied by staff. A review of Resident 70's admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder, (a mental illness that can affect a person's thoughts, mood, and behavior) bipolar type (marked by episodes of mania [period of feeling full of energy] and major depression (a feeling of severe sadness and hopelessness that significantly affects the daily life), dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), and abnormalities of gait (person's manner of walking) and mobility. A review of Resident 70's History and Physical (H&P), dated 12/28/2022, indicated Resident 70 was able to make needs known but could not make medical decisions. A review of Resident 70's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 1/4/2023, indicated Resident 70 had a severe impairment in cognition (ability to understand and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 70 required extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other-non-weight-bearing assistance) with transfer and eating. A review of Resident 70's care plan, dated 12/31/2022, indicated Resident 70 was at risk for elopement risk and wandering related to impaired safety awareness to maintain Resident 70's safety, the care plan indicated the staffs will identify pattern of wandering behavior and will to intervene as appropriate. The plan of care did not indicate the specific resident risk factors for wondering behavior and and specific cues to which the resident may respond on to divert wandering behavior. During an observation on 3/30/2023 at 7:50 AM, Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 9 stated Resident 70 was not on a one-to-one monitoring (closed observation and monitoring provided by one staff to the resident), but he required close supervision meaning keeping an eye on him. CNA 9 stated Resident 70 wanders around, goes to other resident's room, touching their stuffs which the other residents do not like. CNA 9 stated someone should always supervise and monitor Resident 70 to prevent him from entering another resident's room to prevent accidents, someone might hit him. During an interview on 3/30/2023 at 1:08 PM, Registered Nurse (RN) 1 stated Resident 70 wanders around a lot and needs redirection and one to one monitoring, in which CNA documents in the one-to-one monitoring sheet and document the resident's whereabouts. During a record review of Resident 70's 1:1 (one on one) Monitoring Record and concurrent interview on 3/30/23 at 1:38 PM, with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), . The DSD stated one-to-one means residents needs to be followed closely, not too close but close enough to keep an eye on them and for staff to be able to intervene and redirect residents with wandering behavior from entering other resident's room to prevent accidents like resident-to-resident altercation, and to maintain personal space for other residents. A copy of the Resident 70's one to one montioring records were requested from the DSD for for the dates 3/25/2023 to 3/30/2023, the DSD was not able to provide the records as requested. During an interview on 3/20/2023 at 4:22 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated, he was aware that Resident 70 had wandering behavior. The ADON stated one-to-one monitoring was only an extra care to make sure residents were safe and for the staff to redirect residents and preventing them to enter other resident's rooms. During a phone interview on 3/30/2023 at 4:58 PM, Family Member (FM) 1 stated since Resident 70' was admitted to the facility, he required one to one observation and monitoring because he tends to wander around and aggravate other residents. A review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Wandering and Elopement revised in July 2017, indicated the facility will enhance the safety of residents with wandering and elopement behavior, the IDT (Interdisciplinary Team) will develop a plan of care considering the resident risk factors and specific cues to which the resident may respond to divert wandering behavior. 2. During an observation on 3/29/2023 at 12:14 PM, Resident 49 was observed unsupervised sitting on his wheelchair, grabbing food from uncovered food cart in the hallway that belongs to another resident. Resident 49 was about to grab the food in the plate when Resident 22 grabbed the meal tray and told Resident 22 that the meal tray belongs to him. A review of Resident 49's admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder, lack of coordination and abnormalities of gait and mobility. A review of Resident 49's H&P, dated 12/6/2022, indicated Resident 49 had no cognitive impairment and was able to make decisions for activities of daily living (ADL). A review of Resident 49's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 49 had a moderate impairment in cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 49 required extensive assistance with dressing, personal hygiene and limited assistance with bed mobility, transfer, eating, and toilet use. A review of Resident 49's care plan for cognitive function, dated 3/30/2023, indicated Resident 49 had impaired cognitive function or impaired though processes related to cognitive communication deficit and schizoaffective disorder with an intervention to cue, reorient and supervise as needed. A review of Resident 22's admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included cognitive communication deficit, paranoid schizophrenia (hallucinations or delusional beliefs about being persecuted, pursued, or conspired against), and emotional lability (rapid, often exaggerated changes in mood, where strong emotions or feelings occur). A review of Resident 22's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 22 had a moderate impairment in cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 22 required limited assistance with dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and independent (no help or staff oversight at any time) with bed mobility, transfer, and eating. During an observation and concurrent interview on 3/29/2023 at 12:16 PM, RN 3 stated Resident 49 was taking the food from a tray that belongs to Resident 22. RN 3 stated the staff should not leave meal trayson the cart in the hallway with uncovered food and unsupervised to prevent residents from taking food that did not belong to them, and also to prevent accidental choking. RN 3 stated residents' food should always be supervised because the residents might get food that did not comply with their diet and could cause harm. During an interview on 3/29/2023 at 12:37 PM, CNA 13 stated someone should always stay and supervise the meal trays or carts to prevent accident. CNA 13 stated residents might eat foods with different consistency that could cause choking and eat foods that residents were allergic to that could cause allergic reaction (sensitivity to a specific substance). 3. During an observation on 3/29/2023 at 6:56 AM, Resident 69 was observed leaning her back on the wall (head part of the bed), eating his meal from a meal tray with breakable plate and glass on her lap, that was slightly tilted towards Resident 69. Resident 69 did not have an overbed table in the room. A review of Resident 69's admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included cognitive communication deficit, depression and lack of coordination. A review of Resident 69's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 69 had moderate impairment in cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 69 required limited assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and independent with eating. During an interview on 3/29/2023 12:37 PM, CNA 13 stated residents need to have a table that they could comfortably and safely use when eating to prevent accident. CNA 13 stated the plates and/or hot food might slip into the resident's lap that can could cause burn and injury. During an interview on 3/30/2023 at 4:38 PM, the ADON stated all residents should be provided with an overbed table that they could comfortably use when eating to promote safety. The ADON stated overbed side table should be provided to residents, especially for those residents that have physical limitations and lack of coordination when eating. On 3/31/2023 at 11:38 AM, the Medical Records Supervisor (MRS) and ADON were not able to provide policy and procedures for accidents and supervision that were requested.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0692 (Tag F0692)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to identify the risk for impaired nutrition or hydration ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to identify the risk for impaired nutrition or hydration to maintain an acceptable parameters of nutritional and hydration status for one of three sampled residents (Resident 70) by failing to: 1. Resident 70's meal intake in the clinical records Nutrition-Amount Eaten (an electronic document) and the Dining Room Feeding Program record did not match the percentage of the food intake of the resident on 3/17/23 and 3/28/23 during lunch time. 2. Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 1 documented in the Nutrition-Amount Eaten record that Resident 70's meal intake as resident not available instead of percentage food eaten that was recorded before Resident 70 completed his meal with leftover food on 3/28/23. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 70 to have inaccurate evaluation and undetected unplanned weight loss, weight gain and hydration status. Findings: A review of Resident 70's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder, (a mental illness that can affect a person's thoughts, mood, and behavior) bipolar type (marked by episodes of mania [period of feeling full of energy] and major depression (a feeling of severe sadness and hopelessness that significantly affects the daily life), dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), and abnormalities of gait (person's manner of walking) and mobility. A review of Resident 70's History and Physical (H&P), dated 12/28/2022, indicated Resident 70 was able to make needs known but could not make medical decisions. A review of Resident 70's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 1/4/2023, indicated Resident 70 had a severe impairment in cognition (ability to understand and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 70 required extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other-non-weight-bearing assistance) with transfer and eating. A review of Resident 70's physician order, dated 1/17/2023, indicated to include Resident 70 in the Restorative Nurse Assistant (RNA) feeding programs for all meals to monitor Resident 70's oral intake. A review of Resident 70's care plan for weight loss, dated 2/27/2023, indicated Resident 70 had an unplanned/unexpected weight loss related to his mental health conditions. The care plan indicated to prevent further weight loss Resident 70's food intake during each meal will be monitored and recorded. A review of Resident 70's Nutrition-Amount Eaten (an electronic document), CNA documentation, dated 3/17/2023, lunch time, indicated Resident 70 eat 75-100% (percent- a number or ratio expressed as a fraction of 100) of his lunch meal. A review of Resident 70's Dining Room Feeding Program dated 3/17/2023, indicated Resident 70 consumed 60% of his meal during lunch time on 3/17/2023. According to Resident 70's meal intake documentation on 3/17/2023 at lunch time, there was a 15% to 40% in the difference or discrepancy in the documented food intake. During an observation on 3/28/2023 at 12:56 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) 9 was assisting Resident 70 to eat his meal in his room. During an observation on 3/28/2023 at 1:09 PM, Resident 70 finished eating his lunch with the vegetable and soup remaining in the food tray. In a concurrent interview, CNA 9 stated Resident 70 did not finish 100 % of his meal because he had left over vegetables and soup on the food tray. A review of Resident 70's Dining Room Feeding Program form, dated 3/28/2023, indicated Resident 70 consumed 100% of his meal during lunch time on 3/28/2023. During an interview on 3/30/2023 at 7:29 AM, CNA 7 stated, CNAs or RNAs (Restorative Nursing Assistant) documents in the resident's clinical records the amount of meal eaten after the resident ate. CNA 7 stated the amount of food eaten by residents should be documented properly so that the Licensed Nurses, Dietary Supervisor and Registered Dietitian and the physician could review and evaluate the resident's pattern of eating. CNA 7 stated nurse supervisors/licensed nurses would check CNAs and/or RNAs documentation for accuracy. During a record review of the Nutrition-Amount Eaten and concurrent interview on 3/30/2023 at 4:38 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated, CNA 1 documented resident not available on the section that indicated the percent of meals Resident 70 had eaten on 3/28/2023 at 12:43 PM. The ADON was informed that Resident 70 was observed during meal and he did not eat 100% of his meal at 3/28/2023 at 12:56 PM. The ADON stated staff should not document before the activity happened, but they should document the accurate time and the amount of food the resident had eaten. The ADON stated amount of meal eaten should be documented as 1-100 percent, and not resident not available unless resident was not in the building during that time. The ADON stated, the CNAS/Restorative Nurse Assistant (RNAs) should document the meal percentage in the Dining Feeding Program sheet accurately. The ADON stated meal percentage assessment and documentation should be accurate to make sure residents were eating properly and to ensure the residents receive proper nutrition and intervention as needed. During an interview on 3/31/2023 at 8:08 AM, the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS) stated he reviews the resident's meal percentage every week. The DSS stated meal percentage should be documented in percentage and should be accurate so he can assess how much the residents really consumed. The DSS stated if residents were eating less than 75 percent, he will call and notify the registered dietitian for further dietary assessment and intervention. The DSS stated meal and eating activity documentation were important especially for residents like Resident 70 who had a history of weight loss due to resident's behavior and/or mental condition. The DSS stated it was important to know if the residents were able to feed themselves, or need limited, moderate, or extensive assistance during feeding so they can properly re-evaluate resident's care plan intervention. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled Evaluation of Weight and Nutritional Status revised in 4/21/2022, indicated, the Registered Dietitian and the IDT (Interdisciplinary Team-various disciplines working collaboratively toward a common goal) will assess the needs and goals of the resident within the context of his/her overall condition, including the following: oral intake of foods and fluid and functional status.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0699 (Tag F0699)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to screen residents using A Trauma Screen Tool (SS-03 Form B), and pro...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to screen residents using A Trauma Screen Tool (SS-03 Form B), and provide a trauma-informed care (an approach to delivering care that involves understanding, recognizing and responding to the effects of all types of traumas) to one of one sampled resident (Resident 126) with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD-a disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a terrifying event). For Resident 26, the facility failed to identify the triggers from past trauma (results from an event, series of events, or set of circumstances that is experienced by an individual as physically or emotionally harmful or life threatening). This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 126 to experience re-traumatization, (unintentionally causing harm through practices, policies, and/or activities that are insensitive to the needs of the residents) that can lead to severe psychosocial harm which affects the quality of life. Findings: A review of Resident 126's admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included PTSD, dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning) and cognitive communication deficit (difficulty with thinking and how someone uses language). A review of Resident 126's History and Physical (H&P), dated 3/23/2023, indicated Resident 126 had PTSD with fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 126's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 3/30/2023, indicated Resident 126 had severe impairment in cognition (ability to understand and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 126 required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other-non-weight-bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. The MDS indicated Resident 126 had an active diagnosis of PTSD. During an interview on 3/30/2023 at 12:53 PM, the Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 7, CNA 7 stated she noticed Resident 126 she goes back and forth in the hallway and looks anxious. CNA 7 stated that she did not know if Resident 126 had a traumatic experience from the past, and what could trigger Resident 126's reaction to the past trauma. During an interview on 3/30/2023 at 12:56 PM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 stated she did not know on top of her head the diagnosis of Resident 126. LVN 1 stated she was not aware if Resident 126 had a traumatic experience in the past and what triggered her behavior from past trauma. LVN 1 stated she noticed Resident 126 would cry if she saw someone's stuff that she thought belongs to her. A concurrent record review of Resident 126's clinical records and interview with the Minimum Data Set Nurse (MDS) 1, on 3/30/2023 at 2:40 PM, MDS 1 stated there was no baseline care plan developed, PTSD screening and trauma-informed initiated and completed for Resident 126's PTSD. During a record review and concurrent interview on 3/30/2023 at 2:49 PM, the Social Services Director (SSD) stated, residents admitted with diagnosis of PTSD should be screened using the Trauma Screen Tool (SS-03 Form B) to indicate what traumatic event happened in their past and their reaction to trauma. The SSD stated the residents should be allowed to express their experience of trauma in detailed if they want to disclose it. The SSD stated there was no documented evidence the PTSD Screening Trauma form was completed for Resident 126, so that the staff can identify the triggers in Resident 126's behavior and implement appropriate plan of care to prevent re-traumatization. During an interview on 3/30/2023 at 6:27 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated, the baseline care plan and PTSD Screening Trauma form should be completed for residents diagnosed with PTSD so that the staff can identify the triggers, what escalates the resident's behavior related to trauma, and the care to be provided to prevent repeat trauma. A review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Trauma Informed Care: Screening, Training, and Care Integration program revised on 6/28/2019, indicated The facility will ensure residents who are trauma survivors receive culturally competent, trauma informed care; account for resident experience and preferences to eliminate or mitigate triggers that may cause re-traumatization of the resident. The P&P indicated the following: 1. A Trauma Screen Tool (SS-03 Form B) will be completed by Social Services upon admission. A Trauma Informed care plan will be initiated if a positive response on the Trauma Screen indicates a need for specialized care planning and intervention. If the resident/representative chooses not to disclose the type of Trauma event or circumstances, the IDT will not proceed to care planning, but Social Services will discuss this with the resident/representative during his/her quarterly or change of condition review. 2. Social Services staff shall also explore and discuss a history of Trauma during the completion of the Initial Psychosocial Assessment (SS-03 Form A- Social Services Assessment); including if the resident/representative wishes to share this information with other facility staff. If the resident wishes to maintain his/her privacy regarding the Trauma; then this will be indicated on the assessment. 3. Staff will be educated as to the specific needs of residents who have experienced trauma; these individuals often need support and understanding from the staff and care givers. Interventions should help residents learn to manage their feelings more effectively and make better decisions regarding responses to various situations.
CONCERN (D)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to administer Metformin HCL (Hydrochloride), a medication...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to administer Metformin HCL (Hydrochloride), a medication used to control blood sugar level) with food, as ordered by the physician for one of three sampled residents (Resident 36) with diabetes mellitus (a group of diseases that result in too much sugar in the blood). This deficient practice had the potential to result in Resident 36 to develop adverse reaction (undesired effect) to the medication such as significant drop in blood sugar level. Findings A review of Resident 36's admission Record, indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included type 2 diabetes mellitus and hypertension (a condition of having high blood pressure). A review of Resident 36's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 2/3/2023, indicated Resident 36's cognition (ability to think, understand, and make daily decisions) was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 36 required supervision (oversight, encouragement, or cueing) on transfers, dressing, and eating. A review of Resident 36's Order Summary Report,( a summary of physician orders) dated 3/30/2023, indicated the physician ordered Resident 36 to receive Metformin HCL (Hydrochloride), a medication used to control blood sugar level, two tablets 1000 milligrams (mg, a unit of measurement) by mouth in the morning with food. A review of Resident 36's Medication Administration Record (MAR) from 3/1/2023 to 3/31/2023, indicated Resident 36 was to receive Metformin 1000 mgs, two tablet by mouth in the morning for diabetes mellitus to be given with breakfast. During a medication administration observation, on 3/30/2023 at 9:40 AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 administered Metformin to Resident 36 from a bubble pack (packaging in which medications are organized and sealed between a cardboard backing and clear plastic cover). LVN 1 confirmed the Metformin bubble pack label indicated to administer the Metformin to Resident 36 with food. LVN 1 stated breakfast was served at 7AM and she was not aware if Resident 36 had eaten her breakfast. LVN 1 confirmed she did not offer snack or food to Resident 36 before administration of Metformin. LVN 1 further stated it was important to take metformin with meals to prevent hypoglycemia (low blood sugar). During an interview, on 3/30/2023 at 11:01 AM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated the licensed nurses should have asked Resident 36 if the resident had eaten some snacks or had eaten food before administering Metformin. A review of the facility's policies and procedures titled Medication Administration, dated 1/1/2012, indicated the biological medications (medications developed from blood, protein, viruses, or living organism) order will be received by a licensed nurse prior to administration. Medications and treatments will be administered as prescribed to ensure compliance with dose guidelines.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 70) was free from a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of five sampled residents (Resident 70) was free from an unnecessary psychotropic drug (any medication capable of affecting the mind, emotions, and behavior) as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure for the use by failing to: 1a. ensure Resident 70's Behavior Monitoring and Interventions documentations matched in the Licensed Nurse (LN) and the Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) behavior monitoring documentation. 1b. ensure Resident 70's behavior was monitored angry outburst and striking out for the use of Depakote and Risperdal were documented and was not left blank in Medication Administration Record (MAR) on 3/26/2023, night shift. 2. ensure Resident 70's monthly behavior summary was completed and documented while receiving Depakote (Divalproex Sodium-used to treat bipolar disorder [a disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive low to manic highs]) for angry outbursts, and while receiving Risperdal (Risperidone-used to treat schizophrenia [a mental illness that can affect a person's thoughts, mood, and behavior]) for striking toward others and bipolar disorder. These deficient practices had the potential to result to inaccurate re-evaluation of Resident 1 's need for psychotropic medications, which may lead to an overall negative impact on the resident's physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings: 1a. A review of Resident 70's admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type (marked by episodes of mania [period of feeling full of energy], major depression (a feeling of severe sadness and hopelessness that significantly affects the daily life), and dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning). A review of Resident 70's History and Physical (H&P), dated 12/28/2022, indicated Resident 70 was able to make needs known but could not make medical decisions. A review of Resident 70's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 1/4/2023, indicated Resident 70 had a severe impairment in cognition (ability to understand and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 70 required extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight-bearing support) with bed mobility, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene, and limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other-non-weight-bearing assistance) with transfer and eating. The MDS indicated Resident 70 received antipsychotic medications (use to treat certain types of mental disorders) for seven (7) days since admission on [DATE]. A review of Resident 70's Order Summary Report, for the month of March 2023, indicated the following physician orders: 1. Administer Risperdal 1 milligram (mg-a unit of measure for mass) tablet by mouth, give one tablet two times daily for schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type manifested by striking toward others. 2. Monitor behavior of schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, manifested by striking out towards others, and tally by hashmark, every shift. 3. Administer Depakote 250 mg tablet by mouth, give 1 tablet three times daily for schizoaffective disorder bipolar type manifested by angry outburst. 4. Monitor behavior of schizoaffective disorder, manifested by angry outburst, tally by hashmark every shift. A review of Resident 70's care plan for psychotropic medication use, dated 12/21/2023, indicated Resident 70 was taking psychotropic medications for schizophrenia. The interventions included the following: 1. Administer psychotropic medications as ordered by physician and monitor for side effects (undesired effects of the medication) and effectiveness of the medication every shift. 2. Discuss with medical doctor, family regarding ongoing need for use of medication. Review behaviors/interventions and alternate therapies attempted and their effectiveness as per facility policy. During a record review of Resident 70's electronic medical records and concurrent interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 on 3/30/23 at 1:08 PM, RN 1 stated from 3/16/2023 to 3/29/2023, there were no documented evidence under CNAs Behavior Monitoring and Interventions tab that Resident 70 had any behaviors such as agitation, striking out, and angry outburst. RN 1 stated if there were no checkmarks in the corresponding behavior in the CNA Behavior Monitoring and Interventions task, it means Resident 70 did not have the behaviors observed that date and shift/time. RN 1 stated Resident 70's behavior monitoring for striking out and angry outburst in eMAR appeared red, meaning it was not signed/documented, it should be green. 1b. During a record review of Resident 70's electronic Medication Administration Record (eMAR) and CNA Behavior Monitoring and Intervention tasks, on 3/30/2023 at 4:20 PM, conducted with the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) indicated the LN and CNA behavior monitoring documentation of Resident 70's behavior did not match. The ADON stated the LN Behavior Monitoring and Intervention recorded in the eMAR from 3/16/2023 to 3/29/2023 indicated Resident 70 had a total of 18 episodes of striking out toward others except on 3/26/2023 during the night shift was left blank. The ADON stated LN behavior monitoring documentation of Resident 70's behavior recorded in the eMAR from 3/16/2023 to 3/29/2023, indicated Resident 70 had 22 episodes of angry outbursts and on 3/26/2023 except on 3/26/2023 during the night shift was left blank. The ADON stated compared to the CNA Behavior Monitoring and Interventions documentation for Resident 70's from 3/16/2023 to 3/29/2023 which indicated Resident 70 did not have a behavior of angry outburst and striking towards others. During an interview on 3/31/2023 at 7:57 AM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 stated the behavior monitoring should be accurately documented, counted, and tallied the number of episodes of behavior at the end of the shift. LVN 3 stated if there were an alarming episode of behaviors, LN need to call the resident's primary physician. LVN 3 stated behaviors will be summarized at the end of the month, the doctor will review and adjust the antipsychotic medications as needed. During an interview on 3/31/2023 at 2:33 PM, the Administrator stated CNAs were the one who were usually involved in resident's care thus can directly observed resident's behavior. The ADM stated CNAs should document resident's behavior accurately so LNs can review and be informed of resident's episodes of behavior. A review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Behavior at 4:22 PM, the ADON stated behavior monitoring should document accurately especially while the residents are taking psychotropic medications because the medical doctors review the hashmarks and determines if the psychotropic medications could be reduced or increased, and if the benefit of the psychotropic medication outweighs the risk and the resident behavior was improving or getting worst, and in order to provide proper interventions. The ADON stated if the eMAR/MAR was left blank, not signed, it means the resident was not monitored for behavior such as angry outburst and striking towards others. 2. During an interview on 3/30/2023 at 4:25 PM, The ADON stated it was the Director of Nursing and his responsibility to complete resident's monthly behavior summary for the residents receiving psychotropic medications. The ADON stated he did not complete the Resident 70's monthly behavior summary for the month of February 2023. The ADON was unable to provide copy of February 2023 behavior summary of Resident 70 indicated for the use of Risperdal and Depakote when requested. A review of facility's P&P titled Psychoactive Drug Management revised in November 2018, indicated To provide a therapeutic environment that supports residents to obtain or maintain the highest physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. The P&P indicated, the occurrences of behaviors for which psychoactive medications were used will be entered with hashmarks (#) on the medication administration record every shift. The P&P indicated, every month the occurrence of behavior will be tallied and entered in the Monthly Psychoactive Drug Management Form in addition to any occurrence of adverse reaction.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0810 (Tag F0810)

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 divide dish (the plate with walls of partitio...

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 divide dish (the plate with walls of partitions in divided plates which help residents to push food onto a spoon) for one of five sampled residents, (Resident 8) to maintain or improve his ability to eat independently. This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 8 to have insufficient food intake that could lead to weight loss, dehydration (a dangerous loss of body fluid caused by illness, sweating, or inadequate intake) or nutritional problems. Findings A review of Resident 8's admission Record indicated Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD, a group of lung diseases that block airflow and make it difficult to breath) and Parkinson's disease (a brain disorder that cause unintended or uncontrollable movement such as shaking, stiffness, and difficulty with balance and coordination.) A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS-a comprehensive assessment and screening tool), dated 1/12/2023, indicated Resident 8 usually made self-understood and understood others and had moderate impairment in cognitive skills (the ability of an individual to perform the various mental activities most closely associated with learning and problem-solving.) in daily decision making. The MDS indicated Resident 8 needed supervision (oversight, encouragement, or cueing) with eating, and extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provided weight-bearing support) from staff with dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 8's Order Summary (a summary of the physician's order), dated of 2/7/2023, indicated for Resident 8 to use the divided dish for meals. A review of Resident 8's Care Plan, dated 3/9/2023, indicated Resident 8 required assistance with ADL (Activities of Daily Living are activities related to bathing, showering, dressing, and eating). The care plan goal indicated the resident will be independent with ADL until the next review. The care plan intervention indicated Resident 8 may use divided dish for meals. During a meal observation on 3/29/2022 at 12:32 PM, Resident 8 was in the room sitting in a wheelchair eating. Resident 8's right hand had tremors (involuntary movement) while attempting to scoop food off from a plate without a division with a spoon. Resident 8 was not able to pick up his food with the spoon and his food was pushed off the plate. Resident 8 was observed grab to eat food that was pushed off the plate with his left hand. During an observation and interview on 3/29/2023 at 12:40 PM, Certified Nursing Assistant 6 (CNA 6) confirmed during lunch observation that Resident 8 should be provide an appropriate eating device to the resident. During a concurrent interview on 3/29/2023 at 12:53 PM, the Interim Director of Nursing (IDON) stated Resident 8 should have a divided dish to serve his meals because his dominant hand displayed tremors and weakness. IDON further stated the divided dish plate makes it easier for Resident 8 to eat his meals. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Adaptive Equipment-Feeding Devices, with a revised date of 7/1/2014, indicated that adaptive feeding equipment is used by residents who need to improve their ability to feed themselves and to enable residents with physically disabling conditions to improve their eating functions. Types of adaptive equipment included the use of a. Built-up dish with inner lip b. Plate guards (divided dish plate).
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0847 (Tag F0847)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an interview and record review, the facility failed to inform the nature and implications of the proposed binding arbitra...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** During an interview and record review, the facility failed to inform the nature and implications of the proposed binding arbitration (Arbitration is a procedure in which a dispute is submitted, by agreement of the parties) agreement for 2 of four sampled residents (Resident 43 and 60) and their right to rescind the agreement within 30 calendar days of signing the agreement. This deficient practice has a potential to affect the resident's rights to make informed decisions and choices about important aspects of residents' health, safety, and welfare. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 43's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident 43's History and Physical dated 1/16/2023, indicated diagnoses including anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), hypertension (high blood pressure) and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). Resident 43 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 43's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and screening tool) dated 1/20/2023, indicated Resident 43 had moderately impaired cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 43 was assessed needing walker/ wheelchair for mobility device and has no impairment on her functional limitation in range of motion on her upper and lower extremities. During a record review of Resident 43's arbitration agreement signed on 1/26/2023 and interview on 3/31/2023 at 10AM, the resident stated, the admission Coordinator (ADC) gave the resident a stack of papers and asked the resident to sign all of it without explanation. The resident does not recall getting a copy of the arbitration agreement that was signed. Resident 43 stated, the ADC did not explain the arbitration agreement very well to the resident and requested to make changes to the arbitration agreement that was originally signed. 2. A review of Resident 60's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. A review of Resident 60's History and Physical dated 1/19/2023, indicated diagnoses including anxiety disorder (a condition in which a person has excessive worry and feelings of fear, dread, and uneasiness), idiopathic neuropathy (an illness where sensory and motor nerves of the peripheral nervous system are affected, and no obvious underlying etiology is found) and depression (a mood disorder that causes a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest). Resident 60 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 60's MDS dated [DATE], indicated Resident 60 had intact cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 60 was not using any mobility devices and has no impairment on functional limitation in range of motion on upper and lower extremities. During an interview with Resident 60 on 3/31/2023 at 10:05 AM, Resident 60 stated, she recalled signing the arbitration agreement, but could not recall the agreement being explained to her. The resident was also unable to recall if she had 30 days to make changes to the agreement. During an interview with the Director of Business Development (DBD) on 3/30/2023 at 4:26 PM, DBD stated, in the event of a malpractice, (Malpractice occurs when a hospital, doctor or other health care professional, through a negligent act or omission, causes an injury to a patient) or if resident will have a case filed against the facility, it can be resolved faster through an arbitration. During admission the admission coordinator is responsible for explaining the arbitration agreement to the resident and this would be the time for the resident to review and sign the agreement. The facility is responsible for explaining to the resident/ responsible party that the arbitration agreement is just an option. The facility is also responsible for informing the residents/responsible party that they can rescind their request for arbitration before 30 days upon signing the agreement. A review of the facility's Arbitration Agreement Form revised 10/5/2020, indicated BY SIGNING THIS CONTRACT YOU ARE AGREEING TO HAVE ANY ISSUE OF MEDICAL MALPRACTICE DECIDED BY NEUTRAL ARBITRATION AND YOU ARE GIVING UP YOUR RIGHT TO A JURY OR COURT TRIAL. Rescission indicated, this arbitration agreement may be rescinded by written notice from either party, including the Resident's Legal Representative and/or Agent, if any, and as appropriate, to the other party within thirty (30) days of signature. Execution indicated, The parties to the Arbitration Agreement hereby acknowledge and agree that, upon execution, any and all disputes or claims as to medical malpractice (that is, whether any medical services rendered during the Resident's admission were unnecessary or unauthorized or were improperly, negligently or incompetently rendered or not rendered) will be determined by submission to neutral arbitration, and not by a lawsuit or court process, except as California law provides for judicial review of arbitration proceedings. Such arbitration will be governed by this Arbitration Agreement. By signing this arbitration agreement below, the parties agree to be bound by the provisions of this Arbitration Agreement. Further the Resident ( or Resident's Legal Representative and/or Agent on behalf of Resident) acknowledges that: (A) the agreement has been explained to the Resident (or Resident's Legal Representative and/or Agent on behalf of Resident) by a representative of the Facility in a form and manner that the Resident understands, including in a language that the Resident (or Resident's Legal Representative and/or Agent on behalf of Resident) understands; and (B) the Resident (or Resident's Legal Representative or Agent on behalf of Resident) understands this agreement.
CONCERN (D)

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

Antibiotic Stewardship (Tag F0881)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete the facility's Surveillance Data Collection Form (a form u...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to complete the facility's Surveillance Data Collection Form (a form used by the facility to indicate if the resident met the criteria for the use of antibiotic [medication used to treat infection]) which is part of the facility's Antibiotic Stewardship Program (protocols and a system in the facility to monitor antibiotic use) prior to the administration of Ofloxacin (an antibiotic) for ear pain for one of five sampled residents (Resident 72). This deficient practice had the potential for Resident 72 to develop infection that is resistant (organism that is not able to be killed and continued to grow) to antibiotics or multiple drug resistant organism (MDRO, are defined as microorganisms, predominantly bacteria, that are resistant to one or more classes of antimicrobial agents) that is difficult to treat due to unnecessary or inappropriate antibiotic use. Findings: A review of Resident 72's admission Record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect a person's thoughts, mood, and behavior) and lack of coordination. A review of Resident 72's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive assessment and screening tool), dated 2/7/23, indicated Resident 72 had moderate cognitive impairment (ability to think, understand and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 72 required supervision (oversights, encouragement or cueing from staff) with activities of daily living such as bed mobility, dressing, and hygiene. A review of Resident 72's physician's order, dated 2/19/23, timed at 9:01 PM, indicated to administer Ofloxacin (medication used to treat infections) instill six (6) drops in right ear, two times a day for five (5) days, for ear pain. A review of the Surveillance Data Collection Form for Skin, Soft Tissue, and Mucosal (the moist tissue that lines certain parts of the inside of the body) Infection indicated to mark Resident 72's signs or symptoms to support criteria for medication use. The Surveillance Data Collection Form had no documented evidence that the signs and symptoms of infection were marked on Resident 72's Surveillance Data Collection Form to indicate if the prescribed antibiotics was adequate to treat the infection. During a concurrent interview and record review, on 3/30/23 at 6:12 PM, the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN) stated he filled out the Surveillance Data Collection Form and reviewed the resident's lab results. If the process indicated that the resident did not have an infection, then he would notify the physician. During an interview on 3/30/23 at 6:26PM, the IPN stated the Surveillance Data Collection Form was important to complete to validate whether the resident had an infection or not, and to reduce the unnecessary use of antibiotics. The IPN stated that the resident could develop a resistance (becoming less effective at treating illnesses) to antibiotics if administered without adequate indication for use. In a concurrent record review and interview the IPN explained there was no documented evidence Resident 72's Surveillance Data Collection Form was not completed to indicate the signs and symptoms of infection or if the resident met the criteria for the use of antibiotics. A review of the facility's policy and procedure, revised date 5/20/21, titled Antibiotic Stewardship Program,, indicated the IP (Infection Preventionist) is responsible for tracking the following antibiotic stewardship processes: a. Surveillance and MDRO (Multi-Drug Resistant Organism) tracking. b. The antibiotic ordered, dose, route, and ordering physician as well as the cost of the drug. c. Whether or not the Resident's condition met Mc Geer's Criteria ( a criteria used to determine if the use of anibiotic is met) is used for retrospectively [after the fact] counting true infection) when the antibiotic was ordered. d. If cultures were ordered. e. Any changes in antibiotic order during therapy. f. Outcomes of antibiotic therapy.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0558 (Tag F0558)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2c. A review of Resident 47's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 47 on 9/14/22, with diagnoses that inclu...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2c. A review of Resident 47's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 47 on 9/14/22, with diagnoses that included schizophrenia and type II diabetes mellitus (a group of diseases that affect how the body uses blood sugar). A review of Resident 47's H&P, dated on 9/14/2022, indicated Resident 47 can make needs known but cannot make medical decisions. A review of Resident 47's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 12/22/22, indicated Resident 19 required supervision with eating. During a concurrent observation and interview on 3/28/23, at 12:07 PM, a meal tray was placed on the top of Resident 47's nightstand. Resident 47 was standing by the nightstand eating lunch. There was no bedside overbed table by his bed. In an interview, Resident 47 stated he had been eating his meals like this standing by the night stand since he was admitted to the facility. Resident 47 stated he was told he had to eat in his room because of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (a contagious respiratory disease caused by a virus). Resident 47 stated he was not offered by the staff to eat anywhere else, and he requested that he would like to eat on a table. During an interview on 3/30/2023 at 4:38 PM, the Assistant Director of Nursing (ADON) stated all residents should be provided with a an overbed table that they could use comfortably when eating, except when the safety of the residents were endangered, and also safety, comfortable eating, and a homelike environment. The ADON stated overbed table should be provided to residents, especially for those residents that have physical limitations and lack of coordination when eating. A review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Resident Rights-Accommodation of Needs revised on 1/2012, indicated facility provides an environment and services that meet residents' individual needs. The P&P indicated Residents' individual needs and preferences are accommodated to the extent possible, except when the health and safety of the individual or other residents would be endangered. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to reasonably accommodate the needs of 4 of 19 sampled residents (Residents 18, 126, 69 and 47) by failing to: 1. Offer Residents 18 to eat meals in the dining room during the communal dining. 2. Provide overbed table (a rectangular table that's designed to fit over the bed) to Residents 126, 47 and 69) to be used when eating during mealtimes. These deficient practices resulted in the residents not to eat with comfort and a potential to result in psychosocial (emotional and social wellbeing) decline that affects the residents' and quality of life. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 18's admission Record indicated the resident was originally admitted to the facility on [DATE], and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included paranoid schizophrenia (characterized by predominantly positive symptoms of schizophrenia [a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly and Type 2 Diabetes (a chronic condition that affects the way the body process blood sugar [glucose]. A review of Resident 18's History & Physical, dated 7/23/2023, indicated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 18's MDS (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning screening tool), dated 2/3/2023, indicated Resident 18 had moderate cognitive impairment and depression. The MDS indicated Resident 18 was independent of Activities of Daily Living (ADL). A review of Resident 18's Care Plan, dated 7/15/2021, revised on 3/29/2023, indicated the resident was at risk for nutritional problem or potential nutritional problem (related to) r/t diet restrictions. The plan of care indicated Resident 18 preferred to eat in the dining room. The interventions indicated the facility will need calm, quiet setting at mealtimes and will encourage the resident to socialize and interact with table mates during meals. A review of Resident 18's Physician's Order for March 2023, indicated Resident 18 was to receive standard regular, thin consistency textured diet with controlled carbohydrate. Active order since 5/24/2022. During the Resident Council meeting on 3/30/2023, at 10:21 AM, the Resident Council President (Resident 18) stated, before they were not offered to eat in the dining room, it was only yesterday (3/29/2023) that the residents were told that the residents could eat in the dining room. During an observation and an interview on 3/31/2023, at 8:42 AM, Resident 18 stated this morning he had breakfast in the dining room with several residents in the dining area today which he liked and enjoyed. During an interview with CNA 3 on 3/31/2023 at 8:48 AM. CNA 3 stated, some residents like to eat in the dining room, but the dining room closed for dining due to COVID-19 pandemic (widespread in infection). The dining room opened for a couple of months, then closed again for dining due to COVID-19 pandemic. During an interview with ADON on 3/31/2023 at 9:23 AM. ADON stated some residents prefer to eat in their rooms and other times in the dining room. It varies from day to day. IDON stated that we have been working and trying to reopen the dining room without much success due to their unpredictable aggressive behaviors. The residents seem to enjoy their meals in the dining room. 2a. During an observation on 3/28/2023, between 12 PM to 1 PM, Residents 126, 47 and 69 were observed eating their meal without an overbed table, meal trays were placed on top of the beds and/or nightstands. During a concurrent interview with Resident 126 and observation on 03/28/2023 12:24 PM, Resident 126 was observed sitting on the edge of her bed, eating, holding her plate with one hand. Resident 126's meal tray was on top of her bed including a glass of water. Resident 126 stated she did not know where her was overbed table and if she had one before. Resident 126 stated if she could have a table that she can use to eat if available. A review of Resident 126's admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD-a disorder in which a person has difficulty recovering after experiencing or witnessing a terrifying event), dementia (group of thinking and social symptoms that interferes with daily functioning), and lack of coordination. A review of Resident 126's History and Physical (H&P), dated 3/23/2023, indicated Resident 126 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 126's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized resident assessment and care-screening tool), dated 3/30/2023, indicated Resident 126 had a severe impairment in cognition (ability to understand and reason). The MDS indicated Resident 126 required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other-non-weight-bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, eating, toilet use, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 126's care plan for Activities of Daily Living (ADL) dated 3/23/2023, indicated Resident 126 had a decline in ADL with a goal to increase safety and independence in ADL. During an interview on 3/28/2023 at 12:25 PM, Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 validated that Resident 126's meal tray was on top of her table and there was no overbed side table that Resident 126 could use when eating. LVN stated she did not know what happened to Resident 126's overbed table. LVN 1 stated Resident 126 should have a table that she could comfortably use when eating. 2b. During an observation on 3/29/2023 at 6:56 AM, Resident 69 was observed sitting on her bed, resting her back on the wall (head part of the bed), with a meal tray was on her lap. A review of Resident 69's admission Record indicated the resident was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included cognitive communication deficit, depression, and lack of coordination. A review of Resident 69's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 69 had moderate impairment in cognition. The MDS indicated Resident 69 required limited assistance with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, personal hygiene and independent with eating. During an interview on 3/29/2023 at 12:23 PM in the presence of Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 12, Resident 69 stated that no one gave her a table that she could use when eating. Resident 69 stated she would like to have an overbed table and it would be better if the staff could provide her an overbed table if available. During an interview on 3/29/2023 at 12:37 PM, CNA 13 stated residents should have a table that they could use when eating, so residents could eat comfortably.
CONCERN (E)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the facility's pharmacy recommendations made by the consultant pharmacist (CP) for 3/1/2023 to 3/10/2023 were acted upon timely...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that the facility's pharmacy recommendations made by the consultant pharmacist (CP) for 3/1/2023 to 3/10/2023 were acted upon timely for 17 of 17 sampled residents (Residents 50, 6, 44, 38, 21, 53, 13, 36, 19, 22, 17, 1, 63, 66, 69, 54, and 3). This deficient practice increased the risk that medication therapy for residents may not have been optimized for the best possible health outcomes. This deficient practice had the potential to cause a negative impact on the resident's overall physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings: A concurrent record review of the facility's pharmacy recommendation binder and interview with the administrator (ADM) and the director of nurses (DON) on 3/30/2023 at 4:10 PM, the ADM stated the facility only have the pharmacy recommendation binder for Year 2022 and was not able to provide pharmacy recommendations for Year 2023. The DON stated that she instructed the Assistant DON to look for the 2023 pharmacy recommendation binder. The ADM provided an email copy of the Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review (MRR- or Drug Regimen Review is a thorough evaluation of the medication regimen of a resident) compiled on 3/10/2023, but the follow through column for the facility were blank. During an interview on 3/31/2023 at 6:50 AM, the ADM stated that she (ADM) and the ADON could not locate the 2023 pharmacy recommendations binder. The ADM stated the Consultant Pharmacist comes to the facility every month to complete the MRR. The ADM stated she received the last MRR report from the Consultant Pharmacist on 3/10/2023 thru email. The ADM stated it was the previous DON's responsibility to follow through and act upon pharmacy recommendations received from the Consultant Pharmacist monthly, but the DON permanently left the faciity on 2/27/2023. A review of the facility's Analysis of Recommendation Categories dated 3/10/2023, indicated the Consultant Pharmacist compiled the MRR data on 3/10/2023 for outcomes entered between 3/1/2023 to 3/10/2023. The MRR Analysis of Recommendation Categories indicated that there were total of 24 pharmacy recommendations between 3/1/2023 to 3/10/2023. A review of the facility's Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review dated 3/10/2023, indicated recommendations created between 3/1/2023 to 3/10/2023. The Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review indicated the following recommendations: 1. For Resident 50, duration of therapy order for Lovenox (used to treat and prevent deep vein thrombosis [a blood clot in the legs, pelvis, or arms]) from Resident 50's attending physician (AP) was needed. 2. For Resident 6, to include 'May open capsule-do not crush contents' as part of the order for Prilosec (omeprazole-used to treat indigestion and heartburn) considering that the medication is a sustained-release (designed to release a drug in the body slowly over an extended period of time) product and loses its sustained release characteristics if crushed. 3. For Resident 54, to clarify diagnosis for cranberry for urinary tract infection (UTI-urine infection) prophylaxis (prevention) to read: for Supplement. 4. For Resident 3, to clarify Lactulose (used to treat constipation) 10/15 milliliter (ml-a unit measure of volume), to give 30 ml twice a day for Clozaril (used to treat certain mental/mood disorders) use to a diagnosis such as constipation (difficult bowel movement). 5. For Resident 44, laboratory monitoring suggested for valproic acid (used to treat seizure [sudden uncontrolled burst of electrical activity in the brain] and/or mental/mood conditions) level with next scheduled lab draw. 6. For Resident 38, to place 'do not crush' on the Protonix (pantoprazole-used to treat certain stomach and esophagus problems) order to avoid accidental crushing considering Protonix is a delayed released (designed to delay release of drug in the body) medication. 7. For Resident 21, laboratory monitoring suggested for valproic acid level with next scheduled lab draw. 8. For Resident 53, to evaluate if a dose reduction (tapering of dose) is warranted, Resident 53 has been on Zyprexa (antipsychotic-can treat certain types of mental disorders) 10 milligram (mg- a unit of measure for mass) twice daily, Depakote (use to treat seizures and bipolar disorders [disorder associated with episodes of mood swings ranging from depressive lows to manic highs]) 500 mg three times daily, and Gradual Dose Reduction (GDR- is the stepwise tapering of a dose to determine if symptoms, conditions, or risks can be managed by a lower dose or if the dose or medication can be discontinued) is due if medically warranted. 9. For Resident 13, to evaluate if a dose reduction is warranted, Resident 13 has been on Risperdal 1.5 mg bid, Paxil 20 mg bid and GDR is due, if medically warranted. 10. For Resident 36, to evaluate if a dose reduction is warranted, Resident 36 has been on Lithium Carbonate (used to treat manic episodes of bipolar disorder) 600 mg twice daily, Depakote 500 mg three times daily, Haldol (antipsychotic)10 mg four times daily, Risperdal (risperidone-used to treat schizophrenia [a mental illness that can affect a person's thoughts, mood, and behavior]) 4 mg twice daily, Lorazepam (used to relieve anxiety) 1 mg twice daily and GDR is due, if medically warranted. 11. For Resident 19, to evaluate if a dose reduction is warranted, Resident 19 has been on Lithium Carbonate 300 mg twice daily, Seroquel (antipsychotic) 100 mg twice daily, Zoloft (used to treat depression [a persistent feeling of sadness and loss of interest]) 50 mg four times daily, Clozaril 200 mg twice daily and GDR is due if medically warranted. 12. For Resident 22, to evaluate if a dose reduction is warranted, Resident 22 has been on Lorazepam 1 mg three times daily, Zyprexa 15 mg twice daily, Lithium 300 mg twice daily and GDR is due if medically warranted. 13. For Resident 17, to evaluate if a dose reduction is warranted, Resident 17 has been on Haldol 100 mg/ml and GDR is due if medically warranted. 14. For Resident 1, a high dose alert, to evaluate if Resident 1 can be maintained at a lower dose of Risperdal since Resident 1 is currently receiving Risperdal 4 mg twice daily. Manufacturer of Risperdal recommends maximum daily dose of 16 mg per day, however, doses exceeding 4 mg/day is rarely more effective and has higher incidence of side effects. If resident warrants the high dose, please document in the progress notes a risk vs benefit assessment to keep facility complaint with regulations. 15. For Resident 63, to evaluate if a dose reduction is warranted, Resident 63 has been on Risperdal 4 mg at bedtime and GDR is due if medically warranted. 16. For Resident 66, to evaluate if a dose reduction is warranted, Resident 66 has been on Zyprexa 20 mg at bedtime, Depakote 500 mg twice daily and GDR is due if medically warranted. 17. For Resident 69, to evaluate if a dose reduction is warranted, Resident 69 has been on Mirtazapine 15 mg at bedtime for depression, Zyprexa 5 mg three times daily and GDR is due if medically warranted. A concurrent record review of facility's Consultant Pharmacist's Medication Regimen Review dated 3/10/2023 on 3/31/2023 at 10:57 AM, the ADON stated the pharmacy recommendations for March 2023 were not acted upon because he did not receive the recommendations nor receive endorsement from the previous DON that permanently left the facility. The ADON stated that he verified each pharmacy recommendations for March 2023 and he only acted upon and followed up the pharmacy recommendations only that time (3/31/2023) when the CDPH surveyor requested for a copy and documentations. The ADON stated he put a note, dated 3/31/2023 and initialed on follow through section of each pharmacy recommendation, meaning it was followed up that time (3/31/2023). The ADON stated he faxed Note To Attending Physician/Prescriber letter from the Consultant Pharmacist to the resident's AP and waiting for all AP's response. During the same interview, the ADON stated pharmacy recommendations should be acted upon/address immediately after receiving the report from CP. During an interview on 3/31/2023 at 1:35 PM, the ADM stated the previous DON received the pharmacy recommendation and was responsible for distributing the recommendations for follow up. The ADM stated normally, when the ADM and DON received the pharmacy recommendation, the facility had until the Consultant Pharmacist next visit to complete all the pharmacy recommendations. The ADM stated moving on, they talked about MRR on 3/30/2023 and made clarification on the procedure of MRR with the medical director, pharmacist, and medical records. The ADM stated they were waiting for the Medical Director's opinion about the time frame when should the MRR be acted upon and completed. The ADM stated the time frame should be included in the facility's policy and procedure(P&P) for MRR. A review of facility's policy and procedure titled Drug Regimen Review revised in December 2016, indicated the following MRR procedure: 1. Following their monthly visit each month, consultant pharmacist will provide a copy of their drug regimen review report (printed or via email) to the facility's director of nursing, medical director and administrator or any other designee. 2.At each month's UR meeting, facility will confirm with their medical director receiving a copy and reviewing the drug regimen review. Facility will document via log to be signed by medical director acknowledging receipt and review of the monthly DRR. 3.During their monthly drug regimen review, pharmacist will report any irregularities to the attending physician and the facility's medical director and director of nursing, and these reports will be acted upon by the facility. Irregularities include, but are not limited to, any drug that meets the criteria set forth below for an unnecessary drug. 4.Any irregularities noted by the pharmacist during this review will be documented on a separate, written report that is sent to the attending physician, the facility's medical director and director of nursing or his/her designee in the absence of DON and lists, at a minimum, the resident's name, the relevant drug, and the irregularity the pharmacist identified. 5.The attending physician will document in the resident's medical record that the identified irregularity has been reviewed and what, if any, action has been taken to address it. If there is to be no change in the medication, the attending physician will document his or her rationale in the resident's medical record.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0883 (Tag F0883)

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 implement an effective immunization (an administration of vaccine t...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to implement an effective immunization (an administration of vaccine that stimulate the body's own immune system to protect the person against infection or disease) program as indicated in the facility's policy and procedure for seven of seven sampled residents (Resident 70, 10, 55, 19, 71, 47 and 326) by failing to: 1. Implement policy and procedure for immunization(s) and schedule of administration of vaccines that reflects the current standards of practice, as such as CDC (Centers of Disease Control and Prevention- a federal government agency) guidance for Pneumonia (a term to relating to an infection of the lungs that can cause mild to severe illness in people of all ages) updated on 2/2023 for Resident 70 and Resident 10. 2. Document on the facility's Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination Consent or Refusal forms that indicate the residents refused, and the reason for refusal to receive Influenza and Pneumococcal vaccines forresidents (Residents 55, 19, 71 and 326. 3. Provide the CDC-Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination Information Statement (VIS) pamphlets that provide pertinent information and education about the vaccines for Resident 55, 19, 71 and 47 and/or their representatives (RP). These deficient practices had the potential for the residents not to receive informed decision about the consequences for refusal to receive Influenza and Pneumonia vaccines. In addition, the residents had the potential not to receive the vaccine as scheduled and recommended by CDC which put the residents at risk for contracting Influenza and Pneumococcal disease. Findings: 1a. A review of Resident 70's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 70 on 2/20/2023, with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior) and anxiety disorder (a mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). A review of Resident's 70 Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 2/27/2023, indicated the resident had severe impairment in cognition (ability to think, understand and reason) and for daily decision making. A review of Resident 70's immunization record, indicated Resident 70 received Pneumococcal Polysaccharide Vaccine 23 (PPSV 23, a vaccine to prevent pneumococcal disease) on 12/21/2021 and did not receive one dose of PCV15 or PCV20 at least one year after the most recent PPSV23 vaccination as recommended by the CDC. 1b. A review of Resident 10's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 10 on 1/5/2023, with diagnoses that included bipolar disorder (a brain disorder that causes changes in a person's mood, energy, and ability to function) and anxiety disorder. A review of Resident's 10 MDS, dated [DATE], indicated the resident had moderately impaired cognition for daily decision making. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 10's immunization record, indicated Resident 10 received PPSV23 on 10/9/2019, and did not receive one dose of PCV15 or PCV20 at least one year after the most recent PPSV23 vaccination as recommended by the CDC. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/30/2023, at 2:42 PM, with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IPN), the facility's policy and procedure titled, Pneumococcal Disease Prevention, dated 2/18/2021, was not updated according to the current guidance from the CDC about Pneumococcal Vaccination. The IPN stated he was not aware of the changes in the updated CDC recommendation on Pneumococcal Vaccination that was released on 2/2023 During a concurrent interview and record review of the CDC recommendation for Pneumococcal Vaccination, and the facility's policy and procedure for Pneumococcal Vaccination on 3/31/2023, at 10:30 AM, the IPN stated Resident 70 and Resident 10 already received PPSV23, and he was not planning to administer the second dose of Pneumococcal vaccine to the residents after a year since he was not aware of the current CDC's Pneumococcal Vaccination recommendation that was released on 2/2023, which indicated adults who received PPSV23 should receive one dose of PCV15 or PCV20 at least one year after the most recent PPSV23 vaccination. The IPN stated the current facility's policy for Pneumococcal Disease Prevention was outdated and the facility should revise the policy in accordance with the updated CDC recommendation. The IPN stated Resident 70 and Resident 10 already missed the second Pneumococcal vaccines the PCV15 or PCV20 according to the current guidance from the CDC about Pneumococcal Vaccination. The IPN stated the facility did not conform with the updated CDC recommendation which put the residents at increased risk for contracting pneumonia. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/pneumo/hcp/who-when-to-vaccinate.html 2a. A review of Resident 55's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 55 on 1/24/2023 with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood and behavior) and anxiety disorder (A mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). A review of Resident 55's History and Physical (H&P), dated on 1/25/2023, indicated Resident 55 had the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 55's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 55 had moderately impaired memory and cognition (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making. 2b. A review of Resident 19's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 19 on 1/18/2023 with diagnoses that included paranoid schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly). A review of Resident 19's History and Physical (H&P), dated on 1/20/2023, indicated Resident 19 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 19's MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 1/25/2023, 2c. A review of Resident 71's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 71 on 1/31/2023, with diagnoses that included schizoaffective disorder (a mental illness that can affect thoughts, mood, and behavior) and psychosis (A mental disorder characterized by a disconnection from reality). A review of Resident 71's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 2/7/2023, indicated Resident 71 had moderately impaired memory and cognition (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making. 2d. A review of Resident 326's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 326 on 3/21/2023 with diagnoses that included Alzheimer's disease (A progressive disease that destroys memory and other important mental functions) and psychosis. A review of Resident 326's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a standardized assessment and care planning tool), dated 3/28/2023, indicated Resident 326 had moderately impaired cognition (ability to think and reason) for daily decision making. During a record review on 3/30/2023, at 2:40 PM, with the IPN, Vaccine Log (log used by the facility to track the residents that received or refused vaccines) dated 3/30/2023, indicated the following: -Resident 55 refused to receive Influenza and Pneumococcal vaccines -Resident 19 refused to receive Influenza vaccine -Resident 71 no documentation in the log that resident refused or received Influenza vaccine -Resident 326 had no documentation in the log to indicate the resident receive Influenza and Pneumococcal vaccines During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/30/2023, at 2:40 PM, the IPN stated he did not complete the Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination, Informed Consent or Refusal forms, for Resident 55, 19, 71 and 326 to indicate refusal and the reason for refusal to receive the vaccines because he thought it was an ongoing process because of the fluctuating mental status of the residents. There was also no documented evidence that the facility contacted previous facilities that residents came from or the resident's representatives prior to recertification survey to determine when the residents last received Influenza and Pneumococcal vaccines. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Pneumococcal Disease Prevention, dated 2/18/2021, indicated the facility will document in the resident's medical record the resident's (or the resident's legal representative) refusal to receive immunization. The policy further indicated the resident's medical record shall include documentation at a minimum, the following: A completed copy of IC-20-Form B- Pneumococcal Vaccination, Informed Consent or Refusal Placed in the Resident's medical record and whether the resident received the PCV13 or the PPSV23 vaccine or did not receive either because of medical contraindications or refusal. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Influenza Prevention and Control, dated 9/10/2020, indicated the resident or representative can refuse the immunization-with such refusal being noted in the Resident's medical record. The policy further indicated The Resident's medical record will include documentation that indicates, at a minimum, the following: ii. The Resident was given a copy of IC-14-Form A-Influenza Vaccination, Informed Consent or Refusal. iv. Whether the Resident received the influenza vaccine, could not receive the vaccine due to a medical contraindication or refused the vaccine. 3. During a review of the medical records for Resident 55, 19, 71, and 47, there were no documented evidence that a CDC influenza or pneumococcal vaccination information statement (VIS) found in the resident's clinical record. During a concurrent interview on 3/30/2023 at 2:40 PM, the IPN stated he was responsible in ensuring the residents were provided the information about Influenza and Pneumococcal vaccination information to the residents (Resident 55, 19, 71 and 47) which is conducted by verbal information to the residents and/or their representatives. The IPN stated he did not provide the residents and/or their representatives the CDC-Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination Information Statement (VIS) pamphlet which indicates the risk and benefits of the vaccines. A review of Resident 47's admission Record indicated the facility admitted Resident 47 on 9/14/22 with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (a disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly) and type II diabetes mellitus (a group of diseases that affect how the body uses blood sugar). A review of Resident 47's History and Physical (H&P), dated on 9/14/2022, indicated Resident 47 can make needs known but cannot make medical decisions. During a review of the facility's Vaccine Log, dated 3/30/2023, indicated Resident 47 received Influenza vaccine on 1//10/2023 and Pneumococcal vaccine on 5/9/2012. During a follow up interview on 3/30/2023, at 2:45 PM, the IPN stated he would verbally explain the risks and benefits of Influenza and Pneumococcal vaccination to the residents and RPs, but he did not provide a copy of the information about Influenza and Pneumococcal vaccination to the residents and RPs, and attach with the Influenza and Pneumococcal Vaccination, Informed Consent or Refusal forms, that indicated the residents and their representatives have been provided information regarding the side effect of this vaccination issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (see attached CDC Vaccine Information Statement (VIS). During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Influenza Prevention and Control, dated 9/10/2020, indicated the facility will provide the CDC VIS as part of the resident's (representative's) education. The policy further indicated the resident's medical record will include documentation that indicates, at a minimum, the following the Resident or the Resident's representative was provided education regarding the risk and benefits and potential side effects of the influenza vaccination whether the resident received the Influenza vaccine, could not receive the vaccine due to a medical contraindication or refused the vaccine. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Pneumococcal Disease Prevention, dated 2/18/2021, indicated the resident's medical record shall include documentation that indicates the following: the resident (or Resident's legal representative) was provided education regarding the benefits and potential side effects of PCV13 and PPSV23 (pneumococcal VIS), whether the resident received the PCV13 or the PPSV23 vaccine, or did not receive either because of medical contraindications or refusal.
CONCERN (E)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe and functional environment to residents, and staff by not covering the corners of the handrails located in the ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to provide a safe and functional environment to residents, and staff by not covering the corners of the handrails located in the resident hallways in Nursing Station (NUS) 1. This deficient practice posed a potential hazard to the safety of the residents and staff working in the area. Findings: During an observation and interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 on 3/30/2023 at 1:50 PM, LVN 1 held on the edge of the uncovered handrail at the corner of the hallway across the NUS 1. LVN 1 stated, the corner of the hard rails without cover has sharp edges and the maintenance supervisor can fix it. During an interview with LVN 1 on 3/30/2023 at 2:06 PM, LVN 1 stated the handrail corners should be covered because it has sharp edges, and it can hurt the residents. During an interview with Registered Nurse (RN) 1 on 3/30/2023 at 2:07 PM, RN 1 stated, the maintenance personnel should fix and cover the sharp edges of the handrails because the residents might get hurt, the residents can have skin tear if they accidentally brush their fragile skin on it. During an observation and interview with the Maintenance Supervisor (MTS) on 3/30/2023 at 2:08 PM, the MTS checked the uncovered handrail at the corner of the hallway across the NUS 1. The MTS stated the corner of the handrails were broken and there was no cover for the sharp edges of the handrail. The MTS stated it was important to cover the sharp edges of the handrails for the safety of the residents. The MTS stated he would cover the handrails and fix it right away. The MTS stated, there were seven handrails that had no cover in the facility. During an observation in the resident hallway near the NUS 1 on 3/30/2023 at 2:11 PM, there was no cover on the sharp edges of the handrail next to the oxygen room. During an observation in the resident's hallway on 3/30/2023 at 2:12 PM, there was no cover for the sharp edges of the handrail next to the door of the women's Toilet 3. During an observation in the resident's hallway on 3/30/2023 at 2:17 PM, the sharp edges of the handrails have no covers on both sides of the hallway next to the double doors next to the rehabilitation room. A review of the facility's policy titled , Resident Rooms and Environment revised on 1/1/2012, indicated the facility provides residents with a safe and clean, comfortable, and homelike environment. Facility Staff will provide residents with a pleasant environment and person-centered care that emphasizes the residents' comfort, independence, and personal needs and preferences.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0711 (Tag F0711)

Minor procedural issue · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician signed and dated the physician's progress note...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure the physician signed and dated the physician's progress notes that documented the resident's assessment and treatment plan for one (1) out of five (5) sampled residents (Resident 56). Resident 56's Psychiatric initial and follow up notes dated 9/17/22, 12/17/22, and 2/19/23 were not signed, in accordance with the facility's policy on Physician Services and Visits. This deficient practice had a potential to result in lack of quality of care and services provided to meet the residents care and service's needs. Findings: A review of Resident 56's Record of admission indicated the resident was admitted on [DATE], and was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses that included, hyperlipidemia (a condition in which there are high levels of fat particles (lipids) in the blood) and bipolar disorder (a mental health condition that causes extreme mood swings that include emotional highs and lows.) A review of Resident 56's Quarterly Minimum Data Set (MDS - a standardized assessment and care-screening tool), dated 2/17/2023, indicated Resident 72 had moderate cognitive impairment (ability to think, understand and reason). The MDS indicated the resident required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight bearing assistance) from staff for transfer, walking, locomotion, and eating. A review of Resident 56's Psychiatric F/U (follow-up) Note, printed from the electronic records, on 3/31/2023, timed at 3:05 PM, indicated the physician did not sign the Psychiatric F/U (follow-up) during the physician's visits on 9/17/2022 and 12/17/2022 indicated the same treatment plan which included: a. Continue current medications and observe for compliance b. Titrate medications according to the symptoms c. Observe for deterioration in function d. Increase socialization to prevent isolation e. Provide emotional support for compliance with treatment f. Other: family member -no GDR (gradual dose reduction-maintain the efficacy of a treatment while reducing the dose of medication and unwanted side effects) at this time as patient has a high probability of decompensation due to mental illness, having a negative effect on her ADL (activities of daily living) A review of Resident 56's Initial Psychiatric Evaluation note, printed from the electronic records on 3/31/2023, timed at 3:05 PM, indicated the physician did not sign the Initial Psychiatric Evaluation note during the physician's visit on 2/19/2023 which indicated the same treatment plan on 9/17/2022 and 12/17/2022 as indicted above that included the following: a. Continue current medications and observe for compliance b. Titrate medications according to the symptoms c. Observe for deterioration in function d. Increase socialization to prevent isolation e. Provide emotional support for compliance with treatment f. Other: family member -continue psychotropic medication for behavioral management, benefits outweigh (greater than) risks. During an interview and concurrent record review on 3/31/2023 at 4:05 PM, with the Medical Records Supervisor (MR), MR Supervisor acknowledged that some physician's signatures on Physician Notes were missing for Resident 56. MR Supervisor stated the Psychiatric F/U (follow-up) Note and the Initial Psychiatric Evaluation note should have been signed and dated by the physician during the physician's visits. During an interview on 3/31/2023 at 4:39 PM, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated, he was responsible in ensuring the physicians signs the physician's notes. The DON stated the physician's notes for Resident 56 on the following dates, 9/17/2022, 12/17/2022, and 2/19/2023 were not signed. The DON further stated, in the medical field, all documentation should be signed and dated, and the physician's notes are not signed or dated, or its like the task was never done. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Physician Services and Visits, revised date 1/1/2012, indicated that physician services included providing written and signed order for diet, care, diagnostic tests (a test used to help figure out what disease or condition a person has based on their signs and symptoms.), and treatment of resident.
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0911 (Tag F0911)

Minor procedural issue · 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 four of 22 resident's rooms (Rooms 1, 5, 20, a...

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 four of 22 resident's rooms (Rooms 1, 5, 20, and 26) accommodated no more than four residents in each room. rooms [ROOM NUMBERS] had 12 beds in each room. room [ROOM NUMBER] had 7 beds and room [ROOM NUMBER] had 6 beds. This deficient practice had the potential adverse effect on the resident's privacy, quality of life, and safety. Findings: During an observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 3/28/2023 at 8:52 AM, there were 12 resident beds inside the room. There were 11 residents occupying the room. During a concurrent observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] and interview with the Interim Director of Nursing (IDON) on 3/29/2023 at 12:14 PM, the IDON stated, there is no problem with the room size. It has been like that ever since I got here. It is not congested. It is just enough for the residents. The residents have enough space to move around. During a concurrent observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] and interview with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 3 on 3/29/2023 at 12:15, LVN 3 stated, For me, it is not crowded. We have enough space to move around. The residents still have a big space at the back of the room. I did not have a hard time maneuvering with the treatment cart inside the rooms. room [ROOM NUMBER] is one of the biggest rooms. During an interview with Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 6 on 3/29/2023 at 12:38 PM, CNA 6 stated, room [ROOM NUMBER] size, it was okay. I never had problem with the bedroom size when providing care for the residents. During a concurrent interview with Resident 18 and Resident 63 on 3/30/2023 at 12:59 PM, Resident 18 stated they have enough space inside their room. Resident 63 stated he had no issues inside their room. During an observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 3/30/2023 at 1:08 PM, there were 6 residents occupying the room but there were seven resident beds inside the room. During an interview with CNA 1 on 3/30/2023 at 1:11 PM, CNA 1 stated, room [ROOM NUMBER], so far that's the set up for this room. Only 3 beds on the left side of the room. The right side had 4 beds a little bit crowded, there's no room to put the wheelchair and nigh stand. Sometimes they use the nightstand when they eat. Resident 71 does not have the nightstand. There was no overbed table inside the room. Resident 49's wheelchair was parked at the foot of the bed located in the middle of the room. But there were no issues when we are making the residents bed. During an observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 3/30/2023 at 1:23 PM, there were 6 residents occupying the room and there were 6 beds inside the room. Some resident beds have their curtains drawn up to the foot of the bed and others were halfway drawn. Resident 179's bed was surrounded with curtains even though resident was outside the room. There were three residents sleeping on their beds and three residents were outside in the patio. During an interview with CNA 19 on 3/30/2023 at 1:26 PM, CNA 19 stated she has no problem with giving care to the residents in room [ROOM NUMBER], the space was okay. During an observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 3/30/2023 at 1:59 PM, room [ROOM NUMBER] has 12 residents occupying the room. There were seven residents inside the room and 5 residents were outside the patio. During an interview with CNA 12 on 3/30/2023 at 2:03 PM, CNA 12 stated she has no problem with the spaces inside room [ROOM NUMBER], it was okay. A review of the facility's Room Size and/or Beds per Room Waiver, Letter Request dated 3/28/2023, indicated the arrangement of these rooms provide adequate space for nursing care and wheelchair access, and the multiple beds per room do not adversely affect the health and safety of the residents. A review of the facility's Client Accommodation Analysis Form dated 3/28/2023 indicated the following information. Room Number of Beds Sq Ft/Resident 1 12 95.1 5 7 78.5 20 12 94.8 26 6 93.75
MINOR (B)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0912 (Tag F0912)

Minor procedural issue · 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 9 of 22 resident rooms (Rooms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9...

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 9 of 22 resident rooms (Rooms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 21, 27, and 28) met the required square footage of 80 square feet (sq. ft., unit of measure) per resident in multiple resident's rooms and 1 of 22 rooms (room [ROOM NUMBER]) failed to meet the requirement of 100 sq. ft. in a single resident room. The deficient practice has the potential to affect the residents' personal space, decrease freedom of mobility and could compromise the provision of care. Findings: During an observation and the initial tour of the facility on 3/28/2023 at 8:30AM, Rooms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 21, 27 and 28 did not meet the minimum requirement of 80 sq. ft. per resident in multiple residents' rooms. During an interview with the Interim Director of Nursing (IDON) on 3/29/2023 at 12:14 PM, the IDON stated, there is no problem with the room size. The IDON stated it has been like that ever since I got here. It is not congested. It is just enough for the residents. The residents have enough space to move around. During an interview with the Licensed Vocational Nurse 3 (LVN 3) on 3/29/2023 at 12:15, LVN 3 stated, the rooms were not crowded, and the facility staff have enough space to move around. LVN 3 stated that facility staff did not have a hard time maneuvering with the treatment cart inside the indicated Rooms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 21, 27, 28, and 10). During an interview with the Certified Nurse Assistant (CNA) 6 on 3/29/2023 at 12:38 PM, CNA 6 stated that there were no encountered issues with the size of room [ROOM NUMBER] when providing care to the residents. During an interview with CNA 5 on 3/29/2023 at 12:40 PM, CNA 5 stated, I have no problem with the rooms. The residents have enough space, and we have enough space to move around. During an interview with CNA 6 on 3/29/23 at 12:41 PM, CNA 6 stated, the room sizes were okay. The resident has no complaint about it, and we have enough space to provide care to the residents. During an interview with the Administrator on 3/29/23 at 2:05 PM, the Administrator stated, the facility will be requesting a room waiver for multiple rooms and that she will submit a letter to request for approval of room waiver to the Department of Public Health and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS). During an observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 3/30/2023 at 1:16 PM, Resident 40 was sleeping on his bed. Resident 40 has enough space to move around freely, and the staff has enough space to provide care to the resident. There was enough space for the bed and other furniture inside the room. During an observation in room [ROOM NUMBER] on 3/31/2023 at 7:47 AM, the Maintenance Supervisor and Housekeeper 2 measured the room dimensions and indicated 11 x 12 = 132 sq. ft. The foot part of Resident 26's bed, was visible outside the facility hallway when the Resident 26's door was opened. The IDON tried to push Resident 26's bed towards the wall on the head of the bed, but the foot part of the bed was still visible from the outside. A review of the Room Size and/ or Beds per Room Waiver letter dated 3/28/2023, indicated Rooms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7,9, 21, 27, and 28 have less than the currently required space per units as noted in the attached client accommodation form. The arrangement of the rooms provides adequate space for nursing care and for wheelchair access and does not adversely affect the health and safety of the residents. A review of the facility's Client Accommodation Analysis Form dated 3/28/2023, The form indicated there were resident rooms that did not meet the 80 square footage requirements. Rooms 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 21, 27, and 28. Room Number of Beds Square Feet per Resident Square Feet 2 2 66 132 3 2 66 132 4 2 66 132 6 2 73.5 147 7 2 77 154 9 2 75 150 21 4 69 276 27 2 77 144 28 4 76.5 306
Mar 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Deficiency F0625 (Tag F0625)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide verbal and written notification of the resident ' s Bed Hol...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide verbal and written notification of the resident ' s Bed Hold option within 24 hours any time the resident is transferred to an acute care hospital or requests a therapeutic leave of transfer for two of three sampled residents (Resident 1 and Resident 2). This failure had the potential for Residents 1 and 2 to not receive important information regarding bed hold policy and status to make informed decisions related to the residents ' right to return to the facility. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 1 ' s admission record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and again readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (mental disorder in which one perceives reality abnormally), depression (persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest), and anxiety (feeling of fear, dread, and panic). A review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical assessment, dated [DATE], indicated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS- resident assessment and care screening tool), dated [DATE], indicated the resident had severe cognitive (ability to think, remember and reason) impairment. The MDS indicated the resident required limited assistance (resident highly involved activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, eating and personal hygiene. During an interview and record review on [DATE] at 3:10 PM with Registered Nurse (RN) 1, of Resident 1 ' s care plan, RN 1 stated the care plan was closed on [DATE] because the resident was discharged . A review of Resident 1 ' s Bed Hold Agreement dated [DATE], indicated that on [DATE] timed at 10:37 PM, a Notification of bedhold option upon transfer/therapeutic leave was completed via telephone for Responsible Party (RP) 1. The form did not indicate if RP 1 received a written copy of the Bed Hold Agreement form within 24 hours. The Bed Hold Agreement indicated The facility has a bedhold policy and will hold the bed for up to seven days if the residents is transferred to a GACH or goes on therapeutic leave of no more than __ overnights per calendar year, as long as the resident or their representative notifies the facility within 24 hours of the transfer/leave that they wish to have the Facility hold the resident ' s bed. Residents who are not eligible for Medi-Cal/caid are responsible for the cost of the bedhold days not to exceed the patient ' s daily rate for care. Insurance may or may not cover such charges. You have the option of requesting a bedhold to keep the bed vacant and available for return to the facility. The bedhold begins the day the Resident leaves the facility. A review of Resident 1 ' s telephone physician order, dated [DATE] timed at 3:21 PM, indicated Resident 1 may be transferred to GACH 1 via 911 (phone number to contact emergency services) for further evaluation of generalized weakness and lethargy (state of drowsiness and fatigue). During a telephone interview on [DATE] at 3:45 PM, RP 1 stated the facility notified him of Resident 1 ' s transfer to GACH 1 on [DATE] at 3:14 PM. At the time, RP 1 stated there was no discussion of a bed hold. RP 1 stated the facility did not call RP 1 until three or four days after Resident 1 was transferred to GACH 1 to discuss a bed hold. RP 1 stated the facility informed him there would be a $180 per day bed hold fee. RP 1 stated he could not pay the fee upfront, but the facility never provided other information regarding the bed hold. RP 1 stated he was never informed of nor signed a Bed Hold Agreement when Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] or [DATE] 2. RP 1 stated the resident is still in the hospital because he does not have a bed placement. On [DATE] at 4 PM, during an interview and concurrent record review of Resident 1 ' s Bed Hold Agreement dated [DATE], Registered Nurse (RN) 1 stated Resident 1 was placed on Bed Hold for seven days as ordered by the physician starting on [DATE] at 3:14 PM. A review of the Patient Orders from the GACH 1, dated [DATE] (6th day), timed at 10:12 AM, indicated to discharge Resident 1 to the skilled nursing facility, and to be followed up by the primary physician or the NP (Nurse Practitioner) at the facility tomorrow. During an interview and concurrent record review of the census and the staffing for the day at the skilled nursing facility on [DATE] at 1:58 PM with the Registered Nurse Supervisor (RNS) stated the current residentcensus was 69 with the facilities bed capacity of 73 and the following: [DATE] resident census: 72 [DATE] resident census: 70 [DATE] resident census: 69 [DATE] resident census: 69 [DATE] resident census: 67 [DATE] resident census: 67 [DATE] resident census: 69 In a concurrent interview RNS stated there were residents who was on a Bed Hold as of [DATE], that included Resident 1. RNS stated Resident 1 was placed on Bed Hold for seven days as ordered by the physician starting on [DATE] at 3:14 PM. During an interview and record review on [DATE] at 4:48 PM, Director of Nursing (DON) stated it is the responsibility of the social worker to help a resident establish insurance prior to discharge. The DON stated the social worker should have worked with Resident 1 to obtained needed insurance. During a follow up telephone interview on [DATE] at 5:32 PM, the ADM stated Resident 1 ' s medical insurance benefit days were exhausted (completely used) while the resident was at GACH 1, and that was why RP 1 was not informed of a bed hold until 3 or 4 days later. The ADM confirmed RP 1 was told there would be a $180 a day fee to hold Resident 1 ' s bed. The ADM stated the facility required upfront payment when proof of insurance is not established. The ADM stated Resident 1 can be readmitted to the facility when proof of insurance is once again established. During an interview with the ADM on [DATE], the ADM stated the resident bed hold had expired and the resident ' s bed was not held for the resident. During an interview and concurrent record review on [DATE] at 4:48 PM, the facility ' s policy and procedure titled, Bed Hold, revised [DATE], the DON stated Resident 1 should have received a bed hold without being required to pay upfront. The policy indicated the facility notifies the resident [GG1] and/or representative, in writing, of the bed hold option, any time the resident is transferred to an acute care hospital or requests a therapeutic leave. The policy indicated the licensed nurse (or designee) will document that the resident and/or representative was notified of the option to hold the bed on the Notification of Bed Hold Option. 2. A review of Resident 2 ' s admission record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Resident 2 ' s diagnoses included schizophrenia, hypertension (elevated blood pressure), and nicotine (addictive chemical in cigarettes) dependence. A review of Resident 2 ' s History and Physical date [DATE], and assessed by a physician, indicated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 2 ' s MDS dated [DATE], indicated the resident was moderately cognitively impaired. MDS indicated Resident 2 was independent (no help or staff oversight at any time) with bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, eating, and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 2 ' s Bed Hold Agreement, indicated Resident 2 and/or RP 2 were not notified verbally or in writing of Bed Hold option upon transfer/therapeutic leave. A review of Resident 2 ' s SBAR Summary for Providers, dated [DATE] at 9:30 AM, indicated the resident be sent out to GACH 2 for further evaluation. During an interview and record review on [DATE] at 4:46 PM, the DON confirmed there was no bed hold notification option for Resident 2 upon transfer/therapeutic leave signed by facility or RP 2. The DON stated because Resident 2 was sent out to GACH 2, the notification of bed hold option may have missed by the nurse caring for Resident 2. The DON stated bed holds are important to ensure residents have a bed waiting for them upon return to the facility. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure titled, Bed Hold, revised 11/2017, indicated the purpose of the policy is to ensure the resident and/or/his/her representative is aware of the Facility ' s bed-hold policy and that such policy complies with state and federal law and regulations. The policy indicated Medi-Cal/Medicaid eligible residents who are on therapeutic leave or are hospitalized beyond the State ' s bed-hold policy must be readmitted to the first available bed even if the resident has an outstanding Medi-Cal/Medicaid balance.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Transfer (Tag F0626)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to permit one of two sampled residents back to the facility and foll...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and record reviews, the facility failed to permit one of two sampled residents back to the facility and follow the facility ' s policy and procedure for bed hold (Bed Hold is holding or reserving a resident's bed while the resident is absent from the facility for hospitalization or therapeutic leave [absences for purposes other than required hospitalization]) after hospitalization on 2/12/2023. As a result, Resident 1 continues to remain in the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) from 2/12/2023 to present 2/28/2023 (a total of 16 days) waiting to be readmitted back to the skilled nursing facility. Findings: A review of Resident 1 ' s admission record indicated the resident was admitted to the facility on [DATE] and readmitted on [DATE], with diagnoses that included schizophrenia (mental disorder in which one perceives reality abnormally), depression (persistent feelings of sadness and loss of interest), and anxiety (feeling of fear, dread, and panic). A review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical assessment, dated 11/4/2023, indicated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS- resident assessment and care screening tool), dated 2/6/2023, indicated the resident had severe cognitive (ability to think, remember and reason) impairment. The MDS indicated the resident was assessed requiring limited assistance (resident highly involved activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight-bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfers, walking, dressing, eating and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 1 ' s telephone physician order, dated 2/6/2023 timed at 3:21 PM, indicated Resident 1 was transferred to the GACH 1 via 911 (phone number to contact emergency services) for further evaluation of generalized weakness and lethargy (state of drowsiness and fatigue). A review of Resident 1 ' s SBAR (a Situation, Background, Assessment, Recommendation is a verbal or written communication tool that helps provide essential, concise information to the providers), dated 2/6/2023 at 10:09 AM, indicated Resident 1 was sent out to GACH 1 for further evaluation. A review of the hospital referral record from the GACH, dated 2/14/2023, indicated the resident was admitted to GACH 1 on 2/6/2023 to the emergency room and admitted to the medical unit GACH 1 on 2/7/2023, for sepsis (body ' s overwhelming and life-threatening response to infection) and urinary tract infection (UTI, infection of urinary tract). A review of the Patient Orders from the GACH 1, dated 2/12/2023, timed at 10:12 AM, indicated to discharge Resident 1 to the skilled nursing facility, and to be followed up by the primary physician or the NP (Nurse Practitioner) at the facility tomorrow. During a telephone interview on 2/25/2023 at 3:45 PM, Resident 1 ' s Responsible Party 1 (RP 1) stated the facility notified him of Resident 1 ' s transfer to GACH 1 on 2/6/2023 at 3:14 PM, but the facility did not discuss with him that Resident 1 was on bed hold. RP 1 stated on 2/12/2023 , RP 1 and the facility Case Manager (CM, a healthcare professional who coordinate care and discharges of the residents) from the GACH 1, was informed by the skilled nursing facility that there were no bed available at the facility for Resident 1 to return to. RP 1 stated, Resident 1 was presently at GACH 1 (2/28/2023) because GACH 1 CM could not find placement and a different Skilled Nursing Facility for Resident 1. During a telephone interview on 2/25/2023 at 4:13 PM, the Administrator (ADM) stated the facility did not have a staffing shortage since Resident 1 was transferred to GACH 1 on 2/6/2023 to present (2/25/2023), and currently the facility was able to accept admissions to the facility. The ADM explained Resident 1 was not declined readmission to the facility because of staffing shortages or lack of available beds. During a follow up telephone interview on 2/25/2023 at 5:32 PM, the ADM stated Resident 1 ' s medical insurance benefit days were exhausted (completely used) while the resident was at GACH 1. The ADM stated Resident 1 could only be readmitted to the facility if Resident 1 ' s proof of insurance was established. The ADM stated she was not sure if the social worker followed up with RP 1 to ensure proof of insurance was established before or after it ran out. ADM stated Resident 1 was government funded medical insurance eligible. During a telephone interview on 2/27/2023 at 9:06 AM, the GACH 1 Social Worker (GACH SW 1) stated the physician ' s order was sent to the facility via fax machine which indicated Resident 1 was medically cleared to return to the facility on 2/12/2023. The GACH 1 SW 1 stated Resident 1 ' s insurance company approved the resident to return to the facility under skilled nursing services and had transportation on standby for the resident. The GACH 1 SW 1 stated on 2/12/2023 at 5:37 PM, she called the facility and she was informed by RNS that Resident 1 could not return to the facility because there was no facility staff to review the GACH 1 SW 1 inquiry (admission/transfer paperwork) and she was informed to follow-up the next day. According to GACH 1 SW 1, the GACH Discharge Planner (GACH 1 DCP) informed her that on 2/13/2023 at 5 PM, the facility did not have a bed available for Resident 1 and to call back on 2/14/2023. GACH 1 SW 1 stated on 2/15/2023 at 1:03 PM, the facility ' s admission Coordinator 1(AC 1) called GACH 1 DCP who informed her that the facility could not accept Resident 1 back to the facility due to the medical insurance benefit days of the resident had been exhausted. During a telephone interview on 2/27/2023 at 3:16 PM, in the presence of the ADM, the facility ' s admission Coordinator (AC) 2 stated, he asked GACH SW 1 to give him more time to determine the insurance coverage of Resident 1. The ADM stated AC 2 did not call GACH 1 SW 1 to follow up on Resident 1 ' s discharge status from GACH 1 since 2/15/2023. During a telephone interview with the ADM on 2/27/2023, at 12:11 PM, the facility continued to wait for the referral from the GACH 1 and will determine the insurance information of the resident. The ADM stated the facility will not admit Resident 1 at this time. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure titled, Bed Hold revised 11/2017, indicated the purpose of the policy is to ensure the resident and/or/his/her representative is aware of the Facility ' s bed-hold policy and that such policy complies with state and federal law and regulations. The policy indicated Medi-Cal/Medicaid eligible residents who are therapeutic leave or are hospitalized beyond the State ' s bed-hold policy must be readmitted to the first available bed even if the resident has an outstanding Medi-Cal/Medicaid balance. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure, dated 10/1/2013, titled, readmission ' the facility will allow residents who were previously residents of the facility to be readmitted to the facility. The Administrator or his or her designee is responsible for screening resident for admission to the facility. An individual is a readmit if he or she was readmitted to a facility from a hospital to which he or she was transferred for the purpose of receiving care.
Feb 2023 2 deficiencies
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that PRN (as needed-not given on a regular schedule) orders ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure that PRN (as needed-not given on a regular schedule) orders for psychotropic medications were current/active and limited to a duration of 14 days for three out of four sampled residents as indicated in the resident ' s medication order stop date. This deficient practice increased the risk of Resident 1, 2, and 3 to experience adverse effects of psychotropic medication including, but not limited to, dizziness, drowsiness, leading to an overall negative impact to their physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings: On 2/2/2023 at 12:57 P.M., during an inspection of the facility ' s locked Medication Cart 3 and concurrent record review of controlled drug receipt/record/disposition form with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) 1 and the Director of Nursing (DON), LVN 1 verified the count for Temazepam 15 milligrams for Resident 1 matched the amount observed in Resident 1 ' s Temazepam 15 milligram medication bubble pack. LVN 1 stated the licensed staff would sign the disposition form every time the medication was administered and should be signing in the resident ' s MAR (Medication Administration Record) as well. On 2/2/2023 at 12:58 A.M, during a concurrent record review of Resident 1 ' s electronic medical record (e-MAR), LVN 1 stated there was no current order in Resident 1 ' s electronic medical record for Temazepam 15 milligrams 1 capsule by mouth as needed for insomnia manifested by inability to sleep for 14 days, at bedtime. LVN 1 stated that licensed nurses would document in the controlled drug receipt/record/disposition form when they administer the medication because it was easier to take the paper form instead of the laptop when administering medication. LVN 1 stated that licensed nurses should have been documenting on the electronic medication form when controlled medication was administered. On 2/2/2023 at 1:45 P.M. during an inspection of the facility ' s locked Medication Cart 4, and concurrent record review of controlled drug receipt/record/disposition form and Resident 2 ' s electronic medical record with LVN 2 and DON, LVN 2 verified the count for Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams (mg – a unit of measure for mass) by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety for Resident 2 and it matched the amount observed in Resident 2 ' s Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams (mg – a unit of measure for mass) by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety medication bubble pack. LVN 2 stated Resident 2 ' s e-MAR did not have a current physician order for Lorazepam tablet 1 mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety manifested by restless, for 14 days. On 2/02/2023 at 1:56 P.M., during an inspection of the facility ' s locked Medication Cart 4, and concurrent record review of the controlled drug receipt/record/disposition form and Resident 3 ' s e-MAR with LVN 3 and the DON, LVN 2 verified the count for Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety manifested by increased agitation, and it matched the amount observed in Resident 3 ' s Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety medication bubble pack. LVN 2 stated Resident 3 ' s e-MAR did not have a current order for Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety manifested by increased agitation. 1. A review of Resident 1 ' s Face Sheet (admission record) indicated an admission to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified psychosis ( mental condition in which thought and emotions are so affected that contact is lost with external reality) not due to a substance or known physiological condition, anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). A review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical (H&P) dated 12/2022, indicated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 1 ' s Minimum Data Set (MDS, a care area assessment and screening tool), dated 1/3/2023 indicated Resident 1 required limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity; staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 1 ' s signed Physician ' s Order for the month of December 2022, indicated on 12/27/2022, the physician ordered temazepam (used to treat insomnia and sleep disorders) 15 milligrams (mg – a unit of measure for mass) give 1 capsule by mouth as needed for insomnia manifested by inability to sleep. The order indicated to give for 14 days at bedtime. The order indicated the temazepam with a supposed end date of 1/10/2023. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 1 ' s signed Physician ' s Order for the months of January 2023 and February 2023, did not indicate an order was continued for temazepam 15 milligrams (mg – a unit of measure for mass) 1 capsule by mouth as needed for insomnia manifested by inability to sleep for the months of January and February 2023. A review of Resident 1 ' s care plan for behavior dated 12/27/2022, indicated Resident 1 has a behavior problem related to Resident 1 ' s diagnosis of psychosis, anxiety disorder, and insomnia. The care plan interventions included to give medication as ordered and monitor/ document for side effects and effectiveness. A review of Resident 1 ' s care plan for the use of sedative/hypnotic therapy related to insomnia dated 12/27/2022, indicated Resident 1 takes temazepam 15 milligrams give 1 capsule by mouth as needed for insomnia manifested by inability to sleep for 14 days give at bedtime with an intervention to give sedative/hypnotic medication as ordered by physician. The care plan indicated to monitor/document side effects and effectiveness every shift. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 1 ' s-controlled drug receipt/record/disposition form, indicated each dose signed on the specified record/form, required charting/documentation on the medication record (MAR). The form indicated the facility ' s licensed nurses continued to administer the temazepam after the stop date of 1/10/2023. The form indicated documentation that Resident 1 received 13 doses of temazepam 15 milligrams capsules from the 12/30/22 to 2/1/2023. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 1 ' s Medication Administration Record (MAR – a record of medications, behaviors, and adverse effect monitoring done by licensed nursing staff) for January 2023 indicated monitoring for side effects of hypnotics/sedative medications due to use of Temazepam every shift with a start date of 12/27/2022 at 11:00 P.M. and end date of 1/16/2023 at 2:44 P.M. The MAR indicated monitoring from 1/1/2023 to 1/16/2023. On 2/2/2023, during areview of Resident 1 ' s MAR for January 2023 indicated temazepam 15 milligrams give 1 capsule by mouth as needed for insomnia manifested by inability to sleep for 14 days give at bedtime. The MAR indicated the facility was not monitoring for side effects of hypnotics/sedative medications due to the use of Temazepam every shift from 1/7/2023 to 1/31/2023[LC1] [SBM2] . The MAR for temazepam was blank and did not indicate if the medication was administered or not. On 2/2/2023, during areview of Resident 1 ' s MAR for February 2023 indicated the facility was not monitoring for side effects of hypnotics/sedative medications due to the use of Temazepam every shift. The MAR for temazepam was blank [LC3] [SBM4] and did not indicate if the medication was administered or not. 2. A review of Resident 2 ' s Face Sheet indicated an admission to the facility on 1/12/23 with diagnoses including schizoaffective disorder (chronic mental health condition characterized primarily by symptoms of schizophrenia, such as hallucinations or delusions), anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). A review of Resident 2 ' s H&P dated 1/2023 indicated the resident did not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 2 ' s MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident 2 required supervision (oversight, encouragement or cueing) with bed mobility, transfer, dressing, toilet use, and personal hygiene. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 2 ' s signed Physician ' s Order for the month of January 2023 indicated on 1/12/2023, the physician ordered Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams (mg – a unit of measure for mass) by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety manifested by restlessness, for 14 days. The Physician ' s Order indicated a stop date of 1/26/2023. The order did not indicate the medication order was reordered or continued after 1/26/2023. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 2 ' s Physician ' s Order for the month of February 2023, did not indicate an order for Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams (mg – a unit of measure for mass) was reordered or continued use for anxiety for the month of February 2023. A review of Resident 2 ' s care plan for the use of anti-anxiety medications related to anxiety disorder dated 1/12/2023, indicated Resident 2 takes Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety. The care plan interventions indicated to administer anti -anxiety medication as ordered by physician. The care plan indicated to monitor/document side effects and effectiveness every shift. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 2 ' s-controlled drug receipt/record/disposition form, indicated each dose signed on the specified record/form required charting on the medication record (MAR). The form indicated the facility ' s licensed nurses continued to administer the Lorazepam after the stop date of 1/26/2023. The form indicated Resident 2 received 32 doses of Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams by mouth from 1/13/2023 to 2/2/2023. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 2 ' s MAR for January 2023 indicated Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety manifested by restless, for 14 days with a start date of 1/12/2023. The MAR indicated one dose was administered on 1/23/2022 and the rest was blank. The January 2023 MAR indicated the licensed nurses monitored the resident for the side effects of antianxiety medication due to use of Lorazepam every shift. The MAR indicated side effects were monitored from 1/13/2023 to 1/31/2023. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 2 ' s February 2023 MAR, the MAR did not indicate a record to administer the Lorazepam tablet to the resident. The MAR did not have Lorazepam for the month of February 2023. 3. A review of Resident 3 ' s Face Sheet indicated an admission to the facility on 1/12/2023 with diagnoses including paranoid schizophrenia (severe mental health condition that can involve delusions and paranoia), anxiety disorder (mental health disorder characterized by feelings of worry, anxiety, or fear that are strong enough to interfere with one's daily activities). A review of Resident 3 ' s H&P dated 1/13/2023indicated Resident 3 had fluctuating capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 3 ' s MDS dated [DATE] indicated Resident 3 required supervision (oversight, encouragement or cueing) with bed mobility, transfer, eating and limited assistance with dressing toilet use, and personal hygiene. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 3 ' s signed Physician ' s Order for the month of January 2023 indicated on 1/12/2023, the physician ordered Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety manifested by increased agitation, for 14 days. The Physician ' s Order indicated a stop date of 1/26/2023. The order did not indicate the medication order was reordered or continued after 1/26/2023. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 3 ' s signed Physician ' s Order for the month of February 2023, did not indicate an order for Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams was reordered or continued use for anxiety for the month of February 2023. A review of Resident 3 ' s care plan for the uses anti-anxiety medications related to anxiety disorder, indicated Resident 3 takes Lorazepam tablet 1mg by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety manifested by increase agitation. The care plan interventions indicated to administer anti -anxiety medication as ordered by physician. The care plan indicated to monitor/document side effects and effectiveness every shift. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 3 ' s-controlled drug receipt/record/disposition form, indicated each dose signed on the specified record/form required charting on the medication record (MAR). The form indicated the facility ' s licensed nurses continued to administer the Lorazepam after the stop date of 1/26/2023. The form indicated Resident 2 received 13 doses of Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams by mouth from the dates 1/14/2023 to 2/2/2023. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 3 ' s MAR for January 2023 indicated Lorazepam tablet 1 milligrams by mouth every 6 hours as needed for anxiety manifested by increased agitation, for 14 days, with a start date of 1/12/2023. The MAR indicated the lorazepam was administered on 1/17/2022 and 1/23/2023. The rest of the MAR days were blank. On 2/2/2023, during a review of Resident 3 ' s February 2023 MAR, did not indicate the MAR did not indicate a record to administer the Lorazepam tablet to the resident. The MAR did not have Lorazepam for the month of February 2023. On 2/2/2023 at 3 P.M, during an interview with the DON, the DON stated for temazepam and lorazepam like other PRN psychotropic medications needed to be renewed every 14 days and must be seen and evaluated by the resident ' s attending physician. The DON stated that licensed nurses should not be administering the medications without a current physician ' s order. The DON stated all medication administration should be documented on the eMAR immediately upon medication administration and not only on the resident ' s Controlled Drug receipt/record/disposition forms. A review of facility ' s policy and procedures (P&P) titled Behavior/Psychotropic Drug Management with revision date of November 2018, indicated the following: 1. Psychoactive medications administered are documented on the MAR . 6. Any psychoactive medication ordered on a PRN basis, must be ordered not to exceed 14 days. If the physician feels the medication needs to be continued, he/she must document the reason (s) for the continued usage, and write the order for the medication, not to exceed the 14-day time frame.
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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to follow and implement its infection control policy and procedure when it failed to prevent, detect, investigate, control infections, maintain records of incidents and corrective actions taken when one of 4 sampled residents had lice (small parasitic insects that lives on the scalp where they lay their eggs and feed on blood) and considered as highly contagious) infestation while in the facility. This deficient practice had the potential to cause a head lice outbreak within the facility and affect residents that may cause irritability, sleeplessness due to itchiness and discomfort. In addition, head lice may cause sores on the head caused by scratching, which can sometimes become infected with bacteria, normally found on a person ' s skin. Findings: A review of Resident 1's Record of admission indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses that included paranoid schizophrenia (disorder that affects a person's ability to think, feel, and behave clearly), essential hypertension (a condition in which the force of the blood against the artery walls is too high). A review of Resident 1 ' s History and Physical indicated Resident 1 does not have the capacity to understand and make decisions. A review of Resident 1's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a care area assessment and screening tool), dated 1/11/2023, indicated that Resident 1 required one-person limited assistance (resident highly involved in activity, staff provide guided maneuvering of limbs or other non-weight bearing assistance) with bed mobility, transfer, walking. The MDS indicated Resident 1 required one-person extensive assistance (resident involved in activity, staff provide weight bearing support) with dressing, toilet use and personal hygiene. A review of Resident 1 ' s Physician order summary report for January 2023, indicated an order to transfer Resident 1 to the General Acute Care Hospital (GACH) on 1/29/2023 for psych evaluation due to increase verbal aggression. A review of Resident 1 ' S Physician order summary report for January 2023 did not indicate a physician order was made to apply lice treatment for Resident 1. A review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes dated 1/29/2023 10 AM indicated Resident 1 left via ambulance in route to the GACH timed at 10 AM, for physical and verbal aggression. A review of Resident 1 ' s Progress Notes from 1/04/2023 to 1/29/2023 did not indicate documented evidence that Resident 1 ' s attending physician was notified of Resident 1 ' s lice infestation or that Resident 1 was monitored for lice infestation and/or any post treatments performed for lice infestation. On 2/02/2023 at 11 AM, during an interview and concurrent record review of Resident 1 ' s medical records, the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 1 ' s progress notes did not include LVN 1 talking to Resident 1 ' s physician to notify Resident 1 had lice, DON stated Resident 1 ' s Physician orders did not include an order for lice shampoo. DON stated LVN 1 did not document in Resident 1 ' s progress notes or Resident 1 ' s treatment record applying lice shampoo to Resident 1.DON stated that on 1/28/2023 (Saturday), she was notified by the Administrator that Resident 1 was reported to have lice infestation by LVN 1. The DON stated she called the facility and instructed Resident 1 ' s nurse (LVN 1) to notify Resident 1 ' s physician. The DON stated Resident 1 ' s physician gave a telephone order to treat Resident 1 with lice shampoo which was performed that day by Resident 1 ' s LVN (LVN 1). The DON stated LVN 1 also started a line list of other residents who had been exposed and assessed and monitored for lice. The line list documentation was not available for review that day according to the DON. The DON stated that LVN 1 should have documented in the resident ' s medical records any treatment/procedure performed and physician communication/notifications, including the physician order. The DON stated LVN 1 should have created a Change of Condition form that included Resident 1 ' s Physician notification and assessments and monitor any post exposure for three days for all exposed residents. On 2/22/2023 at 11:03 AM during a telephone interview with the Infection Preventionist (IP), the IP stated if there is a resident in the facility with lice infestation, the licensed nurses should notify the resident ' s attending physician immediately. The IP stated that according to the licensed nurses, they have applied a shampoo for lice infestation to Resident 1 but did not document these interventions in the resident ' s medical records. A review of the facility ' s Policy and Procedure for infection control revised on 1/1/2012, titled Infection Control-Policies and Procedures, indicated that the facility would facilitate maintaining a safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment and to help prevent and manage transmission of diseases and infections. The policy indicated that the facility would Prevent, detect, investigate, and control infections in the facility . and maintain records of incidents and corrective actions related to infections.
Jan 2023 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0921)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide safe and sanitary environment by ensuring two of two facility staff members (Housekeeper 1 (HK 1) and Maintenance Super...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to provide safe and sanitary environment by ensuring two of two facility staff members (Housekeeper 1 (HK 1) and Maintenance Supervisor (MS) had sufficient knowledge of the contact time (time that the liquid sanitizer should be left moist on the surface) for chlorine-based sanitizer (solution used for cleaning that kills germs) when cleaning the facility ' s frequently touched areas and the Red Zone (area in which residents with confirmed communicable disease were isolated to protect other uninfected residents from becoming ill with the disease). This deficient practice had the potential for COVID-19 (a severe infection, primary of the lungs, transmitted from person to person by droplets) and other disease-causing organisms to further spread throughout the facility resulting in severe illness to the residents, staff, and visitors in the facility. Findings: During an observation on 12/29/2022 at 8:05 AM, a signage was posted at the entry door facing outside of the facility notifying that there was a COVID-19 outbreak at the facility (a sudden rise in number or cases). During an interview and record review on 12/29/2022 at 8:10 AM, the Infection Control Nurse (IPN) provided the facility census and stated the facility had 73 residents with 58 residents in the [NAME] Zone (an area in the facility where residents that tested negative of COVID 19 resides, 12 residents in the Yellow Zone (an area in the facility where residents who had been exposed, symptoms or suspected of having COVID 19 resides) and 3 residents in the Red Zone. During an interview with HK 1 on 12/29/2022 at 11:00 AM, HK 1 stated his tasks included cleaning and sanitizing the rooms at the facility. When questioned about the contact times of the sanitizing agents used when cleaning the Red Zone, HK 1 stated they use the Ecolab sanitizer (a peroxide-based Ecolab cleaning agent used to kill bacteria and viruses) with the contact time of 30 seconds. The Interview was conducted in the presence of a translator, the Central Supply Director (DCS) who spoke the language of HK 1. During an observation on 12/29/2022 at 11:15 AM conducted with HK 1 and the MS, a label on the bottle of Ecolab sanitizer indicated the contact time of the sanitizer was 30 seconds to effectively sanitize for COVID-19 viral particles. HK 1 and MS provided a bottle of bleach sanitizer noted to be Clorox Healthcare Bleach Germicidal Cleaner (a chlorine-based cleaning agent used to kill viruses and bacteria) with a label indicating contact time listed as one minute to kill germs such as SARS (severe acute respiratory syndrome - associated coronaviruses [a viral respiratory illness caused by a coronavirus] also known as COVID-19). When asked about the contact time for the Clorox Healthcare Bleach Germicidal Cleaner for room with COVID-19 residents, HK 1 and MS both stated that they believed the contact time to be instant, they did not indicate the actual contact time of the bleach. A record review of the facility ' s policy and procedure, titled Ecolab COVID-19 Cleaning and Disinfecting Guidance for Public Spaces, Hospitality, Food service, and Long-Term Care Facilities indicated the contact times listed on the sanitizer containers should be followed during sanitizing procedures. A review of the facility ' s policy and procedure, titled Staff Competency Assessment dated 3/17/2022, indicated when a new product is introduced to the facility, the employee will be provided education, including competency assessment.
Understanding Severity Codes (click to expand)
Life-Threatening (Immediate Jeopardy)
J - Isolated K - Pattern L - Widespread
Actual Harm
G - Isolated H - Pattern I - Widespread
Potential for Harm
D - Isolated E - Pattern F - Widespread
No Harm (Minor)
A - Isolated B - Pattern C - Widespread

Questions to Ask on Your Visit

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

Our Honest Assessment

Strengths
  • • 28% annual turnover. Excellent stability, 20 points below California's 48% average. Staff who stay learn residents' needs.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 69 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade D (49/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 49/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre, Lp's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns MONTEREY HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP an overall rating of 3 out of 5 stars, which is considered average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. This mid-range rating indicates the facility meets federal standards but may have areas for improvement.

How is Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre, Lp Staffed?

CMS rates MONTEREY HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP's staffing level at 5 out of 5 stars, which is much above average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 28%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care.

What Have Inspectors Found at Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre, Lp?

State health inspectors documented 69 deficiencies at MONTEREY HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP during 2023 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 61 with potential for harm, and 7 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre, Lp?

MONTEREY HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 96 certified beds and approximately 69 residents (about 72% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in ROSEMEAD, California.

How Does Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre, Lp Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, MONTEREY HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP's overall rating (3 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (28%) is significantly lower than the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre, Lp?

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

Is Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre, Lp Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, MONTEREY HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 3-star overall rating and ranks #100 of 100 nursing homes in California. Families considering this facility should ask detailed questions about what corrective actions have been taken since these incidents.

Do Nurses at Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre, Lp Stick Around?

Staff at MONTEREY HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP tend to stick around. With a turnover rate of 28%, the facility is 18 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 22%, meaning experienced RNs are available to handle complex medical needs.

Was Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre, Lp Ever Fined?

MONTEREY HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP has been fined $8,021 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,159. While any fine indicates a compliance issue, fines under $50,000 are relatively common and typically reflect isolated problems that were subsequently corrected. Families should ask what specific issues led to these fines and confirm they've been resolved.

Is Monterey Healthcare & Wellness Centre, Lp on Any Federal Watch List?

MONTEREY HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS CENTRE, LP 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.