THE REDWOODS POST-ACUTE

1267 MERIDIAN AVENUE, SAN JOSE, CA 95125 (408) 265-4211
For profit - Corporation 152 Beds LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP Data: November 2025 1 Immediate Jeopardy citation
Trust Grade
33/100
#926 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: January 2025

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

Overview

The Redwoods Post-Acute has received a Trust Grade of F, indicating significant concerns about the quality of care provided. Ranked #926 out of 1155 facilities in California, they are in the bottom half, while locally in Santa Clara County, they are #43 out of 50, meaning only seven facilities are worse. Unfortunately, the facility is worsening, with issues increasing from 5 in 2024 to 9 in 2025. Staffing is average with a turnover rate of 37%, slightly below the state average, but they have a concerning $35,874 in fines, which is typical for the area. RN coverage is average, which means they meet basic requirements, but a critical finding showed inadequate infection control measures, risking the spread of infections, and there were instances of unnecessary psychotropic medications being prescribed without proper documentation or monitoring, raising serious safety concerns.

Trust Score
F
33/100
In California
#926/1155
Bottom 20%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Worse
5 → 9 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
37% turnover. Near California's 48% average. Typical for the industry.
Penalties
✓ Good
$35,874 in fines. Lower than most California facilities. Relatively clean record.
Skilled Nurses
⚠ Watch
Each resident gets only 29 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — below average for California. Fewer RN minutes means fewer trained eyes watching for problems.
Violations
⚠ Watch
59 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Overall Rating
★★★☆☆
3.0
Staff Levels
★★★★☆
4.0
Care Quality
★★☆☆☆
2.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2024: 5 issues
2025: 9 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record
  • Staff turnover below average (37%)

    11 points below California average of 48%

Facility shows strength in quality measures, fire safety.

The Bad

2-Star Overall Rating

Below California average (3.1)

Below average - review inspection findings carefully

Staff Turnover: 37%

Near California avg (46%)

Typical for the industry

Federal Fines: $35,874

Above median ($33,413)

Moderate penalties - review what triggered them

Chain: LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP

Part of a multi-facility chain

Ask about local staffing decisions and management

The Ugly 59 deficiencies on record

1 life-threatening
Jan 2025 9 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 ensure an advance directive (AD, a written instruction, such as a l...

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 an advance directive (AD, a written instruction, such as a living will or durable power of attorney for health care for when the individual becomes incapacitated) or Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment (POLST, document that specifies the medical treatments the resident wants to receive during serious illness) was completed for 3 of 31 sampled residents (Residents 29, 31, and 32). These failures could lead to the delivery of unnecessary or inappropriate medical services, which are against the residents' goals and wishes. Findings: Review of Resident 29's clinical record indicated he was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 29's POLST form, dated 8/20/24, indicated the AD section of the POLST form was blank. The POLST form did not indicate if there was an advance directive in placed or it was not available. Further review of Resident 29's POLST form indicated the section titled Artificially Administered Nutrition was blank. The POLST form did not indicate Resident 29's choices regarding feeding tubes and artificial nutrition. Review of Resident 31's clinical record indicated she was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 31's POLST form, dated 11/28/23, indicated the AD section of the POLST form was blank. The POLST form did not indicate if there was an advance directive in placed or it was not available. Review of Resident 32's clinical record indicated she was initially admitted to the facility on [DATE]. Review of Resident 32's POLST form, dated 8/7/24, indicated the AD section of the POLST form was blank. The POLST form did not indicate if there was an advance directive in placed or it was not available. During an interview and concurrent record review with the director of nursing (DON) on 1/17/25 at 12:01 p.m., the DON reviewed the POLST forms for Residents 29, 31, and 32. She stated the admission nurse reviews the POLST form with the resident or their responsible party (RP) and discusses their wishes regarding medical treatment. The DON confirmed The POLST forms for Residents 29, 31, and 32 were incomplete. The DON stated all sections of the POLST forms should be completed and signed by the physician and the resident or their RP. A review of the facility's policy titled Advance Directives, revised 9/2022, indicated the advanced directives would be honored in accordance with state and facility policy. Upon admission, the resident would be provided with written information concerning the right to refuse or accept medical or surgical treatment and to formulate an advance directive if he or she chooses to do so.
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a comprehensive, resident-centered care plan for one out of eleven sampled residents, (Resident 301), when Resident 301's refusals to participate in the activities that were being offered was not care planned. This failure had the potential to result in the resident not receiving the intervention and monitoring necessary to maintain his highest level of well-being. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview of Resident 301 on 1/14/25 at 9:30 a.m., Resident 301 was laying in his bed, alert, calm and verbally responsive. He was refusing to participate in activities. During another concurrent observation and interview of Resident 301 on 1/15/25 at 8:50 a.m., Resident 301 was in his bed and appeared calm and comfortable. He was still refusing to participate in activities. Review of Resident 301's admission record (document that contains information about a resident's admission to a healthcare facility) indicated, Resident 301 was readmitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including unspecified parkinsonism (group of neurodegenerative conditions that manifest with motor symptoms, including rigidity, tremors and bradykinesia), unspecified schizoaffective disorder (mental health condition that includes symptoms of both schizophrenia and mood disorders) and generalized muscle weakness (decreased strength in the muscles). Review of Resident 301's order listing report (list of orders for a resident, including the details of each order) indicated, Resident 301 may participate in activity program if not in conflict with treatment plan, revised on 12/27/24. During an interview with the activity assistant I (AA I) on 1/17/25 at 9:35 a.m., AA I verified that the resident refused to participate in activities and there was no care plan about his refusal to participate in activities and this behavior was not monitored and followed up. During a concurrent record review of Resident 301's care plans and interview with the assistant director of nursing A (ADON A) on 1/17/25 at 12:31 p.m., ADON A verified that there was no care plan of Resident 301's refusal to participate in activities and this behavior of refusing to participate in activities should have been care planned, monitored and followed up. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 1/17/25 at 12:55 p.m., DON verified that Resident 301's refusal to participate in activities should have been care planned, monitored and followed up. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised March 2022, indicated, A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident . The comprehensive, person-centered care plan . reflects currently recognized standards of practice for problem areas and conditions . Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' condition change .
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide care in accordance with professional standards...

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 care in accordance with professional standards of practice for two of thirty-one sampled residents, (Residents 8 and 400), when: 1. for Resident 8, there was no care plan, monitoring and follow-up of her hand contractures, and 2. for Resident 400, the staff took the blood pressure (BP, the force of blood pushing against the walls of the arteries) on the same arm where the resident has the AV fistula (arteriovenous fistula, connection that's made between an artery and a vein for dialysis access.) These failures had the potential for the residents, not to attain or maintain their highest practicable physical, mental, psychosocial well-being, and potential to cause injury. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview of Resident 8 on 1/14/25 at 8:45 a.m., Resident 8 was laying in her bed, alert, calm, comfortable and verbally responsive. Resident 8's hands were contracted and she verbalized that she's not getting therapy of her contracted hands anymore which could be very helpful. Review of Resident 8's admission record (document that contains information about a resident's admission to a healthcare facility) indicated, Resident 8 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (complete paralysis on one side of the body) and hemiparesis (muscle weakness or partial paralysis on one side of the body) following cerebral infarction (type of stroke that occurs when the brain tissue dies due to lack of blood flow) affecting right dominant side, type 2 diabetes mellitus (chronic condition characterized by high levels of sugar in the blood) with diabetic chronic kidney disease (condition that occurs when diabetes damages the kidneys over time) and generalized muscle weakness (decreased strength in the muscles). Review of Resident 8's clinical records indicated that the hand contractures of Resident 8 were not care planned, monitored and followed up. During another concurrent observation and interview of Resident 8 with assistant director of nursing A (ADON A) on 1/16/25 at 3:35 p.m., Resident 8 was laying in her bed, calm and comfortable. Resident 8 stated that therapy and follow-up of her hand contractures will be good for her. During an interview with ADON A on 1/16/25 at 3:48 p.m., ADON A verified the hand contractures of Resident 8 and stated that they should have been care planned, monitored and followed up to prevent deterioration of the hand contractures. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 1/17/25 at 12:50 p.m., DON acknowledged that the hand contractures of Resident 8 should have been care planned, monitored and followed-up to avoid the hand contractures, from getting worse. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Activities of Daily Living (ADLs), revised March 2018, indicated, Residents will be provided with care, treatment and services as appropriate to maintain or improve their ability to carry out activities of daily living (ADLs) . Interventions to improve or minimize a resident's functional abilities will be in accordance with the resident's assessed needs, preferences, stated goals and recognized standards of practice. The resident's response to interventions will be monitored, evaluated and revised as appropriate . 2.During a review of Resident 400's clinical record indicated, Resident 400 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease (a condition in which the kidneys lose the ability to remove waste and balance fluids.) Review of Resident 400's admission record Inpatient Nephrology Consult Follow Up Note indicated, Resident 400 has left AV fistula and chest permacath (a flexible tube that's inserted into a blood vessel in the neck or chest). During a review of Resident 400's Blood Pressure Summary indicated, Resident 400 had the blood pressure taken on the left arm on the following dates: - 1/3/2025 at 02:00; - 1/3/2025 at 10:23; - 1/4/2025 at 09:05; - 1/5/2025 at 01:29; - 1/6/2025 at 09:32; - 1/7/2025 at 09:52; - 1/8/2025 at 10:11; - 1/10/2025 at 00:14; - 1/102025 at 16:20; - 1/11/2025 at 11:16; - 1/12/2025 at 05:29; - 1/12/2025 at 08:26; - 1/13/2025 at 08:34; - 1/14/2025 at 08:10; - 1/14/2025 at 12:45; - 1/14/2025 at 22:23; - 1/15/2025 at 10:13 and - 1/17/2025 at 08:21. During a concurrent interview and record review on 1/17/2025 at 11:41 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON reviewed Resident 400's clinical record and she stated, Resident 400 had chest permacath and left AV fistula. The DON confirmed, Resident 400's BP summary dated January 3,4,5,6,7,8,10,11,12,13,14,15, and 17/2025, that were recorded were taken on left arm. The DON stated that nurses, should not check the blood pressure on the AV fistula, because it could interfere with the blood flow. Review of the facility's P&P titled Hemodialysis, Care of Residents, dated 11/2017, indicated, Standard . 4. Blood pressures or venous punctures will not be performed and physical restraint will not be applied on the extremity where access site is located.
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 ensure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical servi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the adequate provision of pharmaceutical services when: 1. Three medications were not available for administration x 4 days, for one of 36 sampled residents (Resident 311). The failure had the potential for worsening and/or complications of the resident's medical conditions; and 2. Two of two nursing staff did not don appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) during the preparation and administration of hazardous drugs (HDs; medications with potential to cause cancer and/or for causing other toxic effects on humans). The failure had the potential for staff and/or resident exposure to dangerous medications. Findings: 1. During a medication administration observation on 1/13/25 at 9:11 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse D (LVN D) was observed administering 3 medications, including an eye drop called Cosopt 2%-0.5% (medication to treat glaucoma) ophthalmic (eye) solution, to Resident 311. Upon review of Resident 311's clinical record, it indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including glaucoma and unspecified vision loss. The clinical record indicated the resident was to receive 3 eye medications, as follows: a. Cosopt ophthalmic solution 2%-0.5%, 1 drop in both eyes two times a day for glaucoma, dated 1/9/25; b. Vyzulta ophthalmic solution (to treat increased eye pressure in adults with ocular hypertension or open-angle glaucoma) 0.024%, 1 drop in both eyes two times a day for vision impairment, dated 1/9/25; and c. Xiidra ophthalmic solution (to treat signs and symptoms of dry eye disease) 5%, 1 drop in both eyes two times a day for vision impairment, dated 1/9/25. Resident 311 also had a physician's order for levothyroxine (medication to treat underactive thyroid gland) 75 micrograms, give 1 tablet daily in the morning for hypothyroidism, dated 1/9/25. On 1/13/25, a review of Resident 311's January 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) showed the resident had not been receiving the Vyzulta, Xiidra, and levothyroxine since 1/10/24 (or 4 days). During an interview with LVN D and Assistant Director of Nursing B (ADON B) on 1/13/25 02:11 p.m., ADON B stated the Xiidra and Vyzulta were put on hold (not administered) because I was told we don't have them available. A review of the nursing progress notes, from 1/9/25 to 1/13/25, indicated the nursing staff did not call or follow up with the pharmacy on the missing levothyroxine. For four consecutive days, from 1/10/25 to 1/13/25, the nursing staff wrote four times of Med in transit each day. For the Xiidra and Vyzulta eye drops, there was only one nursing notes, dated 1/10/25 at 22:36 (10:36 p.m.), indicating the nursing staff called the pharmacy and was told by a pharmacy staff that medication will arrive 1/11/25 with 5am medication run. There were no documentation of further follow-up with the pharmacy when these medications did not arrive on 1/11/25. During a follow-up interview with ADON B on 1/14/25 at 2:21 p.m., she stated she called the pharmacy and was told the Xiidra eye drop was not delivered because it was a high cost medication. ADON B confirmed the pharmacy should have communicated with the facility why it did not send the medication. ADON B was asked to find out the reason why the other two medications were not delivered. In a concurrent interview and record review with ADON B on 1/14/25 at 3:00 p.m., ADON B stated the facility faxed Resident 311's admission orders twice on 1/9/25 at 9:02 p.m. and again at 9:05 p.m., on the evening the resident was admitted . However, she showed an email from the pharmacy, dated 1/14/25, indicating: Investigation found that the 3 medications delayed til 1/13/25 were cut off on initial admit fax and pharmacy tech missed them on initial admit papers as a result . ADON B confirmed the facility staff should have followed up with the pharmacy each day they did not receive the medications for the resident. She also confirmed the 3 medications did not arrive until the afternoon of 1/13/25 (day of survey), and the resident did not receive them for 4 days. A review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled Pharmacy Services Overview, dated 4/2019, indicated: The facility shall accurately and safely . obtain pharmaceutical services, including the provision of routine and emergency medications . Residents have sufficient supply of the prescribed medications and receive medications .in a timely manner . Nursing staff communicate prescriber orders to the pharmacy and are responsible for contacting the pharmacy if a resident's medication is not available for administration. 2. During a medication administration observation with LVN D on 1/13/25 at 9:11 a.m., the 3 medications administered to Resident 311 included two tablets of megestrol (an anti-cancer medication that can also be used for loss of appetite) 40 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement). During the preparation, LVN D was observed punching 2 megestrol tablets from the blister pack (a card that packages doses of medication within small, clear plastic bubbles [or blisters]) into a small medication cup. Then she transferred them into a small plastic bag and crushed them into a fine powder using the crushing device. After finished, she transferred the crushed powder back into the medication cup and mixed it with applesauce. Observation of the pharmacy label revealed a dark red auxiliary label indicating: HAZARDOUS DRUGS. During this preparation process, LVN D did not wear gloves or had any special PPE. On 1/13/25 at 9:19 a.m., LVN D administered the medications to the resident with water. During an interview, on 1/13/25 at 9:29 a.m., when shown HAZARDOUS DRUGS sticker on the pharmacy label for megestrol tablets, LVN D stated she did not know if there was any special handling and administration procedures for HDs. During a follow-up interview on 1/13/25 at 11:17 a.m., LVN D stated she was supposed to wear gloves during handling and preparing HDs. During a medication administration observation with LVN J on 1/13/25 at 4:26 p.m., she was observed preparing and administering 3 medications, including 3 tablets of divalproex (medication to treat seizure or mood disorders) delayed release 125 mg, to Resident 25. The same dark red HAZARDOUS DRUGS sticker was affixed by the pharmacy label of the divalproex blister pack. LVN J did not wear gloves or had any special PPE for this preparation and administration. Shortly after the medication administration, on 1/13/25 at 4:37 p.m., when asked whether she should have worn special PPE when handling HDs, LVN J stated she did not know and I will need to ask the supervisor. During an interview with ADON B on 1/13/25 at 4:42 p.m., in the presence of LVN J, ADON B stated nurses should be wearing gloves when handling HDs. During an interview with the DON on 01/14/25 at 1:45 p.m., she stated the consultant pharmacist had given an in-service last year regarding handling and administering HDs. She stated, for HDs, The staff should handle more carefully by not touching them and wearing gloves during handling and administration. A review of the facility's P&P titled Policies and Procedures for the Safe handling of Hazardous Drugs, dated 10/3/2019, indicated, Hazardous Drugs may have special handling procedures in place that must be adhered to by all nursing staff that receive, handle, prepare, administer and destroy the HDs. It is the responsibility of all staff to know these procedures . and adhere to these policies and procedures when handling HD and Appropriate PPE must be worn when handling HDs including during . handling . preparation/mechanical manipulation . administration .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 31 sampled residents (Resident 400) was free from unnecessary medications when there was no monitoring for signs and symptoms...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 31 sampled residents (Resident 400) was free from unnecessary medications when there was no monitoring for signs and symptoms of bleeding while Resident 400 was receiving two medications with increased risk for bleeding: apixaban(an anticoagulant or blood thinner, to prevent blood clots) and clopidogrel (an antiplatelet medication which has potential to increase the risk of internal bleeding or gastrointestinal hemorrhaging). The failure resulted in inadequate monitoring, and had the potential for untimely recognition and intervention for adverse effects related to these medications. Findings: A review of Resident 400's clinical record indicated she was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm, a condition that can lead to blood clots in the heart) and percutaneous coronary Intervention (PCI, a minimally invasive procedure used to open blocked coronary [heart] arteries that are narrowed or clogged by fatty deposits). A review of Resident 400's physician's orders included the following: - Eliquis (apixaban) 5 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement), 1 tablet by mouth two times a day for atrial fibrillation, dated 1/3/25; and - Clopidogrel 75 mg, 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for PCI, dated 1/3/25. A review of an online resource, www.drugs.com, it indicated, Using apixaban together with clopidogrel may increase the risk of bleeding, including severe and sometimes fatal hemorrhage (accessed 1/16/25). There was no documentation in Resident 400's clinical record indicating the nursing staff was monitoring for adverse effects (i.e. bleeding, bruising, etc) related to the use of apixaban and clopidogrel. A review of Resident 400's care plan, dated 1/2/25, indicated to monitor and report to the physician signs and symptoms of anticoagulant complications: blood tinged or frank blood in urine, black tarry stools, dark or bright red blood in stools, sudden severe headaches, nausea, vomiting, ,diarrhea, muscle joint pain, lethargy, bruising, blurred vision, SOB, loss of appetite, sudden changes in mental status, significant or sudden changes in v/s [vital signs]. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 1/16/25 at 2:26 p.m., she reviewed Resident 400's clinical and stated the monitoring for signs and symptoms related to anticoagulants should be monitored on the MAR [medication administration record]. She reviewed the resident's MAR and confirmed there was no monitoring for bleeding and other symptoms related to use of apixaban and clopidogrel. A review of the facility's policy and procedure titled Anticoagulant, revised 9/2017, indicated, The staff and physician will monitor for possible complications in individuals who are being anticoagulated .
CONCERN (E)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure three out of 31 sampled residents (Residents 92, 307, and 400) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affec...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure three out of 31 sampled residents (Residents 92, 307, and 400) were free from unnecessary psychotropic medications (drugs that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior) when: 1. Resident 92 received four psychotropic medications without documented evidence of attempted or contra-indicated non-pharmacological (non-drug) interventions prior to initiating or increasing these medications. Also, there was no monitoring for side effects of aripiprazole (Abilify, an antipsychotic medication to treat mental illnesses) since July 2024; 2. Resident 307 received a PRN (as needed) prochlorperazine (antipsychotic medication which can be used for short term psychotic disorders or nausea/vomiting) without a 14-day limit; and 3. Resident 400 received trazodone (an anti-depressant medication) without effectiveness monitoring. The failures resulted in unnecessary medications for the residents, and had the potential for increased risks associated with psychotropic medication use that include but not limited to sedation, respiratory depression, falls, constipation, anxiety, agitation, abnormal involuntary movements, and memory loss. Findings: 1. A review of Resident 92's clinical record indicated she was admitted to the facility in June 2024 with diagnoses including anxiety and depression. A review of her physician's orders indicated, on 7/3/24, she received three new psychotropic medication orders, as follows: a. Aripiprazole (Abilify, an antipsychotic) 5 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement), give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for Schizoaffective disorder Bipolar Type [a mental disorder with extreme highs (mania) and severe lows (depression)] for 1 Week m/b [manifested by] angry outburst, demeaning staff, calling staff names, cursing staff. b. Cymbalta (an antidepressant) 30 mg, give 1 capsule by mouth one time a day for depression m/b verbalization of sadness; and c. Clonazepam (an anti-anxiety medication) 0.5 mg, give 1 tablet two times a day for ANXIETY m/b verbalization of nervousness or expression of feeling panicky. Also, on the same day, 7/3/24, her trazodone (an antidepressant) was increased from 50 mg to 100 mg, to be administered at bedtime for depression m/b inability to sleep. Despite the three new psychotropic medication orders and an increase in trazodone, there was no documented evidence in Resident 92's clinical record of attempted or contraindicated non-drug interventions prior to initiating and increasing these medications. Furthermore, there was no documented evidence the facility staff monitored for the side effects of aripiprazole since it was started. During a concurrent interview and record review with the Director of Nursing (DON) and Assistant DON C (ADON C) on 1/16/25 at 10:20 a.m., they reviewed Resident 92's clinical record and confirmed there had been no monitoring for the side effects of aripiprazole. The DON stated the side effects should be documented on the MAR but it was not there. During a follow-up interview with the DON on 1/16/25 at 3:58 p.m., she stated the non-drug interventions were documented only on the activity assessment and care plan but there was nothing documented to show non-drug interventions were implemented prior to starting the medications. 2. Resident 307 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including depression, dysphagia (swallowing difficulties), and nasogastric (NG) tube (a small, flexible tube inserted through the nose and into the stomach for delivery of nutrition and medications) status. A review of Resident 307's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated 1/6/25, for Prochlorperazine [an antipsychotic medication] .10 mg Give 1 tablet via NG-Tube every 8 hours as needed for Nausea or Vomiting. There was no 14-day limit to this order. During a concurrent interview and record review with the DON on 1/16/25 at 2:22 p.m., she confirmed there was no 14-day limit for Resident 307's prochlorperazine order. 3. A review of Resident 400's clinical record indicated she was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including insomnia (inability to sleep). On 1/3/25, she had a physician's order for trazodone 50 mg, 1 tablet by mouth at bedtime for insomnia m/b inability to sleep. During an interview with Resident 400 at her bedside on 1/16/25 at 8:40 a.m., Resident 400 stated she had not been sleeping well and would like to have stronger medication to help her sleep better. A review of Resident 400's January 2025 MAR indicated the nursing staff had been monitoring, since 1/2/25, for inability to sleep and placing a check mark for each shift; however, there was no monitoring for the hours of sleep (total amount of time the resident sleeps during a given period). During a concurrent interview and record review with the DON on 1/16/25 at 2:26 p.m., she reviewed Resident 400's MAR and stated the staff should be monitoring the hours of sleep in order to see whether the trazodone was effective in helping the resident sleep. A review of the facility's policy and procedures titled Psychotropic Medication Use, dated July 2022, indicated in part: Psychotropic medication management includes . adequate monitoring for efficacy and adverse consequences . Non-pharmacological approaches are used (unless contraindicated) to minimize the need for medications . PRN orders for psychotropic medications are limited to 14 days . For psychotropic medications that ARE antipsychotics: PRN orders cannot be renewed unless the attending physician or prescriber evaluates the resident and documents the appropriateness of the medication .
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility had a medication error rate of 11.11% when three medication errors occurred out of 27 opportunities during the medication administrati...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interviews, and record review, the facility had a medication error rate of 11.11% when three medication errors occurred out of 27 opportunities during the medication administration for three out of seven residents (Residents 81, 118, and 133). The failure resulted in the residents not receiving the medications as prescribed, and had the potential for complications such as unnecessary pain or medication side effects. Findings: 1. During the medication administration observation on 1/13/25 at 8:41 a.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN) D was observed preparing and administering 5 medications to Resident 81. The medications did not include a lidocaine patch (a topical medication applied to the skin for pain management). A review of Resident 81's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated 11/26/24, for Lidocaine Patch 5% Apply to right shoulder topically one time a day for pain management. It was scheduled to be administered daily at 9 a.m. During an interview with LVN D on 1/13/25 at 2:09 p.m., she stated, We have only 4% but not 5% [patches]. We called pharmacy for delivery. She confirmed the patch was due this morning but it was not administered to the resident. A review of Resident 81's January 2025 Medication Administration Record (MAR) indicated a 4 (meaning other, see nurse notes') with LVN D's initials in the 1/13/25 at 9 a.m. entry for lidocaine 5% patch. A review of the nurse's notes, written on 1/13/2025 at 10:24 a.m. by LVN D, indicated: Lidocaine Patch 5 % . On order Call the the pharmacy, MD and family aware. Will fallow up with pharmacy. 2. During a medication administration observation on 1/13/25 at 10:08 a.m., LVN E was observed preparing 8 medications, including a lidocaine 4% patch, for Resident 133. On 1/13/25 at 10:26 a.m., at Resident 133's bedside, LVN E was observed removing a patch from the resident's left upper shoulder and applying the newly-prepared lidocaine 4% patch on the same location. During a concurrent interview and record review with LVN E on 1/13/25 at 10:30 a.m., she confirmed she removed the previous day's lidocaine patch before applying a new one. When asked whether the used patch should have been removed the night before, she reviewed Resident 133's clinical record and stated, They didn't remove at 9 p.m. but they were supposed to remove it. On 1/13/25 at 10:35 a.m., LVN E advised the surveyor, The resident refused to remove the patch. A review of Resident 133's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated 12/24/24, for Lidocaine Patch 4% Apply to Left Shoulder topically one time a day for pain management Apply at 9am and remove at 9 pm. On 1/13/25, a review of the nursing progress notes, from 1/12 to 1/13/25, did not have any documentation regarding the resident refusing for the previous day's patch to be removed at 9 p.m. on 1/12/25. On 1/13/25 at 2:35 p.m., an interview was conducted with Resident 133 at his bedside with LVN E present. Resident 33 stated the staff had been applying the lidocaine patch daily in the morning and removing it at night. LVN E asked the resident why the one from last night was not removed, Resident 133 stated, I don't remember. LVN E asked whether he would be okay with them removing the patch tonight, he stated, Yeah, ok. I don't have a problem with that. 3. During a medication administration observation with LVN F on 1/13/25 at 10:36 a.m., she was observed preparing and administering 5 medications to Resident 118. Included in the medications was a tablet of aspirin chewable 81 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement). A review of Resident 118's clinical record indicated a physician's order for Aspirin EC [enteric coated - a coating formation that allows aspirin to pass through the stomach to the small intestine before dissolving] Low Dose Oral Tablet Delayed Release 81 mg Give 1 tablet by mouth one time a day for CVA ppx [cerebrovascular accident or stroke prevention]. During a concurrent interview and record review with LVN F on 1/13/25 at 2:26 p.m., she reviewed Resident 118's physician's order for aspirin and confirmed she administered the chewable (or immediate release) aspirin while the physician's order indicated for the enteric-coated, delayed release formulation. A review of the facility's policy and procedures titled Administering Medications, revised April 2019, indicated, Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber orders, including any required time frame.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food safety and sanitation practices were maintained in the kitchen according to standards of practice and facility po...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food safety and sanitation practices were maintained in the kitchen according to standards of practice and facility policy when two of the ceiling exhaust fans above the food preparation area were dirty and dusty with grey lint. These failures had the potential to cause food borne illness for 143 residents consuming food in the facility. Findings: During a kitchen tour observation on 1/13/25 at 1:58 p.m. two ceiling exhaust fans above the food preparation area were observed dirty and dusty with grey lint. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/14/25 at 3:30 p.m., with the Maintenance Director (MDR), the MDR used the ladder to reach the ceiling exhaust fan above the food preparation area and wiped it, then he confirmed the dust. The MDR stated maintenance did the cleaning of the kitchen monthly. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/14/25 at 3:35 p.m., with Registered Dietitian H (RD H), she confirmed two of ceiling exhaust fans above the food preparation area were dirty and dusty with grey lint. She stated that the food preparation area should be clean. She further stated, they would clean it before preparing the next meal. During a review of the facility's P&P titled Sanitization, Care of Residents revise date, 11/2022 indicated, 1. All kitchens, Kitchen areas and dining areas are kept clean, free from garbage and debris, and protected from rodents and insects .
CONCERN (E)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two trash dumpsters had the lid closed completely. This failure had the potential to attract pests (like flies ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of two trash dumpsters had the lid closed completely. This failure had the potential to attract pests (like flies and rodents) that could spread diseases and bacteria to the 150 residents residing at the facility. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/14/2025 at 3:24 p.m., with the Dietary Supervisor (DS), the lid of one trash dumpster behind the kitchen was open and not closed completely flat. The DS stated, that trash container lids should be closed completely. During a concurrent observation and interview on 1/14/2025 at 3:28 p.m., with the Maintenance Director (MDR), he confirmed, one of two trash dumpster's lid was not completely closed. The MDR stated all the facility garbage goes to those trash dumpsters. He stated, trash dumpster lid should be closed. During an interview on 1/16/2025 at 9:06 a.m., with the Infection Preventionist Nurse (IP), the IP stated that the trash dumpsters should be fully closed and should have no space in between the lid to prevent any animals from going in and to control the infection. During a review of the facility's policies and procedures (P&P) titled, Food-Related Garbage and Refused Disposal, Revised 10/2017, the P&P indicated . 2. All garbage and refuse containers are provided with tight-fitting lid or covers and must be kept covered when stored or not in continuous use . 5. Garbage and refuse containing food wastes will be stored in a manner that is inaccessible to pests .
Oct 2024 1 deficiency
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Pressure Ulcer Prevention (Tag F0686)

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 services to promote healing of pressure ulcers (damage to 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 provide services to promote healing of pressure ulcers (damage to the skin and underlying tissue as a result of prolonged pressure) for one of 3 residents (Resident 1) when the licensed nurse did not obtain pressure ulcer measurements and no treatment order was obtained for 6 days for Resident 1's pressure ulcer. These failures had the potential to delay treatment and potentially lead to new or worsening pressure ulcers. Failure to obtain measurements had the potential to compromise the facility's ability to determine whether Resident 1's pressure ulcer was increasing or decreasing in size. Findings: Review of Resident 1's clinical record indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including fracture of second and third lumbar vertebrae (small bones forming the backbone in the lower back), hemiplegia and hemiparesis (paralysis and weakness) affecting left side, obesity (too much body fat), type 2 diabetes (a condition which affects blood sugar), history of diabetic foot ulcer (open sore or wound), congestive heart failure (heart cannot pump enough blood to meet the body's needs), anemia (low levels of healthy red blood cells, hypertension (increase in blood pressure),muscle weakness, abnormalities of gait and mobility, and need for assistance with personal care. Review of Resident 1's Braden scale assessment (tool used in wound assessment) dated 6/18/24 indicated she had a score of 16 (a score of 15-18 represents a risk for developing pressure ulcers). Review of Resident 1's pressure injury skin assessment dated [DATE], indicated a stage II (partial thickness loss of dermis presenting as a shallow open ulcer with a red pink wound bed, without slough) pressure wound to Resident 1's bilateral buttocks. There were no measurements of Resident 1's bilateral buttocks pressure injury on the skin assessment form. Review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report indicated there was no physician order for treatment to the pressure ulcer on Resident 1's bilateral buttocks until 6/24/24, and six days after the facility identified the pressure ulcer on admission on [DATE]. During an interview and concurrent record review with the treatment nurse (TN) on 9/5/24 at 1:15 p.m., she stated she performs treatments and wound assessments every week for residents in the facility, and stated she first assessed Resident 1's skin and wounds on 6/18/24. The TN reviewed Resident 1's Pressure Injury Skin Assessment document from 6/18/24 and confirmed there were no measurements of Resident 1's wounds. The TN stated she completed the form and identified the wounds but did not measure anything. The TN confirmed the measurements should be there and further stated all wounds should be measured during the weekly skin review to assess if treatments are effective. The TN reviewed Resident 1's physician orders and confirmed there was no treatment order for Resident 1's pressure ulcer until 6/24/24, 6 days after admission, when she first identified the Stage II pressure ulcer. The TN stated there should be a treatment order obtained from the physician when the pressure ulcer is first identified. During an interview and concurrent record review with the director of nursing (DON) on 9/5/24 at 1:45 p.m., she reviewed Resident 1's pressure injury skin assessment dated [DATE] and confirmed there were no measurements documented for Resident 1's stage II pressure ulcer. The DON stated all wounds should have been measured on admission, or when first identified, and recorded on the skin assessment document. The DON reviewed Resident 1's physician orders and confirmed there was no treatment order obtained until 6/24/24 to treat Resident 1's pressure ulcer. The DON stated the MD should have been notified and a treatment order obtained when a pressure ulcer was first identified. A review of the facility's undated policy, Pressure Injury Risk Assessment indicated to Conduct a structured pressure injury risk assessment using a facility-approved tool. The risk assessment should be conducted as soon as possible after admission. In addition, the policy indicated Documentation . The following information should be recorded in the resident's medical record utilizing facility forms .5. The condition of the resident's skin (i.e., the size and location of any red or tender areas) if identified.
Jun 2024 3 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 F0559 (Tag F0559)

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 written notice prior to multiple room changes for one of fo...

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 written notice prior to multiple room changes for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure had the potential to compromise Resident 1's rights. Also, there was no documentation that the facility monitored Resident 1 after one room change. This failure had the potential to compromise the facility's ability to identify complications related to the room change and implement interventions accordingly. Findings: Review of Resident 1's clinical record indicated he was admitted on [DATE]. Further review of the clinical record indicated the facility implemented room changes for Resident 1 on 11/15/23, 11/17/23, and 1/2/24. During a telephone interview and concurrent record review with social services staff C (SS C) on 6/25/24, at 1:13 p.m., SS C reviewed Resident 1's clinical record remotely (from a location outside of the facility) and confirmed Resident 1 had room changes on the dates mentioned above. SS C explained when the facility implements room changes, they should complete a Room Transfer form (document that explains the reason for the room change and that must be signed by the resident), complete a consent form, and do behavior/psychosocial monitoring for 72 hours. SS C confirmed for Resident 1's room changes on 11/15/23, 11/17/23, and 1/2/24, there was no documentation that indicated the facility completed a Room Transfer form or a consent form prior to the room changes. SS C also confirmed for Resident 1's room change on 1/2/24, there was no documentation that indicated the facility did behavior/psychosocial monitoring for 72 hours. Since SS C was reviewing Resident 1's clinical record remotely, licensed nurse D (LN D) was also asked to review the record. During an interview and concurrent record review with LN D on 6/25/24, at 1:43 p.m., LN D reviewed Resident 1's medical record and confirmed for the room changes on 11/15/23, 11/17/23, and 1/2/24, there was no documentation that indicted the facility completed a Room Transfer form or a consent form prior to the room changes. LN D also confirmed for Resident 1's room change on 1/2/24, there was no documentation that indicated the facility did behavior/psychosocial monitoring for 72 hours. The facility's policy titled Room Change/Roommate Assignment, revised 3/2021, indicates the resident is given advanced written notice prior to a room change.
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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) fo...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately complete a Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool) for one of four sampled residents (Resident 1). The failure to accurately assess had the potential to compromise the facility's ability to develop and implement interventions to meet the resident's needs. Findings: Review of Resident 1's clinical record indicated he was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses including congestive heart failure (a condition in which the heart does not pump blood as well as it should), ascites (fluid in the abdominal cavity that causes swelling), muscle weakness, and abnormalities of gait (walking) and mobility (ability to move freely). Review of Resident 1's situation, background, assessment, recommendation (SBAR, a communication form), dated 12/21/23, indicated Resident 1 was seen on the floor. During an interview and concurrent record review with MDS nurse A (MDSN A) on 6/25/24, at 10:46 a.m., MDSN A reviewed Resident 1's clinical record and confirmed the resident fell on [DATE]. MDSN A stated this fall should have been coded on Resident 1's MDS, dated [DATE]. MDSN A reviewed Resident 1's MDS, dated [DATE], and confirmed section J1800 was coded No, indicating Resident 1 did not fall during the specified time frame. MDSN A confirmed section J1800 should have been coded Yes, to indicated Resident 1 fell during the specified time frame. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual (RAI Manual, MDS coding instructions), dated 10/2023, indicated for section J1800, Code 1, yes if the resident has fallen during the specified 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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with professio...

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 care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards for one of four residents (Resident 1) when: 1. There were multiple days for which there was no documentation that the facility obtained Resident 1's daily weight as ordered by the physician, and 2. There were multiple days for which there was no documentation that the facility notified Resident 1's physician of an abdominal girth (measurement of distance around the abdomen) increase of more than three centimeters (cm, unit of measurement). These failures had the potential to negatively affect the resident's health and well-being. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 1's clinical record indicated he was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses including congestive heart failure (a condition in which the heart does not pump blood as well as it should) and ascites (fluid in the abdominal cavity that causes swelling). Review of Resident 1's Order Summary Report indicated he had a physician's order, dated 10/30/23, for daily weights and to inform the physician if Resident 1 gained two pounds or more in a day. Further review of the clinical record indicated the facility was documenting Resident 1's daily weights on the medication administration record (MAR). Resident 1's MAR was reviewed. From 11/1/23 to 2/29/24, there were 29 days for which the section designated to document Resident 1's daily weight was left blank. Further review of Resident 1's electronic and paper clinical record (aside from the MAR) indicated there was no documentation that the facility obtained Resident 1's daily weight on those 29 days. There was also no documentation that indicated Resident 1 refused to be weighed on those days. During an interview and concurrent record review with licensed nurse B (LN B) on 6/25/24, at 12:03 p.m., LN B reviewed Resident 1's clinical record and confirmed there were several days on the MAR for which the section designated to document Resident 1's daily weight was left blank. LN B stated if the resident refused to be weighed, this should be documented either on the MAR or a nurse's note. LN B further reviewed Resident 1's clinical record and confirmed there was no documentation that the facility obtained Resident 1's daily weight on the days for which the designated section on the MAR was left blank. LN B also confirmed there was no documentation that indicated Resident 1 refused to be weighed on those days. The facility's policy titled Charting and Documentation, revised 7/2017, indicated all services provided to the resident shall be documented in the resident's clinical record. The policy further indicated that documentation will include whether the resident refused a procedure or treatment. 2. Review of Resident 1's clinical record indicated he had a physician's order, dated 1/17/24, to measure abdominal girth every day and notify the physician of an increase of more than three cm. Further review of the clinical record indicated the facility was documenting Resident 1's abdominal girth measurements on the MAR. Resident 1's MAR was reviewed. On 3/2/24, 3/7/24, 3/14/24, 3/25/24, and 4/7/24, the documentation on the MAR indicated Resident 1's abdominal girth increased by more than three cm compared to the previous day. There was no documentation in the clinical record that indicated the facility notified Resident 1's physician of the increase in abdominal girth on the above dates. During an interview and concurrent record review with LN B on 6/25/24, at 12:03 p.m., LN B reviewed Resident 1's clinical record and confirmed there was a physician's order to measure abdominal girth every day and notify the physician of an increase of more than three centimeters. LN B confirmed that the documentation on the MAR indicated Resident 1's abdominal girth increased by more than three cm compared to the previous day on the dates mentioned above. LN B confirmed there was no documentation in the clinical record that indicated the facility notified Resident 1's physician of the increase in abdominal girth on those dates.
Apr 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

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan (plan that identifies residents' needs and outlines ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure to develop a comprehensive person-centered care plan (plan that identifies residents' needs and outlines the care and services to be provided to meet those needs) for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1) to address management of onychomycosis (fungal infection of the nails). This failure had the potential to result in Resident 1 not receiving necessary care and services. Findings: Review of Resident 1's face sheet indicated the following diagnoses: paraplegia (the lower body is paralyzed), schizoaffective disorder (a mental health condition that can cause hallucinations, delusions, and mood disorder), and tinea unguium (onychomycosis). During an interview and concurrent record review with the Director of Nursing (DON) on 12/14/23 at 2:02 p.m., the DON reviewed Resident 1's clinical record and confirmed there was no care plan to address management of onychomycosis. The facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, revised 3/2022 indicated, A comprehensive, person-centered care plan that includes measurable objectives and timetables to meet the resident's physical, psychosocial and functional needs is developed and implemented for each resident.
Jun 2023 3 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

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 residents were free from physical abuse. Reside...

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 residents were free from physical abuse. Resident 1 sustained facial injuries when Resident 2 hit her in the face with a water bottle. Despite both residents being cognitively impaired, Resident 2's act of hitting Resident 2 in the face was deliberate to inflict harm or injury, not accidental; therefore her action is deemed as a willful act and considered abuse.The facility was aware Resident 2 had a history of both physical and verbal behaviors. This failure has the potential of both physical and emotional harm to all residents. Findings: On 3/4/2023, the facility submitted a facsimile (FAX) to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) about an incident between Residents 1 and 2. The FAX showed Resident 2 hit Resident 1 with a water bottle and Resident 1 sustained redness around her left eye and a small cut on the right side of her nose. Review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) titled Resident to Resident Altercations (revised date December 2016) showed facility staff will monitor residents for aggressive/inappropriate behavior towards other residents Make any necessary changes in the care plan approaches to any or all the involved individuals; document in the resident ' s clinical record all interventions and their effectiveness and consult psychiatric services as needed . Review of the facility's Investigative Summary dated 3/8/2023, showed on 3/4/2023 at approximately 12:45 p.m., Resident 1 entered Resident 2's room to look for something in Resident 2's draw. Resident 2 got upset apparently hit Resident 1 with a water bottle. Resident 1 was noted to have redness around her left eye with a small cut on the right side of her nose. Resident 1 was put on every hour monitoring system for her whereabouts. 1. Clinical record review for Resident 1 was conducted on 6/7/2023. Resident 1 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including traumatic subdural hemorrhage (brain injury resulting from a fall) with loss of consciousness, cognitive communication deficit and adjustment disorder with anxiety. Her Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool) dated 2/1/2023, showed a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 3 (severely impaired cognition). Review of Resident 1's Physician Order dated 2/3/2022, showed an order for a psychiatry and/or psychology evaluation and treatment as needed. Review of Resident 1's Psychiatry Diagnostic Interview note dated 10/28/2022, showed Resident 1 had a history of adjustment disorder with anxiety, currently not prescribed psychotropic medications. The Nurse Practitioner (NP) documented the resident had cognitive communication deficit with poor attention/concentration, insight/judgment, and poor memory capabilities. Review of Resident 1's care plan problems dated 3/4/2023 showed a problem to address an altercation with another resident. The interventions included monitoring every hour for her whereabouts. Additional problems dated 3/4/2023 showed a problem to address her small cut on the right side of her nose and a problem to address redness around her left eye. Review of Resident 1's Interdisciplinary Department Team (IDT) Altercation/Abuse/Incident Notes dated 3/6/2023 showed on 3/4/2023 at 12:45 p.m., a licensed nurse (LN) heard yelling and went to assess the situation in Resident 2's room. The LN documented she saw Resident 1 sitting in her wheelchair while trying to get access to Resident 2's draws. Resident 2 was standing in front of Resident 1 with a water bottle raised in her hand. She documented Resident 1 had redness around her left eye and a small four centimeter (cm) cut on the right side of her nose. Resident 1's bleeding was stopped with pressure, cleansed with normal saline, triple antibiotic ointment was applied to the cut and a dry dressing was applied. The Care Plan was completed and the preventive measures in place were to put the resident on every hour monitoring for her whereabouts. Review of Resident 1's Social Services Note dated 3/6/2023 at 12:52 showed day 1 of 72-hour monitoring, Resident 1 was unable to recall the incident on 3/4/2023 and the nursing department had implemented for both residents (Residents 1 and 2) to be under every hour monitoring for whereabouts. 2. Clinical record review for Resident 2 was conducted on 6/7/2023. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including vascular dementia (changes to memory, thinking and behavior, decline in thinking skills), severe with other behavioral disturbances, major depressive disorder, and unspecified mood (affective) disorder. Review of Resident 2's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] showed Resident 2 had vascular dementia and was in the hospital for about five months prior to discharge on [DATE] back to a skilled nursing facility (SNF). The SNF was unable to handle her behavior and sent Resident 2 back to the emergency room for placement the very next day. The discharge instructions included to crush Resident 2's medications and give them with chocolate ice cream since this is the only way the resident takes her medication. Review of Resident 2's Doctor's Progress Note dated 9/15/2022 showed the resident was admitted to the SNF with diagnoses including vascular dementia. He documented on 3/12/2022, Resident 2 was sent to the emergency room due to being agitated, combative and throwing/smashing laptops, printers, and potted plants. An attempt was made to transfer her another SNF on 8/22/2022; however, the transfer was unsuccessful due to their inability to handle her behaviors and Resident 2 was sent back to the emergency room. The physician documented Resident 2 has been calm if the staff can give medications (needs to hide the medications in the foods that she likes). He documented Resident 2 does not have the capacity to make decisions and easily gets upset and agitated. Review of Resident 2's Psychiatry Diagnostic Interview note dated 11/18/2022 showed documentation Resident 2 was alert, angry and confused. The staff reported the resident displays angry outbursts which are often difficult to redirect. The NP documented the staff continue to monitor and document the resident's episodes of severe agitation, yelling and verbal abuse towards the staff. She documented the resident had aggressive, and verbal behaviors, was irritable, angry, poor impulse control, insight/judgment. The plan and recommendations included monitoring for mood and behavior for verbal aggression and anger. Review of Resident 2's MDS dated [DATE], shows a BIMS score of 2 (severely impaired cognition) with inattention and disorganized thinking. Review of Resident 2's Situation, Background, Assessment and Recommendations (SBAR) note dated 3/4/2023 at 12:45 p.m., showed no recommendations or monitoring. Review of Resident 2's IDT Altercation/Abuse/Incident Notes dated 3/6/2023 at 3:22 p.m., showed on 3/4/2023 at 12:45 p.m., a LN heard yelling and went to assess the situation in Resident 2's room. The LN documented she saw Resident 1 sitting in her wheelchair while trying to get access to Resident 2's draws. Resident 2 was standing in from of Resident 1 with a water bottle raised in her hand. Resident 1 was noted to have redness around her left eye and a small 4 cm cut on the right side of her nose. The nurse documented the staff would continue to monitor for emotional distress due to the incident. The Care Plan was completed and the Preventive Measures that were put in place to prevent re-occurrence were to put Resident 1 on every hour monitoring for her whereabouts and for Resident 2 to be monitored for emotional distress. The conclusion included to educate Resident 2 to call for assistance with the staff to help her redirect the other resident. On 6/7/2023 at 11:30 a.m., an interview was conducted with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) A. She stated Resident 1 was alert and oriented and able to make her needs known. CNA A stated Resident 1 has no behavior problems, and just stays in her wheelchair by the nurse's station. She stated she was unaware of Resident 1 entering another resident's room before the incident on 3/4/2023. Continued interview with CNA A regarding Resident 2. She stated Resident 2 had intermittent confusion and had no behavior problems. CNA A stated Resident 1 was happy all the time and ambulated independently. On 6/7/2023 at 11:40 a.m., an interview was conducted with CNA B. She stated Resident 1 was confused, sometimes able to make her needs known and had no behavioral problems. CNA B stated she was unaware of Resident 1 wandering into other residents' room, except with Resident 2. When she was asked about Resident 2, she stated Resident 2 was alert, and sometimes confused. CNA B stated Resident 2 yells and curses at staff and residents but was unaware of any physical altercations. On 6/7/2023 at 12:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Social Service Director (SSD). He stated Resident 1 was alert but not oriented and was able to make her needs known. The SSD stated he was unaware of Resident 1 wandering into other residents' room, she just sits outside her room in a wheelchair. He stated Resident 1 did not have any behavioral problems. When the SSD was asked about Resident 2's behaviors, he stated she was verbally abusive to the staff and was delusional. He stated Resident 2 is alert and oriented to her name only and ambulates independently in the hallways. The SSD stated he was unaware of Resident 2 having any physical behaviors. During an interview with the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON) on 6/7/2023 at 1 p.m., she stated Resident 1's words do not make sense and she was unable to communicate. The ADON stated Resident 1 can self-propel herself in her wheelchair but was unaware of Resident 1 wandering into any other residents' rooms except Resident 2's room. She stated she was aware of the incident on 3/4/2023 when Resident 2 hit Resident 1 with a water bottle. The ADON stated the staff were monitoring Resident 1's behavior every hour to determine her whereabouts to keep her aware from Resident 2. When the ADON was interviewed about Resident 2, she stated Resident 2 was alert and oriented to name only and was able to make her needs known. She stated Resident 2's behaviors included angry outbursts and verbally abusing the staff, calling the staff idiots, useless, worthless and racial slurs. The ADON stated she was unaware of any physical aggressive behavior with Resident 2, except the incident on 3/4/2023. She stated the staff were monitoring Resident 2 for angry outbursts but was unable to locate any monitoring related to her physical aggressive behavior with Resident 1. On 6/7/2023 at 2:45 p.m., Resident 2 was observed lying in her bed, awake and alert. Multiple water bottles were visible on her bedside table. She was confused and unable to answer simple questions. On 6/7/2023 at 2:50 p.m., Resident 1 was observed sitting in her wheelchair in the hallway, two doors away from Resident 2. She was confused and unable to answer simple questions. A telephone interview was conducted on 6/7/2023 at 4:40 p.m., with Resident 1's responsible party (RP). He stated he was unaware of Resident 1 wandering into other residents' rooms. He stated she probably went into Resident 2's room because she thought Resident 2 had stolen something from her. Resident 1's RP stated Resident 1 is very happy there and feels she is safe there. A telephone interview was conducted on 6/7/2023 at 5:17 p.m., with Resident 2's RP. He stated he was aware of the incident on 3/4/2023. The RP stated in the past, Resident 2 had physical behaviors in the past due to a urinary tract infection but was unaware of any other recent behaviors.
CONCERN (D) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement individualized, resident-centere...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement individualized, resident-centered care plans for one of four sampled residents (Resident 2). Resident 2 had a history of physical aggression. On 3/4/3023, Resident 2 hit Resident 1 with a water bottle in her face. The facility failed to develop and implement a care plan to monitor Resident 2's physical aggression following the incident with Resident 1. This deficient practice has the potential for placing other residents at risk for injury and/or harm. Findings: Clinical record review for Resident 2 was conducted on 6/7/2023. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including vascular dementia (changes to memory, thinking and behavior, decline in thinking skills), severe with other behavioral disturbances, major depressive disorder, and unspecified mood (affective) disorder. Review of Resident 2's hospital Discharge summary dated [DATE] showed Resident 2 had vascular dementia and was in the hospital for about five months prior to discharge on [DATE] back to a skilled nursing facility (SNF). The SNF was unable to handle her behavior and sent Resident 2 back to the emergency room for placement the very next day. Review of Resident 2's Doctor's Progress Note dated 9/15/2022 showed the resident was admitted to the SNF with diagnoses including vascular dementia. He documented on 3/12/2022, Resident 2 was sent to the emergency room due to being agitated, combative and throwing/smashing laptops, printers, and potted plants. An attempt was made to transfer her to another SNF on 8/22/2022; however, the transfer was unsuccessful due to their inability to handle her behaviors and Resident 2 was sent back to the emergency room. The physician documented Resident 2 had been calm if the staff can give medications (needs to hide the medications in the foods that she likes). He documented Resident 2 does not have the capacity to make decisions and easily gets upset and agitated. Review of Resident 2's Psychiatry Diagnostic Interview note dated 11/18/2022 showed Resident 2 was alert, angry and confused. The staff reported the resident displays angry outbursts which are often difficult to redirect. The NP documented the staff continued to monitor and document the resident's episodes of severe agitation, yelling and verbal abuse towards the staff. She documented the resident had aggressive, and verbal behaviors, was irritable, angry, with poor impulse control, insight/judgment. The plan and recommendations included monitoring for mood and behavior for verbal aggression and anger. Review of Resident 2's MDS dated [DATE], shows a BIMS score of 2 (severely impaired cognition) with inattention and disorganized thinking. Review of Resident 2's IDT Altercation/Abuse/Incident Notes dated 3/6/2023 at 3:22 p.m., showed on 3/4/2023 at 12:45 p.m., a LN heard yelling and went to assess the situation in Resident 2's room. The LN documented she saw Resident 1 sitting in her wheelchair while trying to get access to Resident 2's draws. Resident 2 was standing in front of Resident 1 with a water bottle raised in her hand. Resident 1 was noted to have redness around her left eye and a small 4 cm cut on the right side of her nose. The nurse documented the staff would continue to monitor for emotional distress due to the incident. The Care Plan was completed and the Preventive Measures that were put in place to prevent re-occurrence were to put Resident 1 on every hour monitoring for her whereabouts and for Resident 2 to be monitored for emotional distress. The conclusion included to educate Resident 2 to call for assistance with the staff to help her redirect the other resident. Review of Resident 2's Care Plan Problems showed: 1. a problem dated 12/28/2022 (revised date 4/20/2023)-potential to demonstrate physical behaviors related to dementia, cognitive impairment, history of throwing plants, laptops and refusing medications. The goal: will not harm self or others (initial date 12/28/2022, revised date 3/17/2023). Two interventions: monitor/document/report to the physician of danger to self and others and Psychiatric/Psychogeriatric consult as indicated. 2. a problem with an altercation with another resident (dated 3/4/2023, revised date 3/17/2023). The goal: will have no emotional distress from the incident. Interventions included: monitor every day for 72 hours whereabouts/activities of involved residents, educate to call for assistance with the staff to help her redirect the other resident. 3. a problem to address her vascular dementia with behavioral disturbances (initiated 9/15/2022, revised 2/7/2023). The goal: will be able to communicate needs daily. Interventions included: monitor for ability to chew and swallow, monitor communication skills. 4. a problem to address her impaired cognitive function/thought process (initiated 9/15/2022, revised 2/3/2023). The goal: will be able to communicate basic needs daily. 5. a problem to address the potential/actual demonstration of verbally abusive behaviors towards staff (initiated 12/28/2022, revised 1/13/2023). The goal: will have fewer than 3 episodes per shift of verbally abusing staff such as yelling or sudden outbursts of anger. Interventions: assess resident's understanding of the situation and allow time for her to express her feelings. 6. a problem to address her non-compliance/refusal to wear and identification band (initiated 9/15/2022, revised 9/15/2022). Interventions included: explain benefits of wearing the name band and risk and consequences of not wearing it. Review of the facility's Inservice Records showed: 1. On 1/18/2023: Dealing with residents with aggressive or catastrophic reactions and 2. On 3/20-24/2023, Alzheimer/Dementia was given; however, the Lesson Plans were titled Communicating Effectively with Dementia Residents and Recognizing Symptoms of Dementia and Calming Fears. The lesson plans did not address handling of aggressive behaviors after the incident on 3/4/2023. On 6/7/2023 at 1 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Assistant Director of Nurses (ADON). She stated Resident 2's behaviors included angry outbursts, and yelling and screaming at staff. When the ADON was asked was any attempt made to determine possible triggers that may affect Resident 2's outbursts and yelling, she did not know. The ADON confirmed Resident 2 should be monitored for aggressive behavior, but was unable to locate the monitoring or care plan problem. When the ADON was asked about Resident 2's care plan problems and if the goals and/or interventions were compatible with Resident 2's severely impaired cognition, she did not answer. During an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) on 6/7/2023 at 1:30 p.m., she stated Residents 1 and 2 were being monitored for their whereabouts. She was unable to explain the reason why Resident 2 was being monitored for her whereabouts when the incident on 3/4/2023 happened inside Resident 2's room. The DON confirmed no aggressive behavior monitoring was done for Resident 2 and no care plan to address her aggressive behavior.
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 F0744 (Tag F0744)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a diagnosis of dementia (a memory disorder with impaired reasoning skills), received the appropriate tr...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a resident with a diagnosis of dementia (a memory disorder with impaired reasoning skills), received the appropriate treatment and services to attain or maintain his or her highest practicable, physical, mental and psychosocial well-being for one of four residents (Resident 2). Resident 2 had an episode of physical aggression with another resident. The facility failed to have a psychiatrist available at the facility to reevaluate and provide proper treatment. This deficient practice has the potential to negatively affect the delivery of services for all residents with a mental disorder. Findings: Clinical record review for Resident 2 was conducted on 6/7/2023. Resident 2 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including vascular dementia (changes to memory, thinking and behavior, decline in thinking skills), severe with other behavioral disturbances, major depressive disorder, and unspecified mood (affective) disorder. Review of Resident 2 physician's order dated 9/14/2022 showed an order to have Psychiatry and/or Psychology evaluation, treatment and follow up as needed. Review of Resident 2's Psychiatry Diagnostic Interview note dated 11/18/2022 showed Resident 2 was alert, angry and confused. The staff reported the resident displays angry outbursts which are often difficult to redirect. The NP documented the staff continued to monitor and document the resident's episodes of severe agitation, yelling and verbal abuse towards the staff. She documented the resident had aggressive, and verbal behaviors, was irritable, angry, poor impulse control, insight/judgment. The plan and recommendations included monitoring for mood and behavior for verbal aggression and anger. Review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS-an assessment tool) dated 2/10/2023, shows a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS) score of 2 (severely impaired cognition) with inattention and disorganized thinking. On 6/7/2023 at 12:15 p.m., an interview was conducted with the Social Service Director (SSD). When the SSD was asked about the facility's Psychiatrist, he stated the facility did not have any psychiatrist since the end of 2022, but a new psychiatrist just started in April 2023. The SSD stated the psychiatrist comes to the facility twice a month; however, she only came twice in April, once in May and currently once in June. When the SSD was asked if a referral for Resident 2 to be reevaluated by the psychiatrist after her physical aggressive behavior on 3/4/2023, he stated he did not get a referral from the staff to order one. An interview was conducted with the Administrator on 6/7/2023 at 12:10 p.m When he was asked about having a psychiatrist evaluation for Resident 2's aggressive behavior, he stated the facility did not have any available Psychiatrist since the end of 2022, but a new Psychiatrist started about 2 months ago. The Administrator stated today, a referral was made for Resident 2 to be evaluated by a psychiatrist. During an interview with the Director of Nurses (DON) on 6/7/2023 at 1:30 p.m., she stated Residents 1 and 2 were being monitored for their whereabouts. She was unable to explain the reason why Resident 2 was being monitored for her whereabouts when the incident on 3/4/2023 happened inside Resident 2's room. The DON confirmed no aggressive behavior monitoring was done for Resident 2 and no care plan to address her aggressive behavior.
Apr 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 F0555 (Tag F0555)

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 resident's primary care physician's current working phone nu...

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 resident's primary care physician's current working phone number was listed on their face sheets (a document in each resident's clinical record that indicated a summary of the resident's important information) for three out of three residents (Resident 1, 2, and 3). This failure had the potential for residents, and residents' responsible parties (RP - responsible party) to be unable to contact the residents' primary care physician when needed. Findings: Record review of Resident 1's face sheet indicated admission on [DATE] with the attending primary physician's name and his contact phone number. Record review of Resident 2's face sheet indicated admission on [DATE] with the attending primary physician's name and his contact phone. Record review of Resident 3's face sheet indicated admission on [DATE] with the attending primary physician's name and his contact phone number. During a phone interview with Resident 1's RP on 3/24/2023 at 8:25 a.m., the RP stated the facility provided her a non-working contact phone number for Resident 1's primary care physician when she requested to talk to Resident 1's physician. She stated she was unable to contact this physician with the phone number provided. During record review and concurrent interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 3/24/2023 at 3:15 p.m., the DON acknowledged the face sheets for Residents 1, 2, and 3 indicated the primary care physician's name and phone number. The health facilities evaluator nurse (HFEN) in the presence of the DON, called the primary care physician's phone number indicated on the face sheets four times. Each time HFEN called, received a busy tone, and was disconnected shortly thereafter. The DON acknowledged the physician's contact phone number indicated on the face sheets was not a working number. The DON confirmed this phone number was given to residents and their families upon request. The DON stated staff should have updated residents' face sheets with their physician's current working phone number. Review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P), Record of Admission, revised December 2006, it indicated, At the time of the resident's admission, a resident identification and summary record is completed. Our identification and summary record includes, but not limited to: The name and telephone number of the resident's attending and alternate physician. Review of facility's P&P titled, Attending Physician Responsibilities, revised August 2014, it indicated, The attending physician will update the facility about his/her current office address, phone, fax, and pager numbers to enable timely communications, as well as the current office address, phone, fax and pager numbers of designated alternate practitioners (such as nurse practitioners and physician assistants).
CONCERN (E) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program 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 maintain an infection prevention and control program to prevent the spread of infections when wash basins and a specimen collection hat were unlabeled in the shared bathrooms of residents' rooms one, two, and three. These failures had the potential for disease transmission among residents if more than one resident were to use any single unlabeled item. Findings: During an observation and interview with certified nursing assistant A (CNA A) on 3/24/23 at 11:15 a.m., two unlabeled wash basins and one specimen collection hat (a wide-brimmed hat shaped basin placed inside a toilet used to collect urine samples) were on a windowsill in the shared bathroom between residents' rooms [ROOM NUMBERS]. The CNA A acknowledged both wash basins and specimen collector were in use; and that, each of these items were not labeled with names of the residents that use them. The CNA A stated the wash basins and specimen collector hat should have been labeled with the residents' names. He stated the bathroom was shared by four residents and, without resident's name labeled on these items, there was the potential that more than one resident would use them, which posed a risk for disease transmission between residents. During an observation with director of nursing (DON) on 3/24/23 at 11:35 a.m., two unlabeled wash basins were on top of a commode in the bathroom of residents' room [ROOM NUMBER]. The DON acknowledged both wash basins were not labeled with residents' names. He stated staff should have labeled each wash basin and urinal and specimen collection hat with a single resident name before use by, and only by, the resident whose name was on the label. Review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P), Bedpan/Urinal, Offering/Removing, revised February 2018, indicated, Label the resident's bedpan/urinal.
Feb 2023 23 deficiencies 1 IJ (1 affecting multiple)
CRITICAL (K)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Someone could have died · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control progra...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observations, interviews, and record review, the facility failed to maintain an infection prevention and control program to prevent the spread of infections as evidenced by: 1. The facility failed to use the proper disinfectant to disinfect shared (used for multiple residents) glucometers (blood glucose meter to measure and display the amount of sugar [glucose] in your blood) according to manufacturer's instructions and accepted professional standards for 41 of 41 residents when: 1a. Licensed Vocational Nurse A (LVN A) failed to properly disinfect a shared glucometer during observation for two of 41 residents (Residents 9 and 25) according to manufacturer's instructions; 1b. Licensed nurses in three out of three nursing stations: LVN B, LVN C, LVN E, LVN F, LVN G and Registered Nurse D (RN D), did not know the proper disinfectant product to use for the disinfection of shared glucometers according to manufacturer's instructions; and, 1c. The Infection Preventionist/Director of Staff Development (IP/DSD) did not know the proper disinfectant product to use for the disinfection of shared glucometers according to manufacturer's instructions. Furthermore, concurrent interview and record review with the IP/DSD reflected there had been no staff in-services provided regarding proper disinfection of shared glucometers since 2021. The facility identified 41 residents that had active physician orders for Finger Stick Blood Glucose (FSBG, a procedure where the finger is pricked with a poking device to obtain a blood sample to measure blood glucose level) checks. One out of 41 residents (Resident 90) also had a diagnosis of Chronic Viral Hepatitis B (a serious liver infection caused by the hepatitis B virus that is most commonly spread by exposure to infected body fluids) at the time of admission on [DATE]. As of 2/6/23, Resident 90 did not have a designated glucometer and had been given FSBG checks daily with a shared glucometer. The facility's noncompliance with infection control procedures had the potential to cause the development and the widespread transmission of bloodborne diseases (such as HIV [human immunodeficiency virus, is a virus that attacks the body's immune system], Hepatitis B, and Hepatitis C) to 41 of 41 residents. It was unknown when the noncompliance began according to an interview with the DON. Due to the widespread lack of knowledge of proper disinfection procedures demonstrated by eight (8) nursing staff, including IP/DSD, the facility needed to take immediate action to correct the non-compliance. On 2/6/23 at 5:45 p.m., an Immediate Jeopardy (IJ, a situation in which the facility's noncompliance with one or more requirements of participation has caused, or is likely to cause, serious injury, harm, impairment, or death to a resident) was identified and declared, in the presence of the facility's Administrator and Administrator In Training (AIT), due to the facility's failure to ensure that LVN A properly disinfected a shared glucometer for two of 41 residents (Residents 9 and 25) according to manufacturer's instructions; failure to ensure LVN B, LVN C, LVN E, LVN F, LVN G and RN D knew the proper disinfectant product to use for the disinfection of shared glucometers according to manufacturer's instructions; failure to ensure the IP/DSD knew the proper disinfectant product to use for the disinfection of shared glucometers according to manufacturer's instructions; and not having staff in-services provided regarding proper disinfection of shared glucometers since 2021. On 2/7/23, at 3:30 p.m., the Administrator submitted an acceptable IJ Removal Plan ([IJRP], a plan with interventions to immediately correct the deficient practices). The acceptable IJRP included the following corrective actions: 1. Identify residents whose blood sugars (BS) need to be monitored. All residents (41 residents) on FSBG checks will be monitored for the following symptoms (ascites [condition in which fluid collects in spaces within your abdomen], tremors, confusion, vomiting of blood, blood in the stool and fatigue) per the Medical Director for 14 days. Resident[s] directly affected will have lab works done on 2/7/2023 for hepatitis B and C. 2. IP/DSD/Designee in-service and educated facility and/or registry licensed nursing staff (nurses employed through a contracted agency) on the glucometer manufacturer's guidelines for proper cleaning and disinfecting and return demonstration done to ensure it is done correctly. a. Glucometer to be cleaned and disinfected immediately after resident use (Sani-Cloth or equivalent) with 2 minutes wet time. b. Check if glucometer is in proper working condition prior to use. c. Daily QA (quality assurance) maintenance of each glucometer and to ensure glucometer is in proper working condition and if Licensed Nurses are cleaning/disinfecting it according to manufacturer's guidelines and proper use of recommended wipes. 3. IP/DSD/Designee will randomly perform spot check on all shifts daily × 2 weeks then monthly, and findings will be reported to QAPI (Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement) Committee. 4. IP/DSD/Designee in-service and education will be completed with the licensed nursing staff prior to the start of their shift and by 02/07/2023. 5. Corrective Action Plan reviewed at QAPI Committee Meeting on 02/07/2023. 6. A separate glucometer machine was provided for the resident identified with hepatitis, cleaned after each use and routine QA started. (forms/Sig [signature] attached) 7. Skills competency glucometer cleaning/disinfectant in serviced to Licensed nurse by IP/DSD/Designee. 8. P and P [Policy and Procedure] on bloodborne pathogens updated according to updated systemic changes and discussed and approved by QAPI Committee. On 2/8/23, at 9:48 a.m., the Department of Public Health removed the IJ while onsite after the surveyors verified the facility implemented the facility's IJRP by observations, interviews, and record reviews. The DON, Administrator, AIT and DSD/IP were informed. 2. The Director of Nursing (DON) and IP/DSD did not know the disinfectant wipe manufacturer's instructions for wet time (the amount of time disinfectants need to remain wet on surfaces to properly disinfect); and LVN B and RN H did not allow enough wet time, according to the manufacturer's instructions, during the disinfection of a shared glucometer for three of 41 residents (Residents 25, 39, and 97). 3. A nurse (LVN I) failed to perform hand hygiene between tasks during medication administration for one of 6 residents (Resident 72). 4. Four nursing staff (Certified Nursing Assistants R, S, U and LVN X) failed to wear proper PPE (Personal Protective Equipment - protective equipment used when caring for patients to prevent the spread of diseases) when working in facility areas that required them. 5. A nurse (LVN X) failed to take her temperature with a thermometer and screen for COVID-19 upon entering the facility to start work. 6. Nursing and maintenance staff failed to maintain oxygen concentrators in good working condition for two of two residents (Residents 15 and 24) with oxygen concentrators when the filters of their oxygen concentrators had a layer of grayish matter buildup on them. These failures placed residents at increased risk of healthcare-associated infections. Findings: 1a. During a medication administration observation on 2/6/23, at 8:36 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse A (LVN A), a registry nurse, at Station 2, LVN A completed a blood check on Resident 25 with a glucometer. She placed the glucometer on the top of the medication cart without cleaning or disinfecting it. At 8:40 a.m., LVN A moved down the hall to Resident 9's room and prepared medications for Resident 9. She brought the prepared medications along with the same glucometer used for Resident 25, without wiping it down first, to Resident 9's bedside. At 8:49 a.m., LVN A administered the medications. After medications were given to Resident 9, LVN A was asked to exit Resident 9's room before completion of the BS check. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/6/23, at 8:53 a.m., with LVN A, when asked how the shared glucometer was disinfected between Resident 25 and Resident 9, LVN A stated she used alcohol wipes. LVN A stated she did not know the facility's procedure for glucometer disinfection. LVN A reached for the Lysol wipes (a common household disinfecting wipe typically found at grocery stores) in the medication cart and wiped the glucometer with a Lysol wipe. LVN A stated she needed to ask a supervisor about the glucometer disinfection procedure because she did not know it. After a few minutes, LVN A returned to the medication cart and stated, They [supervisor] said Lysol wipe is ok. At 9:08 a.m., LVN A completed the BS check for Resident 9 with the shared glucometer. 1b. During an interview on 2/6/23, at 9:45 a.m., with LVN B, at Station 3, when asked about the glucometer disinfection method, LVN B stated she used alcohol wipes to clean and disinfect it, and the wet time should be three minutes. She stated the glucometers were shared among residents. During an interview on 2/6/23, at 10:35 a.m., with LVN C (a registry nurse), at Station 1, LVN C was asked about the glucometer disinfection method, LVN C stated she used Lysol wipes to clean and disinfect it. During an interview on 2/6/23, at 4:05 p.m., with LVN E, at Station 2, LVN E stated the glucometer was used for all residents at the nursing station and alcohol wipes were used to clean the glucometer between residents. LVN E stated she did not know the wet time. During an interview on 2/6/23, at 5:01 p.m., with RN D, at Station 1, when asked about the facility's glucometer disinfection method, RN D stated, he used Lysol wipes with a two-minute wet time. RN D stated he did not remember when an in-service about glucometer disinfection was provided, but he remembered there was one. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/6/23, at 5:05 p.m., with LVN E, at Station 1, LVN E used alcohol wipes to clean a glucometer after a BS check was completed. LVN E then placed the glucometer inside the medication cart. When asked how to disinfect shared glucometers, LVN E stated she used alcohol, Lysol, or whatever was available in the cart. When asked about the wet time, LVN E stated, It dries by itself. During an interview on 2/6/23, at 5:11 p.m., with LVN F, at Station 2, when asked about the facility's glucometer disinfection method, LVN F stated she wiped the glucometer with alcohol wipes and dried it with the tissue. LVN F stated it could take 5 to 10 minutes to dry. LVN F stated an in-service on glucometer cleaning was provided in 2022. During an interview on 2/6/23, at 5:14 p.m. with LVN G (a registry nurse), at Station 3, LVN G stated it was her first day of work at the facility. LVN G stated she had not completed a BS test yet, but had to do one later. When asked how to clean and disinfect the glucometer, LVN G stated she would use alcohol swabs to clean the glucometer. LVN G showed a small basket that contained a glucometer and alcohol swabs. LVN G stated no in-service was given regarding glucometer disinfection upon orientation. 1c. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/6/23, at 4:09 p.m., with the IP/DSD, the IP/DSD reviewed the facility's binder that contained documentation of nursing staff in-services/training completed between January 2021 to February 2023. The IP/DSD confirmed there were no in-services/training or competencies completed by licensed nurses regarding the facility's procedure for cleaning and disinfecting shared glucometers. During an interview on 2/6/23, at 5:22 p.m., with the IP/DSD, the IP/DSD stated, there were no in-services since 2021. When asked how staff cleaned and disinfected glucometers, the IP/DSD stated, with the Lysol yellow [package] or purple [top] disinfectant wipes. The IP/DSD stated, We tell the staff to use Lysol disinfectant. The IP/DSD stated alcohol is not an antiviral (A drug used to treat infections caused by viruses) or disinfectant and should not be used. The IP/DSD was asked by a surveyor if Lysol kills hepatitis or HIV, the IP/DSD reviewed the Lysol package instructions and stated, No, it doesn't. The IP/DSD stated she did not know what the glucometer manufacturer recommended to use for disinfection of the glucometer. The IP/DSD stated she was not aware that the nursing staff used alcohol to disinfect the glucometers. She said glucometer disinfection instructions were not part of the orientation for registry nursing staff. During a review the product labeling for the Lysol disinfectant wipes provided by the facility, it indicated, Kills Salmonella [a bacteria that can cause an infection in the intestinal tract through contaminated water or food], Influenza A Virus (H1N1) [a virus that causes an infection of the nose, throat and lungs], Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 [a virus that causes herpes infection], Staphylococcus aureus [a bacteria found on human skin], Escherichia coli [E.Coli, a bacteria that is commonly found in the lower intestine] and Respiratory Syncytial Virus [RSV, a common respiratory virus that causes cold-like symptoms] on hard, non-porous surfaces in 4 minutes .To Disinfect: Allow [surface] to remain wet for 4 minutes. Allow surface to air dry . The Lysol disinfectant wipes did not contain a disinfectant that would protect against bloodborne infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, or HIV. On 2/6/23, the facility provided a list of residents with physician's orders for FSBG in the facility. The list identified 41 residents. During a review of Resident 90's admission Record, dated 7/19/21, it indicated, Resident 90 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Chronic Viral Hepatitis B and Diabetes. Resident 90 had a BIMS of 15 (Brief Interview for Mental Status, is an assessment tool used to screen and identify the cognitive condition of residents upon admission into a long term care facility. A score of 13 to 15 suggests the patient is cognitively intact, 8 to 12 suggests moderately impaired and 0 to 7 suggests severe impairment), which indicated he was cognitively intact. During an interview with Resident 90 on 2/6/23, at 4:40 p.m., he stated his BS was checked daily. When asked whether he had his own glucometer, Resident 90 stated, No, the girls [nurses] use the machine they have here. I don't have my own machine. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Items and Equipment, dated October 2018, the P&P indicated, Reusable items are cleaned and disinfected or sterilized between residents . Reusable resident care equipment will be decontaminated and/or sterilized between residents according to manufacturers' instructions. During a review of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Letter to Manufacturers of Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems Listed With the FDA, dated 12/27/17, it indicated, The disinfection solvent you choose should be effective against HIV, Hepatitis C, and Hepatitis B virus. Outbreak episodes have been largely due to transmission of Hepatitis B and C viruses. However, of the two, Hepatitis B virus is the most difficult to kill. Please note that 70% ethanol (alcohol) solutions are not effective against viral bloodborne pathogens. (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/letter-manufacturers-blood-glucose-monitoring-systems-listed-fda) According to the online publication titled Infection Prevention during Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Administration by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), dated 3/2/2011, it indicated, An underappreciated risk of blood glucose testing is the opportunity for exposure to bloodborne viruses (HBV [hepatitis B virus], hepatitis C virus, and HIV) through contaminated equipment and supplies if devices used for testing and/or insulin (medication to lower blood glucose) administration (e.g., blood glucose meters, fingerstick devices, insulin pens) are shared. Outbreaks of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection associated with blood glucose monitoring have been identified with increasing regularity, particularly in long-term care settings . Blood glucose meters are devices that measure blood glucose levels. Whenever possible, blood glucose meters should be assigned to an individual person and not be shared. If blood glucose meters must be shared, the device should be cleaned and disinfected after every use, per manufacturer's instructions, to prevent carry-over of blood and infectious agents. (https://www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/blood-glucose-monitoring.html) During a review of the manufacturer's instructions for cleaning and disinfecting of the glucometer provided by the facility, it indicated, The meter [glucometer] should be cleaned and disinfected after use on each patient . our testing confirmed the wipes listed will not damage the functionality or performance of the meter . [manufacturer] recommends using these wipes to clean and disinfect the [glucometer]: Clorox Healthcare Bleach Germicidal Wipes, Dispatch Hospital Cleaner Disinfectant Towels, Super Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable Wipes, CaviWipes . please read the manufacturers' instructions before using their wipes on the meter. The manufacturer's instructions indicated, To disinfect nonfood contact surfaces . thoroughly wet surface . allow treated surface to remain wet for a full two (2) minutes . 2. During an interview on 2/7/23, at 9:44 a.m., with the DON and IP/DSD, the DON and IP/DSD were asked to explain the wet time during glucometer disinfection and to describe how nurses would maintain wet time. The IP/DSD stated they will wipe [the glucometer] and let it dry for two minutes. The DON stated, they wipe [the glucometer] with solution, then leave to dry. When asked, How does the glucometer stay wet?, the IP/DSD reviewed and read the manufacturer instructions on the Super Sani-Cloth (disposable disinfection wipes for hard surfaces and medical devices) disinfectant wipe container out loud, allow surface to remain wet for two minutes. The DON stated, We will repeat the in-service [for glucometer disinfection]. When asked how long the nursing staff had been using alcohol swab or Lysol to disinfect the glucometers, the DON stated, I do not know when it started .when I started [employment here], we were supposed to use Sani-Cloth . when I started in December 2022, I did a spot check and we had Sani-Cloth; so in my mind, the nurses were using that . the Lysol is new to me. During an interview on 2/7/23 at 9:55 a.m. with the DON, he stated the manufacturer instructions for the sanitizing wipes indicated the wet time is 2 minutes; so, we wipe the glucometer and let it sit for two minutes to let it dry before it can be used again (instead of properly keeping it wet for the two minutes). During an observation on 2/7/23, at 11:42 a.m., with LVN B, at Station 2, LVN B completed a BS check for Resident 39. LVN B wiped the glucometer with a Sani-Cloth disposable wipe for approximately 30 seconds before she proceeded to perform a BS check for Resident 25. After completion of the BS check, LVN B wiped the glucometer with a Sani-Cloth disposable wipe for approximately 30 seconds. During an interview on 2/7/23, at 12:00 p.m., LVN B stated she was given an in-service about glucometer disinfection, was instructed to wipe it for two minutes with the Purple wipe [Sani-Cloth] and to let it air dry. LVN B said she did not understand why the glucometer needed to stay wet. LVN B stated she thought that letting the glucometer dry was included in the two minutes, During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/7/23, at 12:09 p.m., with RN H, at Station 2, RN H completed a BS check for Resident 97. RN H wiped the glucometer with a Sani-Cloth disposable wipe for approximately 30 seconds. RN H stated, We had an in-service yesterday on how to wipe the glucometer with Sani-Cloth wipes . I knew that already . wipe for two minutes . then let air dry . important to keep it wet to remove microorganisms and sanitize . I did not time it . I let it wet for about 1 minute. During a review of the manufacturer's instructions for cleaning and disinfecting of the glucometer provided by the facility, it indicated, To disinfect nonfood contact surfaces . thoroughly wet surface . allow treated surface to remain wet for a full two (2) minutes . 3. During a medication administration observation on 2/8/23, at 8:19 a.m., with LVN I, at Station 3, LVN I prepared medications for Resident 72. LVN I went into Resident 72's room, put on new gloves at bedside, touched the bed remote to elevate the head of bed and turned off the feeding pump (machine that delivers nutrition into the stomach) with her right gloved hand. LVN I proceeded to administer medications to Resident 72 via the G-tube (a tube inserted through the abdomen that delivers nutrition and medications directly to the stomach) without changing gloves. During an interview on 2/8/23 at 8:44 a.m., with LVN I, LVN I acknowledged she should have changed gloves after touching the bed remote and feeding pump. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, dated 5/2020, the P&P indicated, Handwashing: soap .and water for the following situations . Before preparing or handling medications . After contact with objects (e.g. [example] medical equipment) in the immediate vicinity of the resident . 4a. During an observation on 2/6/23 at 5:28 p.m., certified nursing assistant (CNA) R was observed inside an isolation resident room wearing a face mask and gloves. The signs outside of the isolation room indicated anyone entering the room should wear face mask, face shield, gown, and gloves. During an interview on 2/6/23 at 5:28 p.m., with RN D, RN D stated, the room was still in isolation; therefore, CNA R should have had on the required PPE (Personal Protective Equipment - protective equipment used when caring for patients to prevent the spread of diseases) as posted. During an interview on 2/7/23 at 10:56 a.m. with CNA R, CNA R stated, regarding her entrance into an isolation room yesterday evening, in addition to the PPE she had on, she should have had a gown and face shield on. CNA R stated there was an isolation cart outside of the room, and one of the residents in the room was COVID-19 positive. She accidentally went in the room without proper PPE. 4b. During an observation on 2/8/2023 at 1:20 p.m., CNA S went inside the isolation room wearing an N95 (a particulate-filtering facepiece respirator that filters at least 95% of airborne particles) only. CNA S picked up the lunch tray from Bed A, went outside carrying the tray with her bare hands, walked along the hallway and passed the tray to another CNA. There were three postings near the outside the isolation room. The first post indicated, STOP, CHECK WITH CHARGE NURSE BEFORE ENTERING ROOM. VISIT NURSE. It also had pictures of a surgical mask, N95, Gloves, Face shield, and Disposable Gowns. The second post indicated, STOP Transmission Based Precautions STOP. Donning. 1. Hand Hygiene; 2. Gown; 3. Mask; 4. Goggles/Face shield; 5. Gloves. The third posting indicated, STOP Transmission Based Precaution STOP. DOFFING. 1. Gloves; 2. Goggles/Face shield; 3. Gown; 4. Mask; 5. Hand Hygiene. There was an isolation drawer (storage unit containing PPE, such as gowns, gloves, face shields and masks) near the outside the isolation room with a sign that indicated, RED ZONE (a dedicated area for COVID-19 residents). During an interview with CNA S, on 2/8/2023 at 1:25 p.m., she confirmed the isolation room had residents with Coronavirus disease (COVID-19, a disease caused by a contagious virus). CNA S stated, I just picked up the tray . Should I gown up? During a concurrent interview and review of the postings of the isolation room, on 2/9/2023 at 9:28 a.m., LVN T stated the isolation room was their Red Zone. LVN T confirmed there were residents with COVID-19 in the isolation room. LVN T stated any staff who entered the isolation room should wear the proper personal protective equipment (PPE, such as: N95, disposable gown, gloves, face shield or goggles) prior to entry. 4c. During an observation on 2/9/2023 at 12:37 p.m., certified nurse assistant U (CNA U) entered the isolation room wearing N95, disposable gown, and gloves. CNA U did not wear a face shield or goggles inside the isolation room. During an interview with CNA U on 2/9/2023 at 1:30 p.m., CNA U stated she needed to wear N95, gown, gloves and face shield every time she entered the isolation room. The CNA U stated, I'm sorry. I should have worn it (face shield). During an interview with the infection preventionist (IP) on 2/9/2023 at 1:48 p.m., the IP confirmed the isolation room had residents with COVID-19. The IP stated all staff and visitors should wear full PPE prior to entering the isolation room. The IP stated full PPE should be worn when trays are picked up from the isolation room because it was their Red Zone. 4d. During an observation on 2/9/23 at 1:30 p.m., LVN X was observed wearing a mask with ear loops (straps that go around each ear). LVN X was questioned about wearing a mask with ear loops instead of an N95 (which has straps that are placed behind the neck and at the crown of the head). LVN X stated This is my first day here . I am a registry nurse . No one told me I could not wear this mask with ear loops. During an interview with the IP/DSD on 2/13/23 at 8:12 a.m., she stated the facility instituted the wearing of N95s due to an outbreak of Covid-19 and that all staff were required to wear N95s until the positive resident's isolation had been completed on 2/10/23. The IP/DSD stated the facility did not allow staff to wear KN95s (masks with ear loops). She stated LVN X should be wearing an N95. A review of the All Facilities Letter (AFL) 23-12 titled Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) Recommendations for Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), Resident Placement/Movement, and Staffing in Skilled Nursing Facilities, dated 1/24/2023, referenced a chart of COVID-19 recommendations titled COVID-19 PPE, Resident Placement/Movement, and Staffing Considerations by Resident Category that indicated, COVID Positive Residents . N95 respirator - Yes . Eye Protection - Yes . Gowns - Yes . 5. Review of the facility's COVID-19 Self Screening form for employees, dated 2/9/23, indicated there was no evidence that LVN X completed self-screening on 2/9/23. LVN X was listed on the daily staffing assignment of 2/9/23 as assigned to station 2B for the day shift. During a concurrent interview with the IP/DSD, on 2/13/23 at 8:45 a.m., she stated staff are instructed to take their temperature and to complete the COVID-19 screening questionnaire at the start of their work shift. The IP/DSD confirmed there was no evidence LVN X took her temperature or completed either the screening questionnaires for staff or for visitors on 2/9/23. The IP/DSD stated LVN X should take her temperature and complete the questionnaire. 6a. Review of Resident 24's clinical records indicated, Resident 24 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including critical illness polyneuropathy (condition involving damage to many nerves in different parts of the body), other pulmonary embolism (occurs when a clump of material, most often a blood clot, gets stuck in an artery (a blood vessel that carries blood from the heart to tissues and organs in the body) in the lungs, blocking the flow of blood) and dependence on supplemental oxygen (a continuous flow of oxygen delivered to people deficient in oxygen). During an initial observation on 2/6/2023 at 9:48 a.m., Resident 24 laid in bed with oxygen delivered to him via (through) nasal cannula (NC - a device that consists of plastic tube that fits behind the ears, and with two prongs that are placed in the nostrils for oxygen administration) at 2.5 liters (L- a metric unit of capacity) per minute. The dust filter located at the back of the oxygen concentrator (a machine that concentrates the oxygen from air to supply an oxygen-enriched gas stream) had a buildup of grayish matter. During another observation inside Resident 24's room, on 2/7/2023 at 11:45 a.m., Resident 24's oxygen concentrator's dust filter still had the grayish matter build up. 6b. Review of Resident 15's admission RECORD, dated February 10, 2023, indicated Resident 15 was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including unspecified atrial fibrillation (an irregular and often very rapid heart rhythm that can lead to blood clots in the heart), congestive heart failure (a weakness of the heart that leads to a buildup of fluid in the lungs and surrounding body tissues), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD - a long lasting lung disease). During an initial observation on 2/6/2023 at 9:55 a.m., Resident 15 laid in bed, with oxygen in placed via NC at 2.5 L per minute. Resident 15's oxygen concentrator's dust filter located at the right side of the machine had some grayish matter build up. During a follow up observation on 2/7/2023 at 11:47 a.m., Resident 15's oxygen filter still had some grayish build up. During an interview with LVN L, on 2/7/2023 at 11:50 a.m., LVN L stated it was the responsibility of both nursing and maintenance staff to keep oxygen concentrators in good working condition. During a concurrent observation and interview with LVN L, on 2/7/2023 at 11:55 a.m., LVN L confirmed the oxygen filters of Resident 24 and Resident 15 were dirty and needed to be cleaned. LVN L further stated the oxygen filters should be cleaned to provide clean air to residents on supplementary oxygen. During an interview with LVN P, on 2/7/2023 at 12:02 p.m., LVN P stated nurses should change the oxygen humidifiers (device used to increase the level of moisture in the oxygen) and maintenance should change or clean the filters. During a concurrent observation of oxygen concentrator filters and interview with assistant director of nursing A (ADON A) on 2/7/2023 at 12:07 p.m., ADON A confirmed the oxygen filters of Resident 24 and Resident 15 needed to be changed. ADON A stated the oxygen filters should be clean. ADON A further stated one staff was assigned to check all oxygen concentrators every two weeks. During a concurrent interview and record review regarding the oxygen log checks, on 2/7/2023 at 12:15 p.m., the central supply staff (CSS) stated he checked the resident's oxygen every other week. The CSS reviewed the log and confirmed he missed checking Resident 24 and Resident 15's oxygen filters for the month of February, 2023. A review of the oxygen log indicated the last time the oxygen filters were cleaned for Resident 24 and Resident 15 was on January 21, 2023. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Oxygen Administration, date revised October 2010, indicated, The purpose of this procedure is to provide guidelines for safe oxygen administration. General Guidelines . 3. For concentrators, clean lint and dust filters every 2 weeks and PRN (pro re nata - is a Latin phrase meaning as the circumstances arises) basis.
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 respect and dignity was maintained for three 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 ensure respect and dignity was maintained for three residents (Residents 3, 31, and 41). 1. For residents 3 and 41 staff provided feeding assistance while standing. 2. For resident 3, staff did not provide privacy during therapy treatment. These failures had the potential to negatively affect the emotional and psychosocial well-being of the residents. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 3's minimum data set (MDS, an assessment tool), dated 1/6/23, indicated her cognition was severely impaired and she needed one-person physical assistance for eating. During a lunch meal observation, on 2/6/23 at 1:23 p.m., Resident 3 sat upright in bed in her room. CNA W stood beside Resident 3 providing feeding assistance to her. During a concurrent interview with CNA W, she confirmed she stood while she fed Resident 3. When asked if she should be standing while feeding a resident she stated, No I should be sitting . I usually do sit when I feed my residents. Review of Resident 41's MDS, dated [DATE], indicated her cognition was severely impaired and she needed one-person physical assistance for eating. During a breakfast meal observation, on 2/6/23 at 8:34 a.m., Resident 41 sat upright in bed in her room. CNA V stood beside Resident 41's bed while spoon-feeding resident 41 her breakfast. During a concurrent interview with CNA V, she confirmed she stood while she fed Resident 3. When asked if she should be standing while feeding a resident she stated, It does not really matter, I like to stand to feed her. During an interview with the infection preventionist/director of staff development (IP/DSD), on 2/10/23 at 10:25 a.m., she stated staff are trained to sit down and be at eye level with residents when feeding them. She further stated staff should not stand and hover over residents while feeding them. Review of the facility's revised 7/2017 policy Assistance with Meals indicated residents who cannot feed themselves will be fed with attention to safety, comfort, and dignity; for example, a. Not standing over residents while assisting them with meals. 2. During an observation, on 2/10/23 at 11:53 a.m., Resident 31, who was in his room with the physical therapy assistant (PTA) performing exercises, was viewable from the hallway with his blue incontinence pads on and bare legs exposed to public view. During a concurrent interview with the PTA, she validated the observation and stated she could have pulled the cubicle curtain to provide privacy for Resident 31 during therapy treatment. The PTA stated, Sorry it won't happen again. During a concurrent interview with the PTA, on 2/14/23 at 8:38 a.m., the PTA stated she was now more mindful of pulling the curtains to provide privacy to residents. Review of the facility's revised December 2016 policy and procedure Resident Rights indicated employees shall treat all residents with kindness, respect and dignity. Review of the facility's revised February 2020 policy and procedure Quality of Life-Dignity indicated staff shall promote, maintain and protect resident privacy, which included bodily privacy during assistance with personal care and treatment procedures.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0582 (Tag F0582)

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 four sampled residents (Resident 145) discharged from...

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 four sampled residents (Resident 145) discharged from Medicare Part A services received a Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC, a form given to Medicare recipients notifying that Part A coverage is being terminated and providing information on how to file an appeal of that decision) letter in a timely manner. This failure had the potential to prevent the resident from filing a timely appeal of the decision to discharge from Medicare Part A services. Findings: Review of Resident 145's clinical records indicated, Resident 145 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis of fracture of the neck part of the left femur (broken hip bone). The facility initiated a discharge of Medicare Part A services on 12/21/2022. Review of Resident 145's NOMNC letter, dated 12/21/2022, indicated, The effective date coverage of your current Medicare coverage will end: 12/21/2022. Further review of the NOMNC letter's second page indicated, I have been notified that coverage of my services will end on the effective date indicated on this notice and that I may appeal this decision by contacting my QIO . NOMNC issued to RR (responsible representative) via phone 12/21. During a concurrent interview and record review of Resident 145's NOMNC letter with the case manager (CM), on 2/13/2023 at 10:28 a.m., the CM confirmed the notification of the last covered day (LCD - last day of Medicare coverage) in the NOMNC letter was done on 12/21/2022 by a phone call with the representative. The CM stated the notification should have been done 48 hours before the LCD. During an interview with the social service director (SSD), on 2/14/2023 at 12:49 p.m., the SSD confirmed Resident 145 was a planned discharge. The SSD stated the notification of the LCD in the NOMNC letter should have been done 48 hours prior to 12/21/2022. Review of the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) NOMNC instructions, titled Form Instructions for the Notice of Medicare Non-Coverage (NOMNC) CMS-10123, indicated, The NOMNC must be delivered at least two calendar days before Medicare covered services end or the second to last day of service if care is not being provided daily. Note: The two day advance requirement is not a 48 hour requirement If the provider is personally unable to deliver a NOMNC to a person acting on behalf of an enrollee, then the provider should telephone the representative to advise him or her when the enrollee's services are no longer covered. The date of the conversation is the date of the receipt of the notice.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a organized and sanitary environment for one non-sampled resident (Resident 116) when the room was disorganized, her tray table used...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation and interview, the facility failed to maintain a organized and sanitary environment for one non-sampled resident (Resident 116) when the room was disorganized, her tray table used for meals had chipped areas, and one wooden cabinet drawer was broken. These failures created a disorganized and unsanitary environment that could pose safety risks for Resident 116 . Findings: During an observation, on 2/7/23 at 12:24 p.m., Resident 116 sat in a wheelchair in her room among multiple personal belongings scattered throughout the room and under her bed, such as dirty or used clothes, linens, sheets, blankets. During a concurrent interview, Resident 116 stated she needed help to organize her room and that she could not do it by herself. During an observation with the director of nursing (DON), on 2/13/23 at 9:24 a.m., a wooden cabinet next to Resident 116's personal belongings were still scattered throughout her room and under her bed, such as dirty or used clothes, linens, sheets, blankets. A wooden cabinet next to Resident 116's bed contained unlabeled/undated food items that included a half bottle of coffee, some juices, apple sauce, opened salad dressing, seeds, chips, noodles. Some of the food items were on the floor. The tray table was dirty, with chipped edges and paint, and was full of food (juices, chips, apple sauce, etc.). The lower drawer of a wooden cabinet was broken. The DON verified the observation and confirmed the need to organize and clean the room. During an observation on 2/14/23 at 8:07 a.m., Resident 116 was in her room with a tray table full of personal items and a breakfast tray on her wheelchair. Licensed vocational nurse I (LVN I) verified the observation. During an interview with ADON B 2/14/23, at 8:18 a.m., ADON B verified unlabeled/undated food on the floor of Resident 116's room. The ADON B stated, food should be dated. Resident 116 stated, yesterday's afternoon's assigned CNA was not able to help her clean up and organize her room.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

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 follow their policy and procedure to notify the Office of the State...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to follow their policy and procedure to notify the Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman (organization that advocates for the residents) when four of four sampled residents (Residents 6, 135, and 146) were transferred to the acute care hospital or discharged from the facility without notifying the Ombudsman. This failure had the potential to compromise the residents' admission, transfer, and discharge rights. Findings: Review of Resident 135's clinical record indicated she was transferred to an acute care hospital on [DATE] following a fall. Review of Resident 146's clinical record indicated he was discharged from the facility on 12/18/22 AMA (leaving the facility against medical advice). During an interview with the social services director (SSD) on 2/9/23 at 8:15 a. m., he reviewed the list of transfers and discharges for November 2022 and December 2022. He confirmed that Resident 135 had been transferred to the acute care hospital on [DATE], and Resident 146 had been discharged AMA on 12/18/22. The SSD was unable to provide evidence that the long-term care Ombudsman was notified for both Resident 135's transfer to an acute care hospital and Resident 146's discharge from the facility. During a record review and concurrent interview with SSD on 2/9/23 at 8:15 a.m., he provided the list of residents who were discharged or transferred from the facility during the months of October, November, and December of 2022. The SSD stated he compiles the resident transfers and discharges during the month and faxes the list of residents to the Ombudsman at the end of each month. The SSD stated he did not have the fax verification report for the months of October, November, and December that indicated the Ombudsman received the notifications. The SSD stated sometimes the fax machine does not always work and he did not received the fax verification report, which confirmed the Ombudsman was notified. The SSD confirmed the Ombudsman was not notified of transfers or discharges for 27 residents in October 2022, 18 residents in November 2022, and 22 residents in December. The SSD confirmed the Ombudsman should be notified of the transfers and discharges of residents in the facility. Review of the facility's revised October 2022 policy and procedure, Transfer or Discharge Notice, indicated the facility shall provide a resident and/or resident's representative with a thirty-day written notice of an impending transfer or discharge. A copy of the notice will be sent to the Office of the State Long-Term Ombudsman. Review of Resident 6's progress notes, dated 11/27/22, indicated she was sent out to the acute hospital due to nausea, vomiting and decreased oxygen saturation (measurement of oxygen in the blood). During a record review and concurrent interview with the social services director (SSD), on on 2/10/23 at 9:50 a.m., the SSD confirmed Resident 6 was not included in any lists faxed to the Ombudsman office for notification purposes. The SSD stated, . should have faxed the transfer notice . Review of the facility's revised October 2022 policy and procedure Transfer or Discharge Notice indicated the facility shall provide a resident and/or resident's representative with a thirty day written notice of an impending transfer or discharge. A copy of the notice will be sent to the Office of the State Long-Term Ombudsman.
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 complete and transmit the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a comprehensive as...

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 and transmit the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a comprehensive assessment tool) discharge assessment in a timely manner for one of 29 sampled residents (Residents 126). This failure resulted in the resident's discharge assessment not being transmitted and received by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid System within the time requirement. Findings: During the record review and concurrent interview with the minimum data set nurse (MDSN), on 2/14/23 at 2:32 p.m., the MDSN reviewed Resident 126's closed record that indicated he was admitted on [DATE] and was discharged home on [DATE]. The MDSN confirmed Resident 126's discharge MDS was not completed. The MDSN stated she would complete and transmit Resident 126's discharge MDS to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid System. Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument Process (RAI-guidance and information gathering for resident's strengths, needs, care plan, and tracking of changes in residents' condition), dated October 2017, indicated, .Tracking Records and Assessments are federally mandated, and therefore, must be performed for all residents of Medicare and/or Medicaid certified nursing homes .Discharge Assessment .MDS Completion Date .No later Than discharge date + [plus] 14 calendar days) .Transmission Date No Later than .MDS Completion Date + 14 calendar days .
CONCERN (D)

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

Assessment Accuracy (Tag F0641)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of Resident 90's clinical record indicated he was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses including end stage renal disea...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of Resident 90's clinical record indicated he was admitted on [DATE] and had diagnoses including end stage renal disease (a condition in which kidneys no longer function normally on their own), dependance on renal dialysis (a process of removing waste, toxins, and excess water from the blood). Review of Resident 90's physician orders dated 7/21/21, indicated hemodialysis at an outpatient dialysis center on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. Review of resident 90's MDS, dated [DATE] indicated the following: Section O0100 Special Treatments, Procedures, and Programs check all of the following treatments, procedures and programs that were performed during the last 14 days. Section J of O0100 Dialysis was unchecked (blank). Section Z The was coded None of the above, which indicated Resident 90 did not have any special treatments, procedures and programs that were performed during the last 14 days, which essentially meant Resident 90 did not have dialysis during the last 14 days. During an interview and concurrent record review with Minimum Data Set Coordinator Z (MDSC Z), on 2/13/23 at 10:37 a.m., she reviewed Resident 90's medical record and confirmed she had completed Resident 90's annual comprehensive assessment on 12/26/22 incorrectly. The MDSC Z stated, That was my mistake . I should check yes on the dialysis section J because he did have dialysis within the last 14 days when this annual assessment was completed. Review of Long-Term Care Facility Resident Assessment Instrument 3.0 User's Manual Version 1.17.1, dated October 2019, indicated, The RAI process has multiple regulatory requirements . Federal regulations at 42 CFR 483.20 (b)(1)(xviii), (g), and (h) require that (1) the assessment accurately reflects the resident's status. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to accurately code in the MDS (Minimum Data Set- an assessment tool) for three of 29 sampled residents (Resident 103, 108 and 90) when the completed and transmitted MDS did not include: 1. Resident 103's three fall incidents, one of which resulted in minor injury. 2. Resident 108's functional limitation on one side of an upper extremity. 3. Resident 90's special treatments and procedures. These ommissions in coding resulted in an inaccurate MDS. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 103's clinical record with the minimum data set coordinator (MDSC) and the assistant director of nursing B (ADON B), on 2/8/23 at 4:45 p.m., indicated fall incidents with no injury occurred on 8/19/22 and 8/25/22; and, a fall incident with minor injury occurred on 11/5/22. Both MDS C and ADON B verified Resident 103's fall incidents were unaccounted for in Resident 103's MDS, dated [DATE]. During a concurrent interview with the MDSC, she stated, . will make modification right now. 2. During an observation and concurrent interview with Resident 108, on 2/7/23 at 11:47 a.m., he stated his left shoulder had movement imitations while he demonstrated how he could hardly raise his left arm. During an interview and record review with the assistant director of nursing B (ADON B) and director of nursing (DON), on 2/8/23 at 5:43 p.m., both staff reviewed Resident 108's MDS, dated [DATE], which indicated he had no impairment or functional limitations in range of motion (ROM) of his upper or lower extremities. During an interview and record review on 2/8/23 at 4:45 p.m with MDS C, she confirmed Resident 108 had left shoulder ROM limitations per clinical assessments and that there was an error in the coding of the MDS which needed to be revised to indicate he had a left upper extremity functional limitation.
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 observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement individualized, resident-centered care plans for three of 29 sampled residents when care plans for: 1. b...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement individualized, resident-centered care plans for three of 29 sampled residents when care plans for: 1. bilateral upper side rails for Resident 6 were not followed, 2. risk for fall/further falls (to provide floor mat and keep bed in lowest position) was not followed for Resident 66, 3. skin discoloration was not developed for Resident 107. The failure to developed and/or follow care plans had the potential unmet care needs for residents. Findings: 1. During an observation with the director of nursing (DON), on 2/14/23 at 10:09 a.m., Resident 6 was in bed with bilateral side rails placed on the middle part of the bed. During a concurrent interview and record review, the DON verified the observation and confirmed a physician's order, dated 12/5/22, indicated, . may have 1/4 bilateral upper side rails up when in bed to assist resident on bed mobility . The DON confirmed Resident 6's care plan for multiple falls, dated 2/3/23, included bilateral upper side rails up for bed mobility, repositioning, and transfers. The DON stated the care plan and the physician's order were not followed. 2. Review of Resident 66's care plan for Risk of fall /further falls due to Left lower limb cellulitis, hemiparesis ( weakness on one side if the body)/hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body), contracture (a condition of shortening and hardening of muscles, tendons, or other tissue, often leading to deformity and rigidity of joints) of the left and right knees, dated 2/11/21, indicated interventions to keep bed in lowest position when in bed to lessen impact of fall, and landing mat on floor to reduce impact of fall. During an observation, on 2/7/23 at 2:19 p.m., with certified nursing assistant Q (CNA Q), CNA Q verified that, while Resident 66 was in his bed awake, the bed was not in its lowest position and there was no landing pad (floor mat) on the floor. During an observation, on 2/9/23 at 10:37 a.m., with certified nursing assistant BB (CNA BB), CNA BB verified Resident 66's bed was not in its lowest position and there was no landing pad (floor mat) on the floor. During an interview and concurrent record review with the assistant director of nursing (ADON B), on 2/9/23 at 1:09 p.m., ADON B reviewed Resident 66's risk for fall care plan that and confirmed the care plan was not implemented. 3. During an observation, on 2/8/23 at 10:23 a.m., Resident 107 was noted with multiple skin discolorations. During an interview with certified nursing assistant CC (CNA CC), on 2/8/23 at 10:50 a.m., CNA CC confirmed Resident 107 had skin discolorations on her right arm. During a record review and concurrent interview with the DON, on 2/9/23 at 5:05 p.m., after clinical record reveiw, the DON confirmed Resident 107's skin discoloration was initially identified on 1/31/23, that there was no follow-up assessment completed thereafter, and there was no documented evidence a care plan was developed for it. The DON stated, regarding Resident 107's skin discoloration, that the skin assessment for non-pressure injury should have been completed weekly, and a care plan should have been developed for it. Review of the policy and procedure Comprehensive Person-Centered Care Plans, revised December 2016, indicated a person-centered care plan is developed and implemented for each resident with interventions derived from a thorough analysis of the information gathered as part of the comprehensive assessment; assessments of resident are on-going and care plans are revised as information about the residents' condition change.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident 59's admission RECORD, dated February 10, 2023, indicated, Resident 59 was admitted with diagnoses includi...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident 59's admission RECORD, dated February 10, 2023, indicated, Resident 59 was admitted with diagnoses including metabolic encephalopathy (a problem in the brain cause by a chemical imbalance in the blood), and Alzheimer's disease (a progressive disease beginning with mild memory loss and possibly leading to loss of the ability to carry on a conversation and respond to the environment). Review of Resident 59's Order Listing Report, dated February 10, 2023, indicated, May have ¼ bilateral (both) upper side rails up when in bed to assist resident in bed mobility every shift. Review of Resident 59's care plan titled, LONG TERM: Resident 59 is at risk for falls/further falls, multiple falls, minor and major injuries ., dated 7/28/2021, indicated, May have ¼ bilateral upper side rails up when in bed to assist resident in bed mobility, repositioning, and transfers as ordered. Review of Resident 59's care plan titled, Resident 59 has an impaired physical functioning ADL (activities of daily living, such as bed mobility, transfer, toileting, eating, or dressing) self care deficit .May have ¼ bilateral upper side rails up when in bed to assist resident in bed mobility. During an observation, on 2/6/2023 at 9:41 a.m., Resident 59 laid in bed, asleep, with bed rails raised up at the middle of the bed. During multiple observations, on 2/7/2023 at 1:10 p.m., 2/8/2023 at 10:15 a.m., and 2/9/2023 at 8:45 a.m., Resident 59 laid in bed with bed rails raised up in at the middle of the bed. During a concurrent observation of Resident 59's bed rails and interview with the licensed vocational nurse A (LVN A), on 2/9/2023 at 1:20 p.m., Resident 59 ate with both bed rails raised up at the middle of the bed. During a concurrent observation and interview with the assistant director of nursing A (ADON A) on 2/9/2023 at 1: 20 p.m., she stated they used the side rails to help resident with bed mobility and transfers. ADON A confirmed the side rails were fixed to the bed in the middle. During an observation in Resident 59's room, on 2/9/2023 at 1:26 p.m., two maintenance staff released both bed rails from the middle of the bed and lifted them up to the upper part of the bed. During an interview with the certified nursing assistant GG (CNA GG), on 2/10/2023 at 8:33 a.m., she stated when Resident 59's bed rails were up at the middle of the bed, Resident 59 was unable to transfer. Certified nursing assistant GG stated when Resident 59's bed rail was moved to the upper part of the bed, she was able to transfer. During a concurrent interview and record review with the director of nursing (DON), on 2/10/2023 at 1:30 p.m., the DON reviewed Resident 59's physician order and care plan related to the use of bed rails. The DON confirmed that having bedrails up at the middle of the bed was not what was ordered and care planned for Resident 59. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure care and services were provided in accordance with professional standards of practice for three sampled residents (Residents 59, 90, and 122) when: 1. For Resident 90, there was no documentation or monitoring of the cardiac defibrillator. 2. For Resident 59, licensed nurses did not follow the physician's order and care plan to use the bed's ¼ bilateral upper side rails up. 3. For Resident 122, licensed nurses did not follow the physician's order to administer the medication Niacin (B vitamin that's made and used by the body to turn food into energy) with meals. These failures had the potential to compromise the resident's health and well-being. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 90's clinical record indicated he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including presence of automatic (implantable) cardiac defibrillator (small battery-powered device placed in the chest to detect and stop irregular heartbeats), obesity, end stage renal disease (kidney failure, kidneys no longer function to meet the body's needs), dependence on renal dialysis (dialysis: a procedure in which a machine filters wastes and fluid from the blood), and congestive heart failure (condition when the heart cannot pump and fill adequately) Review of Resident 90's admission Skin Assessment, dated 7/19/22, included a diagram of the front and back of the human body. The diagram did not identify the presence of Resident 90's implanted cardiac defibrillator of his upper left chest. Review of Resident 90's clinical record indicated there was no documentation of the defibrillator's manufacturer, model number, date of implant, or the cardiologists address and telephone number. There were no physician orders to monitor Resident 90's defibrillator or observe for signs and symptoms of defibrillator failure. There was no care plan for Resident 90's implanted cardiac defibrillator. During an interview and concurrent record review with the assistant director of nursing B (ADON B), on 2/9/23 at 3:15 p.m., she confirmed Resident 90's diagnosis of the presence of automatic (implanted) cardiac defibrillator. She confirmed Resident 90's clinical records did not contain the defibrillator's manufacturer, model number, date of implant, or the cardiologists address and telephone number. The ADON B stated the information should be recorded in Resident 90's clinical record. The ADON B confirmed there were no physician orders to monitor the defibrillator or observe for signs and symptoms of defibrillator failure. The ADON B stated nursing staff should monitor residents every shift for signs and symptoms of defibrillator malfunction. The ADON B confirmed there was no care plan for Resident 90's implanted cardiac defibrillator and stated a care plan should be developed and implemented for residents with defibrillators. A review of the facility's policy Care of a Resident with Pacemaker, revised December 2015, indicated to monitor the resident for pacemaker failure by monitoring for signs and symptoms of bradyarrhythmias (slow heart rate) which include syncope (fainting), shortness of breath, dizziness, fatigue and confusion. The policy further indicated for each resident with a pacemaker, to document the following in the medical record: the name, address and telephone number of the cardiologist; Type of pacemaker; Type of leads; manufacturer and model; serial number; Date of implant; and Paced rate. A review of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services' National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute website, www.nhlbi.nih.gov, indicated a pacemaker can stop working properly over time because the wires get dislodged or broken, the battery gets weak or fails, the heart disease progresses, and other devices have disrupted its electrical signaling. 3. Review of Resident 122's facesheet indicated he was admitted on [DATE]. His brief interview for mental status (BIMS, an assessment tool for cognition), dated 11/17/22, indicated a score of 15 (intact cognition). During the initial tour on 2/7/23 at 2:29 p.m., Resident 122 verbalized, I'm concerned about my medication, it's not given as it is supposed to be . my Niacin is given when I don't have anything in my stomach . this medicine makes my stomach upset. Resident 122 stated he was feeling unhappy because of his concerns regarding his medication, niacin, were not addressed. Resident 122 stated he mentioned his concern about the administration time for niacin to his nurses, but nothing changed. During a record review and concurrent interview, on 2/9/23 at 1:02 p.m., licensed vocational nurse X (LVN X) reviewed Resident 122's physician's order for niacin and confirmed this medication had not been given with meals. LVN X also confirmed the medication administration record (MAR) indicated niacin was given at 6:17 a.m. and 11:12 a.m that day. During an interview with the assistant director of nursing B (ADON B), on 2/9/23 at 1:15 p.m., the ADON B reviewed Resident 122's physician's order sheet (POS), dated 5/30/22, which indicated Niacin 500 mg. (milligrams, unit of measurement) one tablet three times a day with meals. ADON B, along with the other certified nursing assistants (CNAs ) at the nurses station stated breakfast was usually distributed around 8:00 a.m. and lunch at 1:00 p.m ADON B stated, if the medication was not given with meals, then the physician's order was not followed. Review of the facility's May 2019 revised policy and procedure Competency of Nursing Staff indicated competency in skills and techniques necessary to care for residents' needs includes but not limited to competency in areas such as carrying out physician's ordered. According to the Lexicomp (drug information website), Niacin should be taken with meals. The Warnings/Precautions, concerns related to adverse effects include: May cause GI (gastrointestinal) distress, vomiting, diarrhea, or aggravate peptic ulcer; GI distress may be attenuated with a gradual increase in dose and administration with food. Use is contraindicated in patients with active peptic ulcer disease; use with caution in patients with a past history of peptic ulcer. Consider discontinuation if unexplained abdominal pain/weight loss or other GI symptoms occur during therapy . (http://online.[NAME].com/lco/action/doc/retrieve/docid/patch_f/7598#f_adverse-reactions).
CONCERN (D)

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

Incontinence Care (Tag F0690)

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 appropriate care and services for a suprapubi...

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 appropriate care and services for a suprapubic catheter (SPC, a type of catheter that is inserted through a hole in an abdomen [tummy] directly to the bladder [the organ that stores urine] and left in place) when (1) Resident 93's SPC site was unclean and (2) the urinary drainage bag was not changed as ordered. This failure in care had the potential for the patient to develop a urinary tract infection (UTI, an infection caused by a bacteria (germs) that get into the bladder or kidneys (a pair of organs that are on either side of the spine, just below the rib cage of a person's back). Findings: 1. Review of Resident 93's hospital DISCHARGE SUMMARY, dated 1/18/2022, indicated Resident 93 had diagnoses including UTI, chronic (persisting for a long time or constantly recurring) paraplegia (paralysis of the lower half of the body) and neurogenic bladder (a urinary condition when people lack bladder control due to a brain and/o nerve problem) with a history of chronic suprapubic catheter placement. During a concurrent wound treatment observation and interview with the licensed vocational nurse L (LVN L), on 2/8/2023 at 2:04 p.m., Resident 93's suprapubic site was open to air, with dried crusty brown, black, and [NAME] matter. The LVN L stated there was no treatment order for the suprapubic site. During a concurrent interview and record review with the assistant director of nursing A (ADON A), on 2/9/2023 at 9:00 a.m., she reviewed Resident 93's physician's orders and confirmed there was no treatment order for the suprapubic site until 2/8/2023. Review of Resident 93's physician order sheet, dated 2/9/2023, indicated, Cleanse suprapubic site with NS (normal saline), then pat dry, apply dry dressing QD (every day) and PRN (pro re nata, which means as needed) every day shift, with date ordered on 9/16/2022. Review of the medication administration record (MAR, a record of medications given and task completed), for February 2023, indicated, Observe for s/s (signs and symptoms) of infxn (infection) & complic. (complications) r/t (related to) SP cath (suprapubic catheter): 0.None .8 encrustation (a crust or hard coating on the surface of something) .on the cath (catheter) site .every shift FOR EARLY DETECTION OF POSSIBLE INFECTION FOR USE OF SUPRAPUBIC CATHETER, start date was 9/16/2022. Further review of MAR indicated, all nurses in all three shifts (Days, Evenings and Nights) coded 0 for encrustation, from 2/1/2023 to 2/8/2023. Review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Suprapubic Catheter Care, revised October 2010, indicated, The purpose of this procedure is to prevent skin irritation around the stoma (a surgically created opening from an area inside the body to the outside) site and to prevent infection of the resident's urinary tract (organs that make urine and remove it from the body). 2. During a concurrent treatment observation and interview with LVN L, on 2/8/2023 at 2:04 p.m., Resident 93's SPC was connected to a tubing leading down to a urinary drainage bag. The tubing of the urinary drainage bag contained whitish and yellowish matter. LVN L stated, they changed the urinary drainage bag with the tubing every month. During a concurrent observation of Resident 93's urinary drainage bag tubing and interview with licensed vocational nurse P (LVN P), on 2/9/2023 at 8:55 a.m., the urinary drainage bag's tubing still whitish and yellowish matter; however, some yellow areas were of a darker tinge. LVN P stated, they changed the urinary drainage bag every month and as needed. LVN P stated, . if there are some sediments and cloudiness in the tubing, it needed to be changed. LVN P stated Resident 93's urinary drainage bag's tubing needed to be changed. During another concurrent observation of Resident 93's urinary drainage bag's tubing and interview with the ADON A, on 2/9/2023 at 9:00 a.m., she stated, . it needs to be changed right away. ADON A confirmed, the importance of monitoring and following the physician's orders for the care of a resident's suprapubic catheter due to the risk of infection. Review of Resident 93's physician orders, dated 2/9/2023, indicated, Change Suprapubic catheter drainage bag every month & PRN (pro re nata, which means as needed) every evening shift every 30 day(s). The original dated of this physician's order was 9/16/2022. Review of Resident 93's MAR for the month of February 2023, indicated, Observe for s/s (signs and symptoms) of infxn (infection) & complic.(complications) r/t (related to) SP cath (suprapubic catheter): 0. None .7. Excessive sediments in the SP tubing/drainage bag .every shift FOR EARLY DETECTION OF POSSIBLE INFECTION FOR USE OF SUPRAPUBIC CATHETER . This MAR also indicated all nurses in all three shifts coded 0 for number seven, from 2/1/2023 to 2/8/2023. Further review of the MAR indicated the last SP catheter urinary drainage bag changed was on 1/14/2023. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Catheter Care, Urinary, date revised September 2014, indicated, 1. Changing .drainage bags at routine, fixed intervals is not recommended. Rather, it is suggested to change catheters and drainage bags based on clinical indications such as infection, obstruction, or when closed system is compromised.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident 90's clinical record indicated he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident 90's clinical record indicated he was admitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease (kidney failure, kidneys no longer function to meet the body's needs), dependance on renal dialysis (dialysis: a procedure in which a machine filters wastes and fluid from the blood), congestive heart failure (condition when the heart cannot pump and fill adequately), and obesity. Resident 90 was scheduled for dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, Friday, and Saturday. Resident 90's had an arteriovenous fistula (AVF, surgically created connection between an artery and vein to allow dialysis to occur) in his left forearm. Review of Resident 90's physician order, dated 2/9/23, indicated to monitor dialysis access site LFA (left forearm) QS (every shift) for S&S (signs and symptoms) of infection, bleeding, redness, pain, swelling, discharge (notify MD immediately if noted). There were no physician orders in Resident 90's clinical record to monitor dialysis access site for bruit (an audible vascular sound associated with turbulent blood flow) and thrill (vibration caused by blood flowing). During an interview and concurrent record review with assistant director of nursing B (ADON B), on 2/9/23 at 3:15 p.m., she indicated nursing staff monitor Resident 90's AVF for bruit and thrill on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturday's before and after dialysis. When asked if the nursing staff check for bruit and thrill on non-dialysis days, the ADON B stated there was no documentation that nursing staff checked bruit and thrill on Tuesdays, Thursdays or Sundays for Resident 90. The ADON B stated nursing staff should check bruit and thrill every shift, every day to assess the AVF. Review of the facility' s policy Hemodialysis access Care, revised September 2021, indicated Care of AVF's . h. Check the patency of the site at regular intervals. Palpate the site to feel the thrill, or use a stethoscope to hear the whoosh or bruit of blood flow through the access. Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure: 1. adequate communications with the dialysis center for one of three residents (Resident 9), when the communication form sections which are to be filled out by the facility and dialysis center were not completed on numerous forms; and, 2. proper assessment of dialysis access site as performed every shift for one of three residents (Resident 90). These failures had the potential of residents having a negative health outcome. Findings: 1. Resident 9 was admitted with diagnoses which included Type 2 diabetes, end stage renal disease, and dependence on renal dialysis. During a review of Resident 9's dialysis communications forms for 12/2022 through 2/4/2023, the forms indicated some sections, for either the dialysis center or the receiving nurse at the facility, were not filled out properly: For December 2022, of the eight forms, six had not been filled out by the receiving nurse and one by the dialysis center. On the back, eight of the 16 skin assessment sections had not been filled out. For January 2023, of the eight forms, seven were not filled out by the receiving nurse and two were not filled out by the dialysis center. On the back, five of the 14 skin assessment sections were not filled out. For the February 2023, there were two forms for when Resident 9 went to dialysis; and, neither of the two sections of these two forms had been filled out on the front by the receiving nurse, and one had not been filled out by the dialysis center. On the back, two of the four skin assessment sections had not been filled out. During an interview on, 2/10/23 at 9:14 a.m. with RN AA, she stated the top section gets filled out by the facility nurse before Resident 9 goes to dialysis. The second section is filled out by the dialysis center, and the bottom section is filled out by the facility nurse who receives him from dialysis. On the back, the top section is to assess Resident 9's skin before he goes to the dialysis center and the second section is where the receiving nurse documents the skin assessment upon return. RN AA stated if dialysis does not fill out their section, we have to call them and then fax the form to them. The dialysis center fills out their section and faxes it back. The receiving nurse should check to see if it is filled out. Medical records will also check. Medical records should make sure the form is filled out correctly. If the receiving nurse does not, then medical records should find out who the receiving nurse was, and have them fill it out. The facility did not supply a copy of a policy and procedure which addressed the use of the communication forms.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0740 (Tag F0740)

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 person-centered care and services for one of eight residents...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure person-centered care and services for one of eight residents (Resident 248), when a negative behavior was not care planned or monitored. This failure had the potential of a decline in Resident 248's physical and emotional well-being. Findings: Resident 248 was admitted with diagnoses which included Traumatic subdural hemorrhage, Encephalopathy, Unspecified Psychosis, Cognitive communication deficit, and Unspecified dementia. During an interview, on 2/7/23 at 11:51 a.m., with Resident 248's family member, he stated he wanted staff to focus on Resident 248, since she had taken all of her clothes and taken the blankets off of the bed. During an interview, on 2/9/23 at 1:48 p.m., with registered nurse O (RN O), she stated Resident 248 had behaviors of talking gibberish, coming close to pulling her feeding tube out, and taking her clothes off. During an interview, on 2/9/23 at 2:17 p.m. with RN O, she stated Resident 248 had these behaviors since admission on [DATE]. RN O stated the medication administration Record (MAR, a record of when a medication is given) indicated monitoring for resisting of activities of daily living (ADL, activities related to personal care, like dressing, brushing teeth). RN O stated no other behavior was being monitored. During an interview, on 2/9/23 at 2:44 p.m,. with MDS EE, she stated she did not code Resident 248's behavior on the minimum data set (MDS, an assessment tool), because the behaviors were not documented, so she could not code them. During an interview, on 2/9/23 at 2:50 p.m. with RN O, she stated Resident 248 was started on Seroquel (an anti-psychotic, used to treat certain mood/behavior disorders) which was ordered/started on 1/11/23, this was for resisting of ADLs, not taking her clothes off. During an interview, on 2/10/23 at 8:33 a.m. with physician FF (MD FF), he stated he was aware that Resident 248 had aggressive behavior, screaming, removing lines, resisting ADL care, and was also aware of her taking her clothes off. MD FF stated the Seroquel would help with her resisting ADLs and also her taking her clothes off. Review of Resident 248's physician orders lacked indication for monitoring Resident 248 for taking her clothes off. Also, there was no alert charting documentation that indicated Resident 248 had a behavior of taking her clothes off. Resident 248's orders indicated that Seroquel was ordered for Resident 248 resisting ADL care, not taking her clothes off. A review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) Behavioral Assessment, Intervention, and Monitoring, revised March 2019, indicated,2. Behavioral symptoms will be identified using facility-approved behavioral screening tools and the comprehensive assessment . ASSESSMENT 3. The nursing staff will identify, document, and inform the physician about specific details regarding changes . 7. Interventions will be individualized and part of an overall care environment that supports physical, functional and psychosocial needs . 8. Interventions and approaches will be based on a detailed assessment of physical, psychological, and behavioral symptoms and their underlying causes . The care plan will include . a. A description of the behavioral symptoms . b. Targeted and individualized interventions for the behavioral and/or psychosocial symptoms . D. Specific and measurable goals for targeted behaviors . and how staff will monitor for effectiveness of the interventions. MONITORING 1. If the resident is being treated for altered behavior or mood, the IDT will seek and document any improvements or worsening in the individual's behavior, mood, and function.
CONCERN (D)

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

Drug Regimen Review (Tag F0756)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's consultant pharmacist (CP) failed to identify and report to the facility irregularities in the residents' monthly drug regimen review...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility's consultant pharmacist (CP) failed to identify and report to the facility irregularities in the residents' monthly drug regimen review (DRR) for two of 29 sampled residents (Residents 15 and 32). Undetected medication irregularities had the potential for unsafe medication use and/or residents not achieving highest therapeutic outcomes. Findings; 1. During a medication administration observation on 2/7/23 at 12:31 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse L (LVN L) was observed pricking Resident 15's right ring finger to obtain a blood sample to measure his blood glucose (BG) level. The BG reading was 142 milligrams/deciLiter (mg/dL, unit of measurement; normal BG is less than 100 mg/dL) at this time. LVN L stated Resident 15 needed 6 units of insulin (medication to lower BG) for the BG reading of 142 mg/dL. On 2/7/23 at 12:37 p.m., LVN L was observed administering 6 units of Novolog (a rapid-acting insulin that helps lower mealtime blood sugar spikes) to Resident 15 by injection on his abdomen. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention online publication titled Diabetes Basics, revised 12/30/22, it indicated, Blood sugar levels change often during the day. When they drop below 70 mg/dL, this is called having low blood sugar. At this level, you need to take action to bring it back up. (https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/low-blood-sugar.html; accessed 2/15/23) On 2/7/23, a review of Resident 15's medical record indicated a physician's order, start date of 10/10/22, for Novolog (a rapid-acting insulin that helps lower mealtime blood sugar spikes) 100 units/mL, inject per sliding scale (SS, a set of instructions for administering insulin dosages based on specific BG readings): If [BG reading of] 0 - 150 = 6 UNITS, NOTIFY MD IF BS [blood sugar] <70 AND FOLLOW HYPOGLYCEMIC GUIDELINES . This SS breakdown indicated for the nursing staff to give 6 units of insulin even when the BG was extremely low, such as at 0 mg/dL, or 10 mg/dL. Further review of Resident 15's medication administration record (MAR) indicated the nursing staff had been carrying out this order since 10/10/22. During a concurrent interview and record review with Assistant Director of Nursing A (ADON A) on 2/7/23 at 2:40 p.m., she reviewed the above sliding scale order and stated the nursing staff should have clarified the SS breakdown as they should not administer insulin if BG was below 70 mg/dL but to activate the hypoglycemic guidelines (procedures to manage low BG by assessing the resident for signs and symptoms and implementing interventions to raise the BG). ADON A acknowledged this was an unsafe order as giving insulin, as called for by the order, when the resident's BG is low would be lead to severe adverse outcome for the resident. During a telephone interview with the CP on 2/10/23 at 11:08 a.m., when relaying about Resident 15's SS breakdown order, the CP stated,Is that what the order read? When asked whether she identified and reported to the facility this unsafe SS insulin order as an irregularity in her monthly DRR, the CP stated, No. She confirmed she should have identified it as an irregularity. 2. A review of Resident 32's medical record indicated she was admitted to the facility with diagnoses including Type 2 diabetes (an impairment in the way the body regulates and uses sugar as a fuel). A review of the physician's orders indicated she had been receiving 4 medications to manage this medical condition: three oral medications, glipizide, metformin, Actos; and Lantus (a long acting insulin). The glipizide order, dated 12/23/22, indicated: Glipizide 10 mg [milligrams, unit of measurement], Give 1 tablet by mouth two times daily related to Type 2 diabetes. A review Lexi-comp, a nationally recognized drug information resource, indicated to administer glipizde 30 minutes before a meal (preferably before breakfast if once-daily dosing) to achieve greatest reduction in postprandial hyperglycemia [high blood sugar after meals]. A review of the medication administration record indicated the nursing staff scheduled it to be given daily at 9 a.m., and 5 p.m. A review of the facility's Meal Service Times indicated: breakfast was from 7 a.m. to 8 a.m.; lunch: 12 p.m. to 1 p.m.; and dinner: 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) and the CP via speaker phone, on 2/10/23 at 10:45 a.m., the DON stated breakfast is scheduled at around 7:30 a.m., and dinner is at 5 p.m. The DON and CP verified Resident 32's glipizide was scheduled after breakfast and at around dinner time, and not 30 minutes before meals, as specified by the manufacturer to achieve the best therapeutic outcome for the resident. The CP confirmed she had not identified it as an irregularity in her monthly DRR and stated she should have identified it. A review of the facility's policy and procedures titled Consultant Pharmacist Services Provider Requirement, dated 11/2017, indicated the CP Communicate to the responsible prescriber, the facility's medical director and the director of nursing potential or actual problems detected and other findings related to medication therapy orders . Assist in the identification and evaluation of medication-related issues.
CONCERN (D)

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

Medication Errors (Tag F0758)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 29 sampled residents (Resident 46) was free from unnecessary psychotropic medication (drugs that affects brain activities ass...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 29 sampled residents (Resident 46) was free from unnecessary psychotropic medication (drugs that affects brain activities associated with mental processes and behavior). Resident 46 received Seroquel (generic name quetiapine, an antipsychotic medication to manage mental illnesses) in excessive doses, higher than prescribed, for 2 months. This failure had the potential for the resident to suffer severe adverse effects such as excessive sedation, drowsiness, blurred vision, loss of appetite, urinary retention, low blood pressure, seizure, diabetes, and abnormal involuntary movements. Findings: Resident 46 was admitted to the facility in September 2022 with diagnoses including vascular dementia (a condition characterized by memory loss), aphasia (loss of ability to understand or express speech, caused by brain damage), hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), and cerebral infarction (stroke). A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a care area assessment and screening tool), dated 9/1/22, indicated Resident 46 had a BIMS score of 2 (Brief Interview for Mental Status, is a mandatory tool used to screen and identify the cognitive condition of residents upon admission into a long term care facility. A score of 0 to 7 suggests severe impairment), indicating she had severe cognitive impairment. On 2/8/23, a review of Resident 46's medical record indicated she had a physician's order, dated 9/14/22, for Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours (total 100 mg/day) for vascular dementia with behavior disturbance. A review of the behavior care plan, initiated 9/15/22, indicated the staff to monitor for side effects related to the use of antipsychotic medication (Seroquel) including sedation, drowsiness, blurred vision, loss of appetite, urinary retention, seizure, diabetes, and abnormal involuntary movements. A review of the psychiatric nurse practitioner's (NP's) Patient Visit Information, dated 11/18/22, indicating Resident 46 was receiving quetiapine 50 mg every 12 hours but Patient continues to display agitation and verbal aggression . In the Medication Changes, the NP wrote, Recommend to increase frequency of quetiapine to 50 mg TID [short for three times daily] due to continued angry outbursts, difficult to redirect. A review of a nursing progress notes, dated 11/23/22, indicated, RNP [registered NP] from [company name] here to assess resident with recommendation to increase seroquel to TID . MD [medical doctor] . notified and agreed. Orders noted and carried out. Resident 46's medical record indicated a new physician's order, dated 11/23/22, for Seroquel 50 mg three times daily (total 150 mg/day) for psychosis related to stroke symptoms. However, the previous order of Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours was not discontinued until 1/25/23, a period of two months. A review of Resident 46's November 2022 to January 2023 MARs indicated the nursing staff carried out Seroquel 50 mg TID starting 11/28/22. There were two entries of Seroquel orders on the MAR: one for 50 mg every 12 hours, scheduled at 9 a.m. and 9 p.m.; and one for 50 mg TID, scheduled at 9 a.m., 1 p.m., and 5 p.m. The Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours was discontinued on 1/25/23. Thus, for a period of 59 days from 1/28/22 to 1/25/23, the MARs indicated the nursing staff administered Seroquel 50 mg five times daily (total 250 mg/day; a high dose) following both Seroquel orders. Further review of the above MARs indicated, during this 59-day period, the nursing documented they administered 115 extra doses from the Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours order: 6 times in November 2022 (from 11/28 to 11/30/22), 60 times in December 2022, and 49 times in January 2023 (from 1/1 to 1/25/23). According to Lexi-comp, a nationally recognized drug information resource, it indicated the maximum dose for psychosis associated with dementia was 75 mg twice daily (or 150 mg/day). The resident was receiving 250 mg per day, or 100 mg over this maximum daily dose. On 2/9/23, the pharmacy delivery records for Resident 46's Seroquel, from September 2022 to survey date of 2/9/23, was requested for review. During a concurrent interview and record review with RN AA on 2/10/23 at 8:10 a.m., she reviewed Resident 46's January 2023 MAR and confirmed she documented she administered both Seroquel every 12 hours and Seroquel TID doses, two doses at 9 a.m. and 1 dose at 1 p.m. on 1/3, 1/13, 1/14, 1/16, 1/20, and 1/22/23. When asked whether she should have questioned the duplicate orders and actually administered those doses as documented, RN AA replied, As far as I know, I follow on the eMAR [electronic MAR] what's on the orders. Yes, I thought it was helping keep her level, I know her history she gets hysterical . During a concurrent interview and record review with Licensed Vocational Nurse K (LVN K) on 2/10/23 at 8:23 a.m., LVN K reviewed Resident 46's January 2023 MAR and confirmed she documented she administered both Seroquel every 12 hours and Seroquel TID doses, 5 times per day (both AM and PM shifts), on 1/9, 1/18, 1/19, and 1/21/23. She stated, Yes, if I document then I gave it. During a concurrent interview and record review with the director of nursing (DON) on 2/9/23 at 12:49 p.m., he reviewed Resident 46's electronic health record (eHR) and confirmed Resident 46's Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours order was not discontinued when Seroquel 50 mg TID order was started. He reviewed the resident's November 2022 to January 2023 MARs and stated, They did not dc [discontinue] it [old order] back then. He acknowledged the nursing staff should have clarified the orders when there were duplicate orders on the MARs, and said, I don't know what else to tell you. He verified the above-stated MARs indicated Resident 46 was receiving Seroquel 50 mg 5 times a day during the above-stated period. During a telephone interview with Resident 46's attending physician and Medical Director (MD) on 2/9/23 at 1:44 p.m., he stated he expected the first Seroquel order to be discontinued when the Seroquel TID was ordered. He stated he had never seen any residents given an order for Seroquel to be given 5 times per day. He confirmed he would expect the resident to be on Seroquel three times only after the order was changed on 11/23/22. During a concurrent interview and record review with the DON and the consultant pharmacist (CP) via speaker phone, on 2/10/23 at 10:45 a.m., the CP stated she identified the duplicate Seroquel orders for Resident 46 on 1/25/23, the day the first Seroquel order was discontinued. The CP stated she reviewed the pharmacy delivery records from September 2022 to February 2023 and the corresponding MARs for those months, the number of doses delivered did not match with the number of times documented by the nurses on the MARs. Both the DON and the CP stated they did not know and could not find any information whether the resident came in with her own Seroquel supply in September 2022. The CP stated she could not conclusively say whether the resident did or did not receive Seroquel 5 times per day. A review of the MD's Progress Notes for Resident 46, signed on 2/10/23, the MD wrote, Seroquel dose was increased to 50 mg tid (from 50 mg bid [meaning twice daily]) in 11/2022 as recommended by the psych NP . I was informed that the patient was receiving seroquel 50 mg 5 times per day after the dose was increased by the NP in November. The pharmacist noticed the mistake and corrected the dose to 50 mg tid in January . there has not been any adverse effects or untoward outcome. Continue to monitor. A review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled Administering Medications, revised 4/2019, indicated, If a dosage is believed to be inappropriate or excessive for a resident, or a medication has been identified as having potential adverse consequences for the resident or is suspected of being associated with adverse consequences, the person preparing or administering the medication will contact the prescriber, the resident's Attending Physician or the facility's Medical Director to discuss the concerns. A review of the facility's Antipsychotic Medication Use P&P, revised 12/2016, it indicated, Residents will only receive antipsychotic medications when necessary to treat specific conditions for which they are indicated and effective . All antipsychotic medications will be used within the dosage guidelines .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0813 (Tag F0813)

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 develop and implement a policy to ensure safe and sani...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to develop and implement a policy to ensure safe and sanitary storage, handling, and consumption for the food brought in by family when Resident 139's room had multiple unlabeled open food items. This failure had the potential to limit the resident rights and enjoyment of the food brought in by the family (Cross reference F812). Finding: During an observation and interview, on 2/6/23 at 8:29 a.m., in Resident 139's room, a half full bottle of condensed milk (a sweetened cow's milk product) on the resident's overbed table was without a labeln for its open dates. Resident 139 stated the bottle of condensed milk had been opened for a week and she used it for coffee every day. Review of Resident 139's Face Sheet (a document that gives a resident's information at a quick glance, including contact details and a brief medical history), indicated she was was admitted on [DATE]. Review of Resident 139's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 1/11/23, indicated Resident 139's Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a screening tool for resident's cognitive condition) score was 14, which indicated Resident 139 was cognitively intact. During an interview, on 2/6/23 at 9:07 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant J (CNA J), she stated the bottle of condensed milk was on the overbed table for about four days. During an interview, on 2/6/23 at 12:59 p.m., with Registered Nursing (RN) O, she stated the facility did not have a refrigerator to store resident food and that residents' leftovers were thrown away. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 2/7/23 at 9:03 a.m., with Resident 139 in her room, the bottle of opened condensed milk was still on the resident's overbed table. The back of the opened condensed milk bottle indicated, Refrigerate after opening. Resident 139 stated she had been using the condensed milk for coffee everday. During an interview, on 2/7/23 at 9:13 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse P (LVN P), she stated the facililty did not store food for residents. LVN P stated if a resident could not finish the food brought in by family after two hours, the food would be discarded. During an interview, on 2/7/23 9:16 a.m., with LVN B, she stated she was not sure if they could store leftovers for residents and she had to ask a supervisor. During an interview, on 2/8/23 9:50 a.m., with CNA R, she stated if family brought food to a resident, such as a bottle of milk, resident had to finish it or else the facility would throw it out after two hours [arriving at facility]. CNA R stated the facility did not have a refrigerator to store residents' food, and they did not usually label resident's food because food would be thrown out after two hours [arriving at facility]. During an interview, on 2/7/23 at 9:19 a.m., with the (Registered dietitian) RD, she stated the facility did not want to be responsible for storing or reheating residents' food. The RD sated the facility did not have a refrigerator for residents' food brought in by family. She confirmed Resident 139 condensed milk should be refrigerated per instruction on the bottle and verified there was no date written on the bottle to indicate when it was opened. She stated an open date and resident's name should be on the bottle. She stated the bottle of condensed mily was not properly stored and it would be discarded. A review of facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) Bringing in Food for Residents, revised 6/2020 , indicated, Perishable foods or prepared foods are highly recommended to be served to the residents as soon as possible (within 1 hour of receiving it) to ensure the freshness and to prevent foodborne illness. All food or beverages must be labeled and dated with residents' name upon arrival to monitor for food safety . Any suspicious or obviously contaminated food or beverages will be thrown away immediately. The facility's lacked a P&P and/or guidelines for refrigerated storage of resident's food brought in by family.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with acceptable professional standards of quality for two of 29 sampled residents (Re...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to provide care and services in accordance with acceptable professional standards of quality for two of 29 sampled residents (Resident 15, 46) when: 1. Nursing staff failed to clarify an unsafe insulin order for Resident 15, posing a risk of adverse outcomes such as severely low blood glucose (BG, or blood sugar) for the resident; and 2. Nursing staff failed to identify duplicate orders for Resident 46's Seroquel (generic name: quetiapine, an anti-psychotic medication to treat mental illnesses), resulting in Seroquel given in excess and more than prescribed for two months. Findings: 1. During a medication pass observation on 2/7/23 at 12:31 p.m., Licensed Vocational Nurse L (LVN L) was observed obtaining the BG level by pricking Resident 15's right ring finger. His BG reading was 142 milligrams/deciLiter (mg/dL, unit of measurement; normal BG is less than 100 mg/dL) at this time. LVN L stated Resident 15 needed 6 units of insulin (medication to lower BG) for the BG reading of 142 mg/dL. On 2/7/23 at 12:37 p.m., LVN L was observed drawing up 6 units of Novolog (a rapid-acting insulin that helps lower mealtime blood sugar spikes) from the Novolog vial and administered it to Resident 15 by injection. According to the Center for Disease Control and Prevention online publication titled Diabetes Basics, revised 12/30/22, it indicated, Blood sugar levels change often during the day. When they drop below 70 mg/dL, this is called having low blood sugar. At this level, you need to take action to bring it back up. (https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/basics/low-blood-sugar.html; accessed 2/15/23) On 2/7/23, a review of Resident 15's medical record indicated a physician's order, start date of 10/10/22, for Novolog 100 units/mL, inject per sliding scale (SS, a set of instructions for administering insulin dosages based on specific BG readings): If [BG reading of] 0 - 150 = 6 UNITS, NOTIFY MD IF BS [blood sugar] <70 AND FOLLOW HYPOGLYCEMIC GUIDELINES . This order breakdown indicated for the nursing staff to give 6 units of insulin even when the BG was low, such as at 0 mg/dL, or 10 mg/dL. Further review of Resident 15's medication administration record (MAR) indicated the nursing staff had been carrying out this order since 10/10/22. During a concurrent interview and record review with Assistant Director of Nursing A (ADON A) on 2/7/23 at 2:40 p.m., she reviewed the above sliding scale order and stated the nursing staff should have clarified the SS breakdown order as they should not administer insulin if BG was below 70 mg/dL but to activate the hypoglycemic guidelines (procedures to manage low BG by assessing the resident for signs and symptoms and implementing interventions to raise the BG). ADON A acknowledged this was an unsafe order as giving insulin, as called for by the order, when the resident's BG is low would be lead to severe adverse outcomes for the resident. 2. On 2/8/23, a review of Resident 46's medical record indicated she had a physician's order, dated 9/14/22, for Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours (total 100 mg/day) for vascular dementia (a condition characterized by memory loss) with behavior disturbance. A review of a nursing progress notes, dated 11/23/22, indicated, RNP [registered nurse practitioner] from [company name] here to assess resident with recommendation to increase seroquel to TID [short for three times daily] . MD [medical doctor] . notified and agreed. Orders noted and carried out. A review of Resident 46's medical record indicated a new physician's order, dated 11/23/22, for Seroquel 50 mg three times daily (total 150 mg/day) for psychosis related to stroke symptoms. However, the previous order of Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours was not discontinued until 1/25/23, a period of two months. A review of Resident 46's November 2022 to January 2023 reflected the nursing staff administered the Seroquel five times daily (total 250 mg/day) starting 11/28/22, following the Seroquel every 12 hours (scheduled at 9 a.m. and 9 p.m.) and Seroquel TID orders (scheduled at 9 a.m., 1 p.m., and 5 p.m.). During a concurrent interview and record review with the director of nursing (DON) on 2/9/23 at 12:49 p.m., he reviewed Resident 46's electronic health record (eHR) and confirmed Resident 46's Seroquel 50mg every 12 hours order was not discontinued when Seroquel 50mg TID order was started. He reviewed the resident's November 2022 to February 2023 MARs and stated, They did not dc [discontinue] it [old order] back then. He acknowledged the nursing staff should have clarified the orders when there were duplicate orders on the MARs, and said I don't know what else to tell you. He verified the above-stated MARs indicated Resident 46 was receiving Seroquel 50 mg 5 times a day. A review of the facility's policy and procedures titled Administering Medications, revised 4/2019, indicated, If a dosage is believed to be inappropriate or excessive for a resident, or a medication has been identified as having potential adverse consequences for the resident or is suspected of being associated with adverse consequences, the person preparing or administering the medication will contact the prescriber, the resident's Attending Physician or the facility's Medical Director to discuss the concerns.
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 observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its nursing staff was competent and knowledgeable about the proper disinfection of shared glucometers (blood glucose m...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure its nursing staff was competent and knowledgeable about the proper disinfection of shared glucometers (blood glucose meter to measure and display the amount of sugar [glucose] in your blood) according to the manufacturer's instructions and accepted professional standards of practice. Seven nursing staff in three out of three nursing stations, the director of nursing (DON), and the Infection Preventionist/Director of Staff Development (IP/DSD) did not know about the appropriate disinfectant product to use and/or the allowance of wet time (the amount of time disinfectants need to remain wet on surfaces to properly disinfect) when disinfecting shared glucometers. The failure had the potential for widespread transmission of bloodborne diseases (such as Hepatitis B [a serious liver infection caused by the hepatitis B virus that is most commonly spread by exposure to infected body fluids], Hepatitis C, and HIV [human immunodeficiency virus, is a virus that attacks the body's immune system]) among residents. Findings: During a review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s Letter to Manufacturers of Blood Glucose Monitoring Systems Listed With the FDA, dated 12/27/17, it indicated, The disinfection solvent you choose should be effective against HIV, Hepatitis C, and Hepatitis B virus. Outbreak episodes have been largely due to transmission of Hepatitis B and C viruses. However, of the two, Hepatitis B virus is the most difficult to kill. Please note that 70% ethanol solutions are not effective against viral bloodborne pathogens. (https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/in-vitro-diagnostics/letter-manufacturers-blood-glucose-monitoring-systems-listed-fda; accessed 2/13/23) According to the online publication titled Infection Prevention during Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Administration by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), dated 3/2/2011, it indicated, An underappreciated risk of blood glucose testing is the opportunity for exposure to bloodborne viruses (HBV [hepatitis B virus], hepatitis C virus, and HIV) through contaminated equipment and supplies if devices used for testing and/or insulin administration (e.g., blood glucose meters, fingerstick devices, insulin pens) are shared. Outbreaks of hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection associated with blood glucose monitoring have been identified with increasing regularity, particularly in long-term care settings . Whenever possible, blood glucose meters should be assigned to an individual person and not be shared. If blood glucose meters must be shared, the device should be cleaned and disinfected after every use, per manufacturer's instructions, to prevent carry-over of blood and infectious agents. (https://www.cdc.gov/injectionsafety/blood-glucose-monitoring.html; accessed 2/15/23) During a review of the manufacturer's instructions for cleaning and disinfecting of the Assure Platinum glucometer, provided by the facility, it indicated, The meter [glucometer] should be cleaned and disinfected after use on each patient . our testing confirmed the wipes listed will not damage the functionality or performance of the meter .[manufacturer] recommends using these wipes to clean and disinfect the [glucometer]: Clorox Healthcare Bleach Germicidal Wipes, Dispatch Hospital Cleaner Disinfectant Towels, Super Sani-Cloth Germicidal Disposable Wipes, CaviWipes . please read the manufacturers' instructions before using their wipes on the meter. The manufacturer's instructions indicated, To disinfect nonfood contact surfaces . thoroughly wet surface . allow treated surface to remain wet for a full two (2) minutes . a) During a medication administration observation on 2/6/23 at 8:36 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse A (LVN A), a registry nurse, at Station 2, LVN A completed a blood sugar (BS) check on Resident 25 with a shared glucometer. She placed the glucometer on the top of the medication cart without cleaning or disinfecting it. At 8:49 a.m., LVN A prepared medications for Resident 9 and brought the unclean glucometer (same one used for Resident 25) to Resident 9's bedside. After the medications were given to Resident 9, LVN A was asked by a surveyor to exit Resident 9's room before completion of the BS check. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/6/23 at 8:53 a.m., with LVN A, when asked by a surveyor how the shared glucometer was disinfected between Resident 25 and Resident 9, LVN A stated she used the alcohol wipes. LVN A stated she did not know the facility's procedure for glucometer disinfection. LVN A was observed as she reached for the Lysol wipes (a common household disinfecting wipe typically found at grocery stores) in the medication cart and wiped the glucometer with a Lysol wipe. LVN A stated she needed to ask a supervisor about the glucometer disinfection procedure because she did not know. After a few minutes, LVN A returned to the medication cart and stated, They [supervisor] said Lysol wipe is ok. At 9:08 a.m., LVN A completed the BS check for Resident 9 with the shared glucometer. b) During an interview on 2/6/23 at 9:45 a.m., with LVN B, at Station 3, when asked about the glucometer disinfection method, LVN B stated she used alcohol wipes to clean and disinfect it, and the wet time should be three minutes. She stated the glucometers were shared among residents. During an interview on 2/6/23 at 10:35 a.m., with LVN C (a registry nurse), at Station 1, LVN C was asked about the glucometer disinfection method, LVN C stated she used Lysol wipes to clean and disinfect it. During an interview on 2/6/23 at 4:05 p.m., with LVN E, at Station 2, LVN E stated the glucometer had been used for all residents in the nursing station and alcohol wipes had been used to clean the glucometer between residents. LVN E stated she did not know the wet time. During an interview on 2/6/23 at 5:01 p.m., with RN D, at Station 1, when asked by a surveyor about the facility's glucometer disinfection method, RN D stated, he used Lysol wipe with a two-minute wet time. RN D stated he did not remember when an in-service about glucometer disinfection was provided but he remembered there was one. During a concurrent observation and interview on 2/6/23 at 5:05 p.m., with LVN E, at Station 1, LVN E was observed using alcohol wipes to clean a glucometer after a BS check had been completed. LVN E placed the glucometer inside the medication cart after it had been wiped with alcohol. When asked by a surveyor how to disinfect shared glucometers, LVN E stated she had used alcohol, or would use Lysol, or whatever was available in the cart. When asked about the wet time, LVN E stated, It dries by itself. During an interview on 2/6/23 at 5:11 p.m., with LVN F, at Station 2, when asked by a surveyor about the facility's glucometer disinfection method, LVN F stated she used alcohol wipes, then dried it with a tissue, and stated it could take 5 to 10 minutes to dry. LVN F stated an in-service on glucometer cleaning was provided in 2022. During an interview on 2/6/23 at 5:14 a.m. with LVN G (a registry nurse), at Station 3, LVN G stated it was her first day working in the facility, and she had not completed a BS test yet but had to do one later. When asked how to clean and disinfect the glucometer, LVN G stated she will use alcohol swabs to clean the glucometer. LVN G showed a small basket which contained the glucometer and the alcohol swabs. LVN G stated no in-service was given regarding glucometer disinfection upon orientation. c) During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/6/23 at 4:09 p.m., with the IP/DSD, the IP/DSD reviewed the facility's binder that contained documentation of nursing staff in-services/training completed between January 2021 to February 2023. The IP/DSD confirmed there were no in-services/training or competencies completed by licensed nurses regarding the facility's procedure for cleaning and disinfecting shared glucometers. During an interview on 2/6/23 at 5:22 p.m., with the IP/DSD, the IP/DSD stated there were no in-services since 2021. When asked by a surveyor how staff cleaned and disinfected glucometers, the IP/DSD stated, with the Lysol yellow [package] or purple [top] disinfectant wipes. The IP/DSD stated, We tell the staff to use Lysol disinfectant. The IP/DSD stated alcohol is not an antiviral or disinfectant and should not be used. The IP/DSD was asked by a surveyor if Lysol kills hepatitis or HIV, the IP/DSD reviewed the Lysol package instructions and stated, No, it doesn't. The IP/DSD stated she did not know what the glucometer manufacturer recommended to use for disinfection. The IP/DSD stated she was not aware that the nursing staff used alcohol to disinfect the glucometers. She said glucometer disinfection instructions were not part of the orientation for registry nursing staff. During a review the product labeling for the Lysol disinfectant wipes, provided by the facility, it indicated, Kills Salmonella [a bacteria that can cause an infection in the intestinal tract through contaminated water or food], Influenza A Virus (H1N1) [a virus that causes an infection of the nose, throat and lungs], Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 [a virus that causes herpes infection], Staphylococcus aureus [a bacteria found on human skin], Escherichia coli [E.Coli, a bacteria that is commonly found in the lower intestine] and Respiratory Syncytial Virus [RSV, a common respiratory virus that causes cold-like symptoms] on hard, non-porous surfaces in 4 minutes . To Disinfect: Allow [surface] to remain wet for 4 minutes. Allow surface to air dry . The Lysol disinfectant wipes did not contain a disinfectant that would protect against bloodborne infectious diseases such as Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, or HIV. d) During an interview on 2/7/23 at 9:44 a.m., with the DON and IP/DSD, in the presence of the Administrator and the AIT, the DON and IP/DSD were asked to explain the wet time during glucometer disinfection and to describe how nurses would maintain wet time. The IP/DSD stated they will wipe [the glucometer] and let it dry for two minutes. The DON stated, they wipe [the glucometer] with solution, then leave to dry. When asked by a surveyor, How does the glucometer stay wet?, the IP/DSD reviewed and read the manufacturer instructions on the Super Sani-Cloth (disposable disinfection wipes for hard surfaces and medical devices) disinfectant wipe container out loud, Allow surface to remain wet for two minutes. The DON stated, We will repeat the in-service [for glucometer disinfection].
CONCERN (E)

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

Pharmacy Services (Tag F0755)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure controlled medications (those with high potential for abuse and addiction) were fully accounted when: 1. Four of four controlled dru...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure controlled medications (those with high potential for abuse and addiction) were fully accounted when: 1. Four of four controlled drug sign-in/sign out sheets (a sheet used to reconcile inventory of controlled medications in the medication cart) by the incoming and outgoing nurses during a shift change were missing signatures; 2. Random as-needed controlled medication use audits for three of five sampled residents (Residents 13, 14, and 139) did not reconcile. The medications were signed out of the controlled drugs accountability sheet (Count Sheet, an inventory sheet that keeps record of the usage of controlled medications), but not documented on the Medication Administration Records (MAR) to indicate they were given to the residents. These failures had the potential for misuse or diversion (the illegal distribution or abuse of prescription drugs or their use for purposes not intended by the prescriber) and inaccurate accountability of controlled medications. Findings: 1. Four controlled drug sign-in/sign out sheets from random medication carts were reviewed during the survey. a) On 2/6/23, at 9:45 a.m., a review of the January 2023 and February 2023 controlled drug sign-in/sign-out sheets for Medication Cart 3B was conducted with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN B). The review identified 25 missing initials between 1/1/23 to 1/31/23 and 3 missing initials between 2/1/23 to 2/6/23. LVN B acknowledged the sheets were incomplete. b) On 2/6/23, at 10:35 a.m., a review of the January 2023 and February 2023 controlled drug sign-in/sign-out sheets for Medication Cart 1B was conducted with LVN C. The review identified 43 missing initials between 1/1/23 to 1/31/23 and 6 missing initials between 2/1/23 to 2/6/23. LVN C acknowledged the sheets were incomplete. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/10/23, at 11:17 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated each nurse had been expected to verify the correct [controlled drug] counts at each change of shift every time and both nurses (the incoming and outgoing nurse) were expected to initial the sheet. The DON reviewed the controlled drug sign-in/sign-out sheets for January 2023 and February 2023 for Medication Carts 1B and 3B and verified they were missing initials. The DON stated, Will re [repeat]-in-service nurses on the process and will audit all count verification sheets. A review of facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled Controlled Substances, revised April 2019, indicated, Controlled substances are reconciled upon receipt, administration, disposition, and at the end of each shift. 2. The controlled medication Count Sheets for five random residents receiving as-needed controlled medications were requested for review during the survey. a. Resident 13 had a physician's order for lorazepam (a controlled medication for anxiety) give 1 milligrams (mg, unit of measurement) by mouth every 8 hours as needed for anxiety, start date 12/27/22. During a concurrent interview and record review on 2/8/23, at 4:21 p.m., with the DON, a review of Resident 13's Count Sheet for Lorazepam and the 1/2023 and 2/2023 MARs reflected the nursing staff removed 1 tablet on 1/25/23 at 1:50p.m., on 1/27/23 at 5:42 a.m., 1/31/23 at 10:30 a.m., and on 2/2/23 at 10:30 a.m. from the medication cart and documented on the Count Sheet without documenting the respective administration on the MAR. The DON validated the missing documentation. b. Resident 139 had a physician's order for Norco (hydrocodone-acetaminophen, a controlled medication for pain) tablet 5-325mg, give 1 tablet by mouth every 6 hours as needed for moderate to severe pain, start date 1/4/23. During a concurrent interview and record review with the DON on 2/8/23, at 4:29 p.m., a review of Resident 139's Count Sheet for Norco and the 2/2023 MAR reflected the nursing staff removed 1 tablet on 2/3/23 at 4:07 a.m. from the medication cart and documented on the Count Sheet without documenting the administration on the MAR. The DON validated the missing documentation. c. Resident 14 had a physician's order for Dilaudid (hydromorphone, a controlled medication for pain) tablet 8 mg, give 1 tablet by mouth every 8 hours as needed for severe pain, start date 9/22/22. During a concurrent interview and record review with the DON on 2/8/23 at 4:33 p.m., a review of Resident 139's Count Sheet for Dilaudid and the 12/2022 and 1/2023 MARs reflected the nursing staff removed 1 tablet on 12/29/22 at 7:40 a.m., 12/30/22 at 8:00 a.m., 1/1/23 at 8:00 a.m., 1/2/23 at 8:00 a.m., 1/2/23 at 10:00 p.m., 1/23/23 at 9:00 a.m., 1/24/23 at 12:44 a.m., and 1/28/23 at 9:00 p.m. from the medication cart and documented on the Count Sheet without documenting the respective administration on the MAR. The DON validated the missing documentation. The DON stated, I will look for documentation elsewhere in the chart, it should be on the MAR, sometimes they get busy and forget. During a follow-up interview with the DON on 2/9/23, at 12:47 p.m., he stated he could not locate documentation for the missing documentation of controlled medications for Residents 13, 14, and 139. A review of facility's P&P titled Administering Medications, revised April 2019, indicated, The individual administering the medication initials the resident's MAR on the appropriate line after giving each medication and before administering the next dose. A review of facility's P&P titled Controlled Substances, revised April 2019, indicated, Upon administration: The nurse administering the medication is responsible for recording . Name of resident receiving the medication; name, strength and dose of the medication; time of administration; method of administration .
CONCERN (E)

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

Unnecessary Medications (Tag F0759)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility medication error rate did not exc...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure the facility medication error rate did not exceed five percent or greater when observation of 25 opportunities during the medication pass resulted in three errors. The calculated medication error rate was 12 percent. These failures placed Residents 9 and 25 at risk for not receiving the full therapeutic effects of medications when medications were not given according to the physician's orders and/or the manufacturer's specifications. Findings: 1. During a medication administration observation on [DATE], at 8:36 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN A), she was observed drawing 5 units of Admelog (fast-acting insulin, medication to lower blood sugar level) from the Admelog vial stored in the medication cart. At the resident's bedside, she injected the insulin in the resident's right upper arm. A review of the Admelog vial with LVN A shortly after the medication administration revealed it had a small sticker indicating it was opened on [DATE]. The pharmacy auxiliary label (a label added on to a dispensed medication package by a pharmacist that displays additional warnings, information, or instructions) indicated to discard the vial 28 days after opened. LVN A verified the Admelog vial was opened on [DATE] and would have expired on [DATE]. A review of the Prescribing Information (PI, detailed description of a drug's uses, dosage range, side effects, drug-drug interactions, and contraindications that is available to clinicians) for Admelog (insulin lispro), dated [DATE], it indicated, In-use (opened) Admelog vials . should be stored at room temperature (below 86°F [30°C]) and must be used within 28 days. On [DATE], a review of Resident 25's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated [DATE], for Admelog Insulin, inject as per sliding scale (a set of instructions for administering insulin dosages based on specific blood glucose readings) three times a day, give within 10-15 minutes before meals. During an interview on [DATE], at 9:15 a.m., with LVN A, she verified breakfast was given to Resident 25 at 7:30 a.m. When asked if Admelog insulin should be given before or after meals, LVN A stated, It should be before meals, [at] 7:30 a.m. 2. During a medication administration observation for Resident 9 on [DATE], at 9:07 a.m., with LVN A, she was observed administering six medications to Resident 9 including 14 units of Humulin N (Insulin NPH, an intermediate-acting insulin) and 10 units of Humulin R (Regular, a short-acting insulin). The two insulin vials were stored in the medication cart, at room temperature. Shortly after the medication administration, a review of the Humulin N and the Humulin R vials with LVN A reflected each had a sticker that indicated they both were opened on [DATE]. The pharmacy auxiliary label that indicated to discard vial 31 days after opened. LVN A acknowledged both insulin vials expired on [DATE]. On [DATE], a review of Resident 9's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated [DATE], for Humulin R Insulin, inject as per sliding scale, before meals. During an interview on [DATE], at 9:15 a.m., with LVN A, she verified breakfast was given to Resident 9 at 7:30 a.m. When asked if Humulin R insulin should be given before or after meals, LVN A stated, I just gave it, but supposed to be at 7:30 a.m., it should be before meals. During a follow-up interview on [DATE], at 12:07 p.m., with LVN A regarding the late administration of insulin for Residents 9 and 25, she stated, I am aware of the effects insulin was given late, blood sugar was high and I gave it still because it is better to give rather than not. I understand it was late, by the time I received endorsement it was already late. A review of the PI for Humulin N (insulin NPH), dated [DATE], it indicated, When stored at room temperature, Humulin N vial can only be used for a total of 31 days including both not in-use (unopened) and in-use (opened) storage time. A review of the PI for Humulin R (Regular, insulin human), dated [DATE], it indicated, When stored at room temperature, Humulin R vial can only be used for a total of 31 days including both not in-use (unopened) and in-use (opened) storage time. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure titled, Administering Medications, dated [DATE], the P&P indicated, Medications are administered in accordance with prescriber's orders, including any required time frame . Medications are administered within one (1) hour of their prescribed time, unless otherwise specified (for example before and after meal orders) . The expiration/beyond use date on the medication label is checked prior to administering.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0760 (Tag F0760)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure two of 29 sampled residents (Residents 9 and 4...

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 29 sampled residents (Residents 9 and 46) and Residents 13, 25, 45, and 250 were free of a significant medication errors when: 1. Five residents (Resident 9, 13, 25, 45, and 250) received insulin past the discard (expiration) date. These failures had the potential for ineffective use of the insulin, resulting in uncontrolled high blood sugar for the residents; and, 2. Resident 46 received excessive doses of Seroquel (generic name quetiapine, an antipsychotic medication to manage mental illnesses) more than prescribed for 2 months. This had the potential for the resident to suffer severe adverse effects such as excessive sedation, drowsiness, blurred vision, loss of appetite, urinary retention, low blood pressure, seizure, diabetes, and abnormal involuntary movements. Findings: 1a. During a medication administration observation on [DATE], at 8:36 a.m., with Licensed Vocational Nurse (LVN A), she was observed drawing 5 units of Admelog (fast-acting insulin, medication to lower blood sugar level) from the Admelog vial stored in the medication cart. At the resident's bedside, she injected the insulin in the resident's right upper arm. A review of the Admelog vial with LVN A shortly after the medication administration revealed it had a small sticker indicating it was opened on [DATE]. The pharmacy auxiliary label (a label added on to a dispensed medication package by a pharmacist that displays additional warnings, information, or instructions) indicated to discard the vial 28 days after opened. LVN A verified the Admelog vial was opened on [DATE] and would have expired on [DATE]. A review of the Prescribing Information (PI, detailed description of a drug's uses, dosage range, side effects, drug-drug interactions, and contraindications that is available to clinicians) for Admelog (insulin lispro), dated [DATE], it indicated, In-use (opened) Admelog vials . should be stored at room temperature (below 86°F [30°C]) and must be used within 28 days. On [DATE], a review of Resident 25's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated [DATE], for Admelog Insulin, inject as per sliding scale (a set of instructions for administering insulin dosages based on specific blood glucose readings) three times a day, give within 10-15 minutes before meals. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE], at 12:07 p.m., with LVN A, she reviewed Resident 25's Medication Administration Records (MAR), dated [DATE] and February 2023. LVN A verified the expired Admelog insulin was administered by nursing staff fifteen (15) times since [DATE]. On [DATE], a review of Resident 25's [DATE] and February 2023 MARs indicated Resident 25 was administered Admelog 28 dosages past the expiration date, from [DATE] to [DATE]. 1b. During a medication administration observation for Resident 9 on [DATE], at 9:07 a.m., with LVN A, she was observed administering six medications to Resident 9 including 14 units of Humulin N (Insulin NPH, an intermediate-acting insulin) and 10 units of Humulin R (Regular, a short-acting insulin). The two insulin vials were stored in the medication cart, at room temperature. Shortly after the medication administration, a review of the Humulin N and the Humulin R vials with LVN A reflected each had a sticker that indicated they both were opened on [DATE]. The pharmacy auxiliary label that indicated to discard vial 31 days after opened. LVN A acknowledged both insulin vials expired on [DATE]. A review of the PI for Humulin N (insulin NPH), dated [DATE], it indicated, When stored at room temperature, Humulin N vial can only be used for a total of 31 days including both not in-use (unopened) and in-use (opened) storage time. A review of the PI for Humulin R (Regular, insulin human), dated [DATE], it indicated, When stored at room temperature, Humulin R vial can only be used for a total of 31 days including both not in-use (unopened) and in-use (opened) storage time. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE], at 12:13 p.m., with LVN A, she reviewed Resident 9's MAR, dated February 2023. LVN A verified the expired Humulin R was administered by nursing staff seven (7) times and the expired Insulin NPH was administered by nursing staff five (5) times since [DATE]. On [DATE], a review of Resident 9's clinical record indicated the following physician's orders: -dated [DATE], for Humulin R, inject as per sliding scale, before meals and at bedtime -dated [DATE], for Insulin NPH, inject 14 units subcutaneously (under the skin) in the morning and 12 units at bedtime every Monday, Wednesday, and Sunday; -dated [DATE], for Insulin NPH, inject 12 units subcutaneously in the morning and 10 units at bedtime every Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday. On [DATE], a review of Resident 9's MAR, dated February 2023, the MAR indicated Resident 9 received 10 doses of Humulin R and 10 doses of Insulin NPH past the expiration date, from [DATE] to [DATE]. 1c. During a medication cart inspection on [DATE], at 9:45 a.m., with LVN B, at Medication Cart 3B, two (2) vials of Admelog that belonged to Resident 45 were observed labeled as opened on [DATE] and [DATE], respectively. Both Admelog vials had a pharmacy auxiliary label that indicated to discard 28 days after opened. LVN B confirmed both the Admelog vials expired on [DATE] and [DATE], respectively. During a concurrent interview and record review on [DATE], at 10:19 a.m., with LVN B, she reviewed Resident 45's MAR, dated February 2023. LVN B verified the expired Admelog was administered by nursing staff twelve (12) times from [DATE] to [DATE]. On [DATE], a review of Resident 45's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated [DATE], for Admelog insulin, inject as per sliding scale before meals and at bedtime. On [DATE], a review of Resident 45's MAR, dated [DATE] and February 2023, the MAR indicated Resident 45 received 67 doses of Admelog past the expiration date, from [DATE] to [DATE]. 1d. During a medication cart inspection on [DATE], at 9:45 a.m., with LVN B, at Medication Cart 3B, Resident 13's Novolog (fast-acting insulin) vial was identified with an open date of [DATE]; the pharmacy auxiliary label indicated to discard it 28 days after opening. LVN B confirmed the Novolog vial would have expired on [DATE]. A review of the PI for Novolog (insulin aspart), dated [DATE], indicated, Opened [In-use] NovoLog vials can be stored in the refrigerator at 36°F to 46°F (2°C to 8°C) or at room temperature below 86°F (30°C) . throw away all opened NovoLog vials after 28 days. During a concurrent interview and record review with LVN B on [DATE], at 10:24 a.m., she reviewed Resident 13's [DATE] and February 2023 MARs and verified the expired Novolog insulin was administered by nursing staff many times since [DATE]. On [DATE], a review of Resident 13's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated [DATE], for Novolog insulin, inject as per sliding scale, before meals. On [DATE], a review of Resident 13's MAR, dated [DATE] and February 2023, the MAR indicated Resident 13 received 59 doses of Novolog past the expiration date, from [DATE] to [DATE]. 1e. During a medication cart inspection on [DATE] at 10:35 a.m., with LVN C, at Medication Cart 1A, Resident 250's Admelog was dated opened on [DATE] with a pharmacy auxiliary label that indicated to discard vial 28 days after opened. LVN C confirmed the Admelog vial would have expired on [DATE]. On [DATE], a review of Resident 250's clinical record indicated a physician's order, dated [DATE], for Admelog Insulin, inject as per sliding scale before meals. On [DATE], a review of Resident 250's February 2023 MAR indicated Resident 250 received 13 doses of Admelog past the expiration date, from [DATE] to [DATE]. During a review of the facility's policy and procedure (P&P) titled, Administering Medications, dated [DATE], the P&P indicated, The expiration/beyond use date on the medication label is checked prior to administering. When opening a multi-dose container, the date opened is recorded on the container. 2. Resident 46 was admitted to the facility in [DATE] with diagnoses including vascular dementia (a condition characterized by memory loss) and hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body), and cerebral infarction (stroke). A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS, a care area assessment and screening tool), dated [DATE], indicated Resident 46 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status, is a mandatory tool used to screen and identify the cognitive condition of residents. A score of 0 to 7 suggests severe impairment) score of 2, indicating she had severe cognitive impairment. On [DATE], a review of Resident 46's medical record indicated she had a physician's order, dated [DATE], for Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours (total 100 mg/day) for vascular dementia with behavior disturbance. A review of the behavior care plan, initiated [DATE], indicated the staff to monitor for side effects related to the use of antipsychotic medication (Seroquel) including sedation, drowsiness, blurred vision, loss of appetite, urinary retention, seizure, diabetes, and abnormal involuntary movements. A review of the psychiatric nurse practitioner's (NP's) Patient Visit Information, dated [DATE], indicated Resident 46 was receiving quetiapine 50 mg every 12 hours. In the Medication Changes, the NP wrote: Recommend to increase frequency of quetiapine to 50 mg TID [short for three times daily] due to continued angry outbursts, difficult to redirect. A review of a nursing progress notes, dated [DATE], indicated, RNP [registered NP] from [company name] here to assess resident with recommendation to increase seroquel to TID . MD [medical doctor] . notified and agreed. Orders noted and carried out. Resident 46's medical record indicated a new physician's order, dated [DATE], for Seroquel 50 mg three times daily (total 150 mg/day) for psychosis related to stroke symptoms. However, the previous order of Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours was not discontinued until [DATE], a period of two months. A review of Resident 46's [DATE] to [DATE] MARs indicated the nursing staff carried out Seroquel 50 mg TID starting [DATE]. There were two entries of Seroquel orders on the MAR: one for 50 mg every 12 hours, scheduled at 9 a.m. and 9 p.m.; and one for 50 mg TID, scheduled at 9 a.m., 1 p.m., and 5 p.m. The Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours was discontinued on [DATE]. Thus, for a period of 59 days from [DATE] to [DATE], the MARs indicated the nursing staff administered Seroquel 50 mg five times daily (total 250 mg/day; a high dose) following both Seroquel orders. Further review of the above MARs indicated, during this 59-day period, the nursing documented they administered 115 extra doses from the Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours order: 6 times in [DATE] (from 11/28 to [DATE]), 60 times in [DATE], and 49 times in [DATE] (from 1/1 to [DATE]). According to Lexi-comp, a nationally recognized drug information resource, it indicated the maximum dose for psychosis associated with dementia was 75 mg twice daily (or 150 mg/day). The resident was receiving 250 mg per day, or 100 mg over this maximum daily dose. On [DATE], the pharmacy delivery records for Resident 46's Seroquel, from [DATE] to survey date of [DATE], was requested for review. During a concurrent interview and record review with RN AA on [DATE] at 8:10 a.m., she reviewed Resident 46's [DATE] MAR and confirmed she documented she administered both Seroquel every 12 hours and Seroquel TID doses, two doses at 9 a.m. and 1 dose at 1 p.m. on 1/3, 1/13, 1/14, 1/16, 1/20, and [DATE]. When asked whether she should have questioned the duplicate orders and actually administered those doses as documented, RN AA replied, As far as I know, I follow on the eMAR [electronic MAR] what's on the orders. Yes, I thought it was helping keep her level, I know her history she gets hysterical . During a concurrent interview and record review with Licensed Vocational Nurse K (LVN K) on [DATE] at 8:23 a.m., LVN K reviewed Resident 46's [DATE] MAR and confirmed she documented she administered both Seroquel every 12 hours and Seroquel TID doses, 5 times per day (both AM and PM shifts), on 1/9, 1/18, 1/19, and [DATE]. She stated, Yes, if I document then I gave it. During a concurrent interview and record review with the director of nursing (DON) on [DATE] at 12:49 p.m., he reviewed Resident 46's electronic health record (eHR) and confirmed Resident 46's Seroquel 50 mg every 12 hours order was not discontinued when Seroquel 50 mg TID order was started. He reviewed the resident's [DATE] to [DATE] MARs and stated, They did not dc [discontinue] it [old order] back then. He acknowledged the nursing staff should have clarified the orders when there were duplicate orders on the MARs, and said, I don't know what else to tell you. He verified the above-stated MARs indicated Resident 46 was receiving Seroquel 50 mg 5 times a day during the above-stated period. During a telephone interview with Resident 46's attending physician and Medical Director (MD) on [DATE] at 1:44 p.m., he stated he expected the first Seroquel order to be discontinued when the Seroquel TID was ordered. He confirmed he would expect the resident to be on Seroquel three times only after the order was changed on [DATE]. During a concurrent interview and record review with the DON and the consultant pharmacist (CP) via speaker phone, on [DATE] at 10:45 a.m., the CP stated she identified the duplicate Seroquel orders for Resident 46 on [DATE], the day the first Seroquel order was discontinued. The CP stated she reviewed the pharmacy delivery records from [DATE] to February 2023 and the corresponding MARs for those months, the number of doses delivered did not match with the number of times documented by the nurses on the MARs. Both the DON and the CP stated they did not know and could not find any information whether the resident came in with her own Seroquel supply in [DATE]. The CP stated she could not conclusively say whether the resident did or did not receive Seroquel 5 times per day. A review of the MD's Progress Notes for Resident 46, signed on [DATE], the MD wrote, Seroquel dose was increased to 50 mg tid (from 50 mg bid [meaning twice daily]) in 11/2022 as recommended by the psych NP . I was informed that the patient was receiving seroquel 50 mg 5 times per day after the dose was increased by the NP in November. The pharmacist noticed the mistake and corrected the dose to 50 mg tid in January. A review of the facility's P&P titled Administering Medications, revised 4/2019, indicated, If a dosage is believed to be inappropriate or excessive for a resident, or a medication has been identified as having potential adverse consequences for the resident or is suspected of being associated with adverse consequences, the person preparing or administering the medication will contact the prescriber, the resident's Attending Physician or the facility's Medical Director to discuss the concerns.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0761 (Tag F0761)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper medication storage and labeling of medications in three of three medication carts inspected and one of two medi...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure proper medication storage and labeling of medications in three of three medication carts inspected and one of two medication rooms inspected when: a) Medication Cart 3B contained eight (8) expired medications, two (2) opened medications without an open date label, and two (2) test strip (thin plastic strips which measures blood sugar levels) vials opened without an open date label; b) Medication Cart 1A contained two (2) expired medications, four (4) opened medications without an open date label, and one (1) test strip vial opened without an open date; c) Medication Cart 2A contained two (2) expired medications and two (2) opened medications without an open date label; d) Station 3 Medication Room contained one (1) expired emergency kit and one (1) opened Aplisol (a solution for skin test to help diagnose tuberculosis infections) vial without an open date. The deficient practices had a potential for residents to receive medications with unsafe and ineffective medications (reduced potency) from being used past their discard (expiration) date and medication errors due to medications not being labeled or removed from active stock. Findings: a) On 2/6/23 at 9:45 a.m., an inspection of Medication Cart 3B with Licensed Vocational Nurse B (LVN B) identified a house supply (use for multiple residents) bottle of calcium chewable tablets (used to prevent or treat low blood calcium levels), which had an expiration date of 10/2022; one expired Novolog (fast-acting insulin, medication to lower blood sugar level) vial dated opened on 12/9/22; two expired Ademlog (fast-acting insulin) vials dated opened on 12/3/22 and 12/7/22 respectively; and four opened and expired latanoprost (used to treat glaucoma) eye drop bottles were . LVN B confirmed the calcium chewable tablets, Novolog vial, two Admelog vials, and four Latanoprost bottles were expired. Also, a medication cup filled with loose pills labeled as MagOx (Magnesium oxide, antacid to relieve heartburn) was identified. LVN B acknowledged the loose pills in the medication cup were not labeled with the medication strength or expiration date. Additionally, two test strip vials were opened but did not have an open date and one insulin glargine (Basaglar, a long-acting insulin) pen was opened but was not labeled with an open date. LVN B acknowledged the two opened test strip vials and the opened Basaglar pen should have been labeled with an open date. A review of the Prescribing Information (PI, detailed description of a drug's uses, dosage range, side effects, drug-drug interactions, and contraindications that is available to clinicians) for Admelog (insulin lispro), dated December 2020, indicated, In-use (opened) Admelog vials . should be stored at room temperature (below 86°F [30°C]) and must be used within 28 days. A review of the PI for Novolog (insulin aspart), dated October 2021, indicated, Opened [In-use] Novolog vials can be stored in the refrigerator at 36°F to 46°F (2°C to 8°C) or at room temperature below 86°F (30°C) . throw away all opened NovoLog vials after 28 days. A review of the PI for Latanoprost drops, dated December 2021, indicated, Once a bottle is opened for use, it may be stored at room temperature up to 25°C (77°F) for 6 weeks. A review of the PI for Basaglar Kwikpen (insulin glargine), dated July 2021, indicated, In-use [opened] Basaglar prefilled pens must be used within 28 days or be discarded. b) On 2/6/23 at 10:35 a.m., an inspection of Medication Cart 1A with LVN C identified a house supply bottle of omega-3 (fatty acids) capsules, which had an expiration date of 7/2022; and one expired Admelog vial dated opened on 1/6/23. LVN C confirmed the medications were expired. One medication inhaler Serevent Diskus (medication for lung disease) inhaler and one Latanoprost eye drop bottle were opened but not labeled with an open date. LVN C verified the inhaler and eye drop bottle were opened and should have been dated. Additionally, one Lantus (a long-acting insulin) pen and one Latanoprost eye drop bottle were unopened but stored at room temperature. LVN C acknowledged room temperature affects the medication. Also, one test strip vial was opened but did not have an open date. LVN C verified the test strips were good for 90 days when opened per vial label. A review of the PI for Serevent Diskus (salmeterol powder), dated February 2022, retrieved indicated, Discard Serevent Diskus 6 weeks after opening the foil pouch or when the counter reads 0 (after all blisters have been used), whichever comes first. A review of the PI for Lantus Solostar (insulin glargine) prefilled pen, dated June 2022, indicated, Unopened [not In-use] (pen) can be stored at room temperature below 86°F (30°C) for 28 days. c) On 2/6/23 at 11:37 a.m., an inspection of Medication Cart 2A with LVN A identified 17 expired Florastor capsules (a probiotic), which had an expiration date of 1/2023. LVN A acknowledged the Florastor capsules were expired. Additionally, an expired medication inhaler Breo Ellipta (an inhaled medication to treat breathing problems) was opened on 11/11/22. LVN A verified the Breo Ellipta was expired 6 weeks after opened. LVN A stated, if used it is bad for health because it is expired. Also, one medication inhaler Trelegy Ellipta (medication for lung disease) was opened and undated. LVN A acknowledged the inhaler was undated. She said, I don't know if it is expired because it is not dated, it is important to know the open date to know if it is expired. One medication inhaler Advair Diskus (medication for lung disease) was opened and undated. LVN A verified there was no open date and stated, we don't know the expiration date. A review of the labeling from the manufacturer for Breo Ellipta and Trelegy Ellipta with LVN A indicated to discard it 6 weeks after opening the foil tray or when the counter reads 0 (after all blisters have been used), whichever comes first. A review of the PI for Advair Diskus (fluticasone and salmeterol powder), dated October 2020, indicated, Discard Advair Diskus 1 month after opening the foil pouch or when the counter reads 0 (after all blisters have been used), whichever comes first. d) On 2/6/23, at 12:21 p.m., an inspection of the medication room at Station 3, with LVN B, identified one expired emergency kit, which had an expiration date of 1/31/23. LVN B acknowledge the emergency kit was expired. Also, one opened Aplisol vial was identified without an open date. LVN B verified the vial was undated and stated it should have been dated with an open date. During an interview on 2/7/23, at 9:44 a.m., with the Director of Nursing (DON), the DON stated we had an in-service and reordered expired insulins. He said opened medications should be labeled with an open date and expiration date. During a telephone interview on 2/10/23, at 10:45 a.m., with the Consultant Pharmacist (CP), she stated, I do random audits of medication carts and medication rooms every other month, if I find something I remove it and let the nurse know. The CP stated she was at the facility on 12/14/22 and completed a random inspection, she removed medications which expired on that day. When asked about the loose MagOx pills stored in the medication cart in a medication cup, the CP said, I don't know why the nurse did that. During a review of the facility's policy and procedures (P&P) titled, Labeling of Medication Containers, dated April 2019, the P&P indicated, Any medication packaging or containers that are inadequately or improperly labeled are returned to the issuing pharmacy . Labels for over-the-counter drugs include all necessary information, such as: The original label indicating the name, strength, and quantity of the medication; The expiration date when applicable; and Directions for use and appropriate accessory/cautionary statements. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Storage of Medications, dated April 2019, the P&P indicated, .outdated, or deteriorated drugs or biologicals are returned to the dispensing pharmacy or destroyed. During a review of the facility's P&P titled, Administering Medications, dated April 2019, the P&P indicated, When opening a multi-dose container, the date opened is recorded on the container.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared, distributed, and se...

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 food was stored, prepared, distributed, and served in accordance with professional standards for food services safety when: 1. Resident 139's opened condensed milk (a sweetened cow's milk product) was not properly labeled and stored in the refrigerator (Cross reference F813), 2. An unlabeled bucket of white powder was in dry storage, 3. Cutting boards with deep cuts with stains, food residuals and and loose plastic particles were found on a clean storage rack, 4. A can opener had black matter on its cutting surface, and 5. A serving scoop storage drawer contained crumbs and orange matter. Theses failures had the potential to harbor the growth of microorganisms that could cause foodborne illness or cross contamination of food (cross contamination occurs when unclean surfaces or serving scoops spread germs to food that may cause foodborne illness) for the residents eating at the facility. Findings: 1. During an observation, on 2/6/23 at 8:29 a.m., in Resident 139's room, a bottle of half full condensed milk was on the resident's overbed table without an open date label. Resident 139 stated the bottle of condensed milk was open for a week. Review of Resident 139's clinical record included a face sheet (a document that gives a resident's information at a quick glance, including contact details and a brief medical history) that indicated Resident 139 was admitted on [DATE]. Resident 139's Minimum Data Set (MDS, a resident assessment tool), dated 1/11/23, indicated, Resident 139 had a Brief Interview for Mental Status (BIMS, a screening tool for resident's cognitive condition) score of 14, which indicated Resident 139 was cognitively intact. During an interview on 2/6/23 at 9:07 a.m., with Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) J, she stated the bottle of condensed milk had been on the overbed table for about four days. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 2/7/23 at 9:03 a.m., with Resident 139 in her room, the bottle of opened condensed milk was still on the resident's overbed table. The back of the condensed milk bottle indicated, Refrigerate after opening. Resident 139 stated the condensed milk was for her coffee, and she had been using it. During an interview, on 2/7/23 at 9:22 a.m., with the Registered Dietitian (RD), she confirmed the condensed milk should be refrigerated per instruction on the bottle and verified there was no date written on the bottle to indicate when it was opened. She stated in addition to an open date, resident's name should be labeled on the bottle. She stated it was not properly stored and should be discarded. Review of the facility's Policy and Procedure (P&P) Bringing in Food for Residents, revised 6/2020, indicated, All food or beverages must be labeled and dated with residents' name upon arrival to monitor for food safety . Any suspicious or obviously contaminated food or beverages will be thrown away immediately. 2. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 2/6/23 at 9:00 a.m., in the dry storage room with the Dietary Services Supervisor (DSS), an unlabel a plastic bucket of 4 quarts (qt, a unit of liquid capacity) contained white powder. The DSS stated it was flour and he confirmed it should be labeled. During an interview, on 2/8/23 at 1:23 p.m., with RD, she confirmed the bucket of white powder should be labeled. A review of the facility's undated P&P Labeling and Dating it indicated, 11. Labeling and dating are to be done on all items whether they are in refrigerator/dry storage or freezer. Review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code 2022, Section 3-302.12 indicated, Food Storage Containers . Identified with Common Name of Food. Except for containers holding FOOD that can be readily and unmistakably recognized such as dry pasta, working containers holding FOOD or FOOD ingredients that are removed from their original packages for use in the FOOD ESTABLISHMENT, such as cooking oils, flour, herbs, potato flakes, salt, spices, and sugar shall be identified with the common name of the FOOD. 3. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 2/6/23 at 9:07 a.m., with Dietary Aide M (DA M, a clean cutting board rack contained one green cutting board with dried tomato seeds, one white cutting board stained with dark brown cuts, and one red cutting board with deep cuts and loose plastic particles. DA M confirmed the cutting board rack was for clean cutting boards and that the cutting boards should on it should not have had any of the observed particles on them. During an interview, on 2/6/23 at 9:10 a.m., with DSS, he confirmed the cutting board rack's green and white cutting boards should be cleaned, and the red cutting board should be replaced. Review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code 2022, Section 4-501.12, indicated, Cutting Surfaces . Surfaces such as cutting blocks and boards that are subject to scratching and scoring shall be resurfaced if they can no longer be effectively cleaned and sanitized, or discarded if they are not capable of being resurfaced . Cutting surfaces such as cutting boards and blocks that become scratched and scored may be difficult to clean and sanitize . As a result, pathogenic microorganisms transmissible through food may build up or accumulate . These microorganisms may be transferred to foods that are prepared on such surfaces. Review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code 2022, Section 4-601.11, indicated, Equipment, Food-Contact Surfaces, Nonfood-Contact Surfaces, and Utensils . Equipment food-contact surfaces and utensils shall be clean to sight and touch. 4. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 2/6/23 at 10:28 a.m., with [NAME] N, she confirmed black matter could be wiped off from the can opener tip. [NAME] N verified the can opener was dirty and should be cleaned. During an interview, on 2/6/23 at 10:30 a.m., with the DSS, he confirmed the can opener was dirty and needed to be cleaned. Review of the facility's P&P Can Opener and Base, dated 8/29/2018, indicated, Proper sanitation and maintenance of the can opener and base is important to sanitary food preparation . Cleaning Procedure: 1. The can opener must be thoroughly cleaned each work shift and, when necessary, more frequently. Review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code 2022, Section 4-602.11, indicated, Clean - Food Contact Surface . It is the standard of practice to ensure food contact surfaces of equipment shall be cleaned at any time during the operation when contamination may have occurred. 5. During a concurrent observation and interview, on 2/6/23 at 10:39 a.m., with DSS, a drawer with clean serving scoops had buildups of crumbs and orange material along the inside of the drawer. Drawer's buildup was be wiped off with a paper towel. The DSS confirmed this observation and stated the serving scoops drawer should be cleaned. Review of the facility's P&P Cabinets and Drawers, Version 8.27, indicated, Clean cabinets and drawer on a weekly basis. During an interview, on 2/8/23 at 1:17 p.m., with DSS, he stated cabinets and drawers should not have old food particles; and that, he needed to update the cleaning schedules. Review of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Food Code 2022 indicated, Clean - Non-Food Contact Surfaces . It is the standard of practice to ensure non-food contact surfaces of equipment shall be kept free of an accumulation of dust, dirt, food residue, and other debris . Additionally, the presence of food debris or dirt on nonfood contact surfaces may provide a suitable environment for the growth of microorganisms which employees may inadvertently transfer to food . If these areas are not kept clean, they may also provide harborage for insects, rodents, and other pests.
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 safe, sanitary, and comfortable environment...

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, sanitary, and comfortable environment for residents when: 1. Bed side rails were not stable or installed properly; 2. Toilet doorknobs were either missing, broken and/or loose, and a tissue holder was broken; 3. A Doorknob was missing and a tissue holder broken; 4. Cabinet drawers were broken and a tray table had chipped paint and chipped edges; 5. A bathroom door was out of order and had stains; 6. Four bed footboards were loose; 7. Window blinds were broken; 8. The Bathroom of Room F lacked a door. These failures had potential to compromise residents' safety, well-being and health. Findings: 1. During room rounds and concurrent observation and interview, on [DATE] at 9:12 a.m., with the director of nursing (DON), the DON confirmed the following: 1.a. In Room H, Resident 69's bilateral bed rails were loose. 1.b. In Room I, Resident 101's bedrails were loose. 2.a. In Room J, the shared bathroom for four residents, had a broken knob, with a hole on the door. 2.b In Room K, the bathroom doorknob was loose 2.c. In Room N, the bathroom doorknob was missing, with a hole on the door. 3. In Room L, the bathroom doorknob was missing and a tissue holder was broken. 4.a In Room M, the cabinet drawers were broken and a tray table had chipped paint and chipped edges. During a concurrent interview following the above observations, the DON acknowledged repairs were needed and called for the Maintenance Director (MD) to check on and repair the broken items. 4.b During an observation and interview with the maintenance director (MD) inside Room F), on [DATE] at 2:55 p.m., Resident 15's bedside cabinet's top-drawer handle was broken. The handle was missing a screw to the left side, which made it dangle to the right side of the drawer. The MD confirmed Resident 15's bedside cabinet's top-drawer handle was broken and stated, Oh yes, we just need a screw for that. I'll fix it. 5. During an observation and interview with the MD in Room O, on [DATE] at 1:11 p.m., the door was hard to open and was stained with what the MD referred to as coffee stains. The MD cleaned the stain from the door. Resident 66 stated, the door had been like that for almost six months. The MD removed the door and stated he would fix it. 6. During a observation and interview with the medical record director (MRD) covering for the MD, on [DATE] at 1:26 p.m., the following footboards of the beds were loose and wobbly for Room A Bed A (an empty bed); Resident 59, Resident 24, and Resident 15. The MRD confirmed the condition of these footboards and acknowledged they needed to be fixed. 7. During an observation, on [DATE] at 9:08 a.m., in Room B, the window blinds were broken. During an observation, on [DATE] at 9:23 a.m., in Room C, the window blinds were broken. During an observation, on [DATE] at 1:30 p.m., in Room D, the bottom part of the window blinds was broken. During an observation on [DATE] at 10:11 a.m., in Rooms E and F, the window blinds were broken. The lower part of the window blinds in Room F was broken into pieces. During a concurrent observation and interview with the MRD, on [DATE] 11:14 a.m., he confirmed the window blinds were broken and needed to be fixed in the following rooms: Room E, Room D, Room B, Room C, and Room F. 8. During an initial observation and interview with Resident 15, on [DATE] at 9:55 a.m., inside Room F, a bathroom door was not installed and was covered with a curtain instead. Resident 15 stated the bathroom door was missing for 3 months and the staff just replaced it with a curtain. During an observation, on [DATE] at 11:42 a.m., Room F still did not have a bathroom door. During a concurrent observation and interview with the MRD, on [DATE] at 11: 21 a.m., he confirmed the bathroom door in Room F was missing. During an interview with the assistant director of nursing A (ADON A), on [DATE] at 9:30 a.m., she stated the previous resident in Room F preferred to not have a bathroom door. ADON A stated the previous resident expired and then Resident 15 was transferred to Room F. Review of the facility's policy and procedure Maintenance Service, revised [DATE], indicated, 1. The Maintenance Department is responsible for maintaining the buildings, grounds, and equipment in a safe and operable manner at all times . 3. The Maintenance Director is responsible for developing and maintaining a schedule of maintenance service to assure that the buildings, grounds, and equipment are maintained in a safe and operable manner . 10. Maintenance personnel shall follow established safety regulations to ensure the safety and well-being of all concerned.
Aug 2019 17 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0552 (Tag F0552)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the responsible party (RP) for one of 27 sampled residents (Resident 78) when Resident 78 was transferred to an acute hospital. This...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to notify the responsible party (RP) for one of 27 sampled residents (Resident 78) when Resident 78 was transferred to an acute hospital. This failure had potential to result in Resident 78 receiving inadequate care. Findings: Review of Resident 78's Health Status note dated 6/25/19, indicated a licensed nurse was informed Resident 78 was sent to an acute hospital from a dialysis facility, where Resident 78 received the routine dialysis treatment. There was no documentation indicating Resident 78's RP was informed about the hospital transfer. During an interview on 8/13/19 at 12:41 p.m., registered nurse C (RN C) reviewed the record and stated she did not find documentation Resident 78's RP was notified regarding the hospital transfer. RN C stated the facility should notify the RP for Resident 78's hospital transfer. Review of the facility's policy, Change in a Resident's Condition or Status dated May 2017, indicated a nurse was to notify the resident's representative when it was necessary to transfer the resident to a hospital.
CONCERN (D)

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 of 27 sampled residents (Resident 100)...

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 of 27 sampled residents (Resident 100) when Resident 100 had episodes of orthostatic hypotension (a form of low blood pressure that happens when changing position, such as standing up from a sitting or lying down position, this can cause dizziness or lightheadedness, or fainting). This failure had potential to result in Resident 100 at risk for fall . Findings: 1. Review of Resident 100's clinical record indicated he was readmitted on [DATE] with diagnoses including hypertension and history of falls. Resident 100's physician orders included orders to check for orthostatic hypotension and notify the physician if systolic BP (upper value of blood pressure) dropped more than 10 millimeters of mercury (mmHg, blood pressure measure unit) when changing positions. Review of Resident 100's clinical record indicated in August 2018, Resident 100 had four episodes of orthostatic hypotension with systolic BP more than 10 mmHg. During an interview with registered nurse C (RN C) on 8/15/19 at 10:57 a.m., she reviewed Resident 100's clinical record and could not find any documentation that the facility notified the physician regarding Resident 100's above mentioned orthostatic hypotension. During a concurrent interview with licensed vocational nurse D (LVN D), she demonstrated how it is recorded on the electronic medication administration record (eMAR) and stated it should show on the progress notes. Review of the facility's policy, Change in Resident's Condition or Status revised in May 2017, indicated the nurse should notify the resident's attending physician or physician on call when there has been a specific instruction to notify physician of changes in the resident's condition.
CONCERN (D)

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

Safe Environment (Tag F0584)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe and homelike environment when the carpet in the dining/activity area door was protruding (stick out) . This fai...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure a safe and homelike environment when the carpet in the dining/activity area door was protruding (stick out) . This failure had the potential to be harmful for residents who were going to the dining/activity room. Findings: During an observation and interview on 8/11/19 at 1:33 p.m., the carpet in the dining/activity area door was protruding. The administrator (ADM) confirmed the observation and stated he was aware of the carpet issue. Review of the facility's policy, Cleaning/Repairing Carpeting and Cloth Furnishings dated 12/2009, indicated carpeting shall be promptly repaired.
CONCERN (D)

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

Transfer Notice (Tag F0623)

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 document that family or responsible party (RP) was notified for one...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to document that family or responsible party (RP) was notified for one of 27 sampled Resident (Resident 124) when Resident 124 was sent from her wound care clinic appointment to acute hospital and was discharged from the facility. This failure had potential to affect Resident 124's medical condition. Findings: Review of Resident 124's clinical record indicated she was readmitted to the facility on [DATE]. There was no documents indicated Resident 124 was sent to the acute hospital from the wound clinic nor notified RP regarding the resident's hospitalization. Nurse progress notes dated from 7/18/19 to 7/24/19 only indicated Resident still in hospital. During a concurrent interview and record review with registered nurse K (RN K) on 8/14/19 at 10:21 a.m., RN K reviewed the clinical record and stated Resident 124 went to the wound clinic on 7/18/19 and then due to change of condition was sent to the hospital from the wound clinic. RN K stated the facility did not do a change of condition progress note and she did not find any documents indicating the facility notified the resident's RP for Resident 124's hospital transfer.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0637 (Tag F0637)

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 complete a significant change in status assessment (SC...

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 complete a significant change in status assessment (SCSA) in minimum data set (MDS, an assessment tool) for one of 27 sampled residents (Resident 113) when the resident had an indwelling catheter (surgical procedure to drain urine from the bladder into a drainage bag) and had significant weight loss. These failures had the potential to result in Resident 113 unable to achieve or maintain optimal status of health, function and quality of life. Findings: Review of Resident 113's face sheet (summary page of a patient's important information) indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including Parkinson's disease (disorder of the nervous systems that affects movement and can cause tremors), major depressive disorder (mood disorder that interferes with daily life), dehydration (a significant loss of body fluid that impairs normal body functions), and type 2 diabetes mellitus (a chronic condition that affects the way the body processes blood sugar). Review of Resident 113's record indicated Resident 113 did not have an indwelling catheter on admission. Review of Resident 113's nurse progress notes, dated 6/29/19, indicated the resident had lower abdominal distension and the facility inserted an indwelling catheter. During multiple observations on 8/11/19 at 11:31 a.m. and 8/12/19 at 2:05 p.m., Resident 113 had an indwelling catheter. Review of Resident 113's clinical record indicated the following weights: 160 lbs on 6/26/19; 157.4 lbs on 6/29/19; 158.2 lbs on 7/4/19; 148.2 lbs on 7/7/19; 146 lbs on 7/14/19; and 132.3 lbs on 8/5/19. Review of nutritional progress note dated 8/7/19 indicated Resident 113's admission weight on 6/26/19 was 160 pounds (lbs) and indicating a significant weight loss of 27 lbs (17.3 percent) in two months. During an interview and record review with the registered dietitian (RD) on 8/14/19 at 11:06 a.m., she reviewed Resident 113's clinical records and confirmed the above information. The RD stated Resident 113's weight was not taken consistently every week per the RD recommendation. The RD further stated there was no IDT discussion or intervention regarding Resident 113's significant weight loss. During an interview and record review with the DON on 8/14/19 at 11:29 a.m., the DON reviewed Resident 113's clinical records and stated the facility staff should have monitored Resident 113's weight weekly. The DON stated the IDT should have discussed Resident 113's significant weight loss. During an interview and record review with the DON on 8/14/19 at 1:47 p.m., the DON reviewed Resident 113's clinical record and stated the facility should have completed a SCSA in MDS on 7/28/19, which was 14 days after identified Resident 113's significant changes of insertion an indwelling catheter and the significant weight loss of 14 pounds from admission to 7/14/19. The DON stated the IDT should have discussed these significant changes. Review of the Resident Assessment Instrument Manual 3.0 Version 1.16.1, dated 10/2018, indicated, .a significant change in status assessment must be completed on the fourteenth calendar day after determination that a significant change in the resident's status occurred. The manual further indicated a SCSA MDS is appropriate when a resident declined in two or more areas, including placement of an indwelling catheter or the emergence of an unplanned weight loss problem .
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** 3. Review of Resident 55's clinical record indicated he had diagnoses including altered mental status (change in brain function ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 3. Review of Resident 55's clinical record indicated he had diagnoses including altered mental status (change in brain function that can cause confusion or sleepiness). Resident 55 had four falls in the facility. Review of Resident 55's fall notes, dated 5/5/19 indicated Resident 55 tried to get a shirt from his closet and slipped when trying to get up. It indicated a new intervention to prevent reoccurrence of a fall was to provide Resident 55 with a grabber tool to prevent overreaching for items. During an observation and interview on 8/15/19 at 7:34 a.m., unit manager A (UM A) was unable to find the grabber tool in Resident 55's room. UM A stated Resident 55 should have a grabber tool. 4. Review of Resident 65's clinical record indicated he had diagnoses including dementia (a group of symptoms affecting thinking and social abilities interfering with daily functioning) and cerebrovascular accident (CVA, or stroke, a condition resulting from a lack of oxygen in the brain potentially causing a loss of sensory and motor function). Resident 65 had six falls in the facility. Review of Resident 65's interdisciplinary team (IDT, a group of health care professionals from diverse fields who work toward a common goal for residents) notes, dated 10/5/18, regarding a fall on 10/4/18 indicated he was found sitting on the floor inside his bathroom. The IDT recommended to put Resident 65 on a bladder retraining program (a method used to help a person regain control of urination). There was no documentation that indicated Resident 65 was on a bladder retraining program. During an interview on 8/15/19 at 3:35 p.m., UM A stated she was still looking for the documentation of Resident's bladder retraining. No documentation was provided. 5. Review of Resident 116's clinical record indicated he had diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and physician prescribed Resident 116 a pureed diet (food that has been blended to a consistency of baby food). During an observation on 8/15/19 at 8:08 a.m., CNA B was providing feeding assistance at bedside to Resident 116 and his HOB was not at 90 degrees. During a concurrent interview with CNA B, she validated Resident's HOB was elevated at about 45 degrees and she stated she should have elevated Resident 116's HOB at 90 degrees during feeding. Review of Resident 116's care plan for at risk for aspiration dated 7/10/19, indicated, Keep HOB elevated 90 degrees during meal. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to implement a comprehensive person-centered care plan for prevention of falls and aspiration for five of 27 sampled residents (Resident 16, 55, 65, 73, and 116). For Resident 16 and 73, the beds were not in the lowest position. For Resident 55, he was not provided with a grabber tool. For Resident 65, he was not placed on a bladder retraining program. For Resident 116, his head of bed (HOB) was not elevated 90 degrees during feeding. These failures had the potential to prevent meeting resident's needs and to maintain the resident's highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 16's clinical record indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with history of fall and had diagnoses including post-polio syndrome (is a condition cause by polio infection with resulting in muscle atrophy) and abnormalities of gait and mobility. She fell three times in the facility. During a current observation and interview on 8/12/19 at 1:40 p.m., Resident 16 was up in a wheelchair and had dark purple discoloration around both eyes and bruises on her left hand. Resident 16 stated she fell in her room. During an observation on 8/13/19 at 8:45 a.m., Resident 16 was in her bed and her bed was not on the low bed position. During an interview with certified nursing assistant H (CNA H) on 8/13/19 at 8:50 a.m., she validated Resident 16's bed was not in the lowest position. CNA H stated she forgot to lower down Resident 16's bed to the lowest position. Review of Resident 16's care plan for at risk for falls dated 12/5/18, indicated Resident 16's bed should be in lowest position when in bed to lessen impact of fall. 2. Review of Resident 73's clinical record indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including repeated falls and difficulty in walking. During an interview with Resident 73 on 8/11/19 at 9:48 a.m., she stated she had a fall at bedside. During a concurrent observation in Resident 73's room, Resident 73's bed was not in the lowest position while she was in bed and a floor mat placed on Resident 73's left side of bed. During an interview with CNA I on 8/11/19 at 10 a.m., she stated Resident 73's bed was supposed to be in the lowest position. CNA I stated she forgot to lower down Resident 73's bed to the lowest position. Review of Resident 73's care plan for at risk for falls dated 5/24/19, indicated Resident 73's bed should be in lowest position when in bed to lessen impact of fall.
CONCERN (D)

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

Quality of Care (Tag F0684)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide quality care and services for three of 27 sampled residents (Residents 42, 98 and 99) when: 1. Resident 98 had a diagn...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide quality care and services for three of 27 sampled residents (Residents 42, 98 and 99) when: 1. Resident 98 had a diagnosis of diabetes mellitus (DM, a condition which affects the way the body processes blood sugar) and licensed nurses did not properly manage an episode of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar). 2. Resident 99 had a change of condition and nursing staff failed to adequately monitor the resident up to the time she was transferred to an acute care hospital. 3. Resident 42 had a generalized red, itchy rash and nursing staff did not provide appropriate incontinence care when paper towels were used. These failures had the potential to cause health complications to Resident 98 and 99, and to cause discomfort to Resident 42. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 98's record indicated he was admitted with diagnosis including diabetes mellitus with hyperglycemia and exocrine pancreatic insufficiency (inability to properly digest food from a lack of digestive enzymes made by the pancreas). Resident 98 had physician's orders dated 7/24/19 to give Lantus (long-acting insulin. medication to lower blood sugar) 10 units one time per day and Novolog (fast-acting insulin) 3 units before meals to treat DM. The resident also had a physician's order dated 7/24/19 for a sliding scale (set of instructions for administering insulin dosages based on specific blood glucose readings) to give 6 units of Novolog if his blood sugar was 401- 450 (maximum dose) and to notify the physician. Review of Resident 98's record indicated from 5/12/19 to 9/13/19, the resident had three episodes of hyperglycemia with blood sugars of 488 to 572, and two episodes of hypoglycemia (low blood sugar) with blood sugars of 31 to 50. Review of Resident 98's blood sugar record indicated on 6/4/19 at 6:28 a.m. and 6:29 a.m. his blood sugars were both 400. Review of Resident 98's Change in Condition note, dated 6/4/19 at 7:25 a.m., indicated his blood sugar was 572. A physician was called and Resident 98 was given 13 units of Lispro insulin. A plan was made to perform blood sugar checks every 15 -20 minutes until it goes within normal range. The normal range was not specified. Resident 98's follow-up untimed blood sugar went down to 442. There was no documentation indicating the oncoming licensed nurse (day shift) was notified of the change in condition (high blood sugar). Review of Resident 98's indicated the next documented blood sugar was 117 on 6/4/19 at 1:16 p.m. During an interview on 8/15/19 at 12:21 p.m., the director of staff development (DSD) reviewed the record and stated Resident 98's blood sugar fluctuated from high to low. The DSD acknowledged the high blood sugars should have been timed and there should have been and was no documentation the change of condition was endorsed to the oncoming licensed nurse. Review of the Clinical Protocol Diabetes policy, dated December 2015, did not address the management of hyperglycemia. 2. Review of Resident 99's Change in Condition note, dated 7/3/19 at 4:14 p.m., indicated a licensed nurse at 11:30 a.m. noted Resident 99 had sudden confusion, delayed and slurred speech and was unable to raise her arms. A physician was called, an order to send Resident 99 to the hospital was obtained, and a plan made to continue to monitor the resident for more confusion. At 1:45 p.m., the ambulance arrived and Resident 99 left the facility at 2 p.m. There was no documentation indicating Resident 99 was being monitored. During an interview on 8/13/19 at 4:06 p.m., licensed vocational nurse (LVN) P reviewed the record and stated Resident 99's symptoms could be a stroke and staff should have monitored Resident 99. LVN P did not find documentation indicating Resident 99 was being monitored. During an interview on 8/13/19 at 5 p.m., the DSD reviewed the record and stated a licensed nurse should have documented a head to toe assessment for Resident 99. Review of the Change in a Resident's Condition or Status policy, dated May 2017, indicated the nurse was to record in the resident's medical record information relative to changes in the resident's medical/mental condition or status. 3. Review of Resident 42's record indicated he had diagnoses including psoriasis (rash characterized by raised, inflamed, red lesions covered by silvery white scales). His Minimum Data Set (MDS, an assessment tool), dated 6/14/19, indicated the resident had severe difficulty in daily decision making skills and was totally dependent on staff for all activities of daily living, such as eating. During an observation on 8/11/19 at 9:38 a.m., Resident 42 was in his bed, non-verbal and had generalized red splotchy rash on his arms and legs. He had a mitt on his left hand, was swinging his arm and trying to scratch his body. During an observation and interview on 8/14/19 at 11:42 a.m., two certified nurse assistants (CNAs) and a registered nurse C (RN C) were providing incontinence care to Resident 42 who had a large pasty brown stool. CNA Q went to Resident 42's bathroom three to four times, retrieved paper towels, applied liquid soap and wiped the resident's buttocks. During an interview at the time of observation, RN C described Resident 42's had red, splotchy raised rashes on his arms, legs right shoulder and armpit, red flat rash on his back and a reddened left buttock. RN C stated staff had been using paper towels and not using incontinence wipes for residents. During an interview at the time of observation, CNA Q stated Resident 42 was often trying to scratch himself with his left mitted hand. During an interview on 8/15/19 at 6:45 a.m., CNA R stated the facility did not have wipes and staff had to use paper towels for incontinence care for dependent residents. During an interview on 8/15/19 at 12 p.m., the DSD stated using paper towel for incontinence care could cause skin irritation. Review of the facility policy, Quality of Life - Accommodation of Needs, dated August 2009, indicated to accommodate individual needs, staff behaviors must be directed toward assisting the resident in maintaining dignity and well-being.
CONCERN (D)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent accidents for one of 27 residents (Resident 83) when the in...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to prevent accidents for one of 27 residents (Resident 83) when the interdisciplinary team (IDT- group of different disciplines that meet to discuss and review resident care needs) When Resident 83 fell three times in the facility and the IDT did not discuss and evaluate the root causes for these falls. This failure resulted in Resident 83's multiple falls and one fall resulted with lower inner lip laceration. Findings: Review of Resident 83's face sheet (document that contains the resident's key information) indicated he was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnosis including difficulty in walking, muscle weakness (decrease in strength in one or more muscles), lack of coordination, repeated falls and dementia (decline in mental capacity affecting thinking and social abilities interfering with daily functioning) with behavioral disturbance. Review of Resident 83's minimum data set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated 7/9/19, indicated his cognition was moderately impaired. The MDS indicated Resident 83 required one person assist for bed mobility, transfer, walk-in room/corridor, toilet use and personal hygiene. Review of Resident 83's Fall Risk Assessment, dated 4/11/19, indicated Resident 83 was at moderate risk for fall. Review of the nurse's progress note dated 4/12/19 indicated Resident 83 had an unwitnessed fall when the resident was found sitting on the floor. During an interview and record review with the DON 8/15/19 at 11:53 a.m., she reviewed Resident 83's clinical record and stated that Resident 83 had multiple falls on 4/12/19, 6/12/19 and 8/10/19. The DON stated there were no evidences that the IDT discussed these falls. The DON further stated the IDT should have discussed the root cause of these falls. During an interview and record review with the DON 8/15/19 at 10:38 a.m., the DON reviewed Resident 83's care plan and stated Resident 83's care plan was not updated when the Resident 83 fell on 6/12/19 and 8/10/19. The DON confirmed that Resident 83's fall care plan was not updated since it was initiated on 4/12/19. The DON stated Resident 83's fall care plan should have been updated every time the resident fell. The DON provided the late entry IDT Progress note on 8/15/19 at 4 p.m. for Resident 83's fall on 8/10/19 in the therapy gym. Review of the facility's revised policy, Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, dated 12/2007, indicated .based on previous evaluations and current data, the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific risks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and try to minimize complications from falling If falling recurs despite initial interventions, staff will implement additional or different interventions, or indicate why the current approach remains relevant The staff and /or physician will document the basis for conclusions that specific irreversible risk factors exit that continue to present a risk for falling or injury due to falls If the resident continues to fall, staff will re-evaluate the situation and whether it is appropriate to continue or change current interventions. As needed, the attending physician will help the staff reconsider possible cause that may not previously have been identified .
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0698 (Tag F0698)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident 380's clinical record indicated he was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end ...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** 2. Review of Resident 380's clinical record indicated he was re-admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including end stage renal disease (a condition in which the kidney no longer function normally to filter waste and excess water from the blood as urine) and dependence on renal dialysis. Resident 380 was scheduled for dialysis every Monday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. Review of Resident 380's dialysis communication records (DCRs) dated 8/7/19 and 8/12/19, indicated the facility staff did not complete Resident 380's pre dialysis assessment. Review of Resident 380's DCRs dated 8/12/19 and one undated entry were not completed by the dialysis center. During a concurrent interview and record review with the director of nursing (DON) on 8/15/19 at 9:24 a.m., the DON reviewed and Resident 380's clinical record and stated Resident 380's DCRs were incomplete on the above dates. The DON stated licensed nurses should have followed-up with dialysis center and completed the DCRs pre-dialysis assessment for Resident 380's continuity of dialysis care. The DON further stated that there was no documentation indicating that the licensed nurse called the dialysis clinic to inquire about Resident 380's special instructions and condition while at the dialysis clinic. Review of the facility's policy, Dialysis, Care of Residents on revised on 1/1/11, indicated .all resident receiving Dialysis services shall be assessed before and after dialysis. Information shall be shared between the facility and the dialysis unit. Prior to dialysis the licensed nurse shall complete the Dialysis Communication Form including resident condition, status of the dialysis access site, vital signs, weight from last dialysis visit . The dialysis unit shall complete the dialysis unit section of the Dialysis Communication Form and return the form to the facility . Return from dialysis the licensed nurse shall review the dialysis unit's notes. If there are no notes recorded, the licensed nurse shall call the dialysis unit and review the resident's condition and response while at the dialysis clinic and inquire regarding any special instructions. The licensed nurse will document the conversation in the nurses' notes . Based on interview and record review the facility failed to ensure staff had coordinated residents' care with the dialysis facilities for two of two sampled residents receiving hemodialysis (medical procedure to remove fluid and waste products from the blood and to correct electrolyte i.e. salts and mineral imbalances by using a machine and an artificial kidney) for Residents 78 and 380 when: 1. Resident 78 had two physician's orders indicating different amounts of fluids he was allowed to consume and his care plan was not revised to indicate his dialysis access site and care had changed. 2. Resident 380 had incomplete communication between the facility and dialysis center. This failure had the potential to result in a break with continuity of care and in causing resident health complications. Findings: 1. During an observation on 8/13/19 at 8 a.m., Resident 78 did not have a permacath (long, flexible tube inserted into a vein most commonly in the neck and into the heart to allow dialysis to occur) in place. Review of Resident 78's physician's order, dated 7/25/18, indicated he had a permacath and was to go to a dialysis facility three times a week. Resident 78's care plan dated, 1/27/18 indicated the resident had a permacath on the right upper chest. Resident 78's physician's order dated 12/18/18, indicated to restrict fluid to 1200 cubic centimeter (cc, a metric unit of measurement where 28 cc is one ounce) in 24 hours. He also had a physician's order, dated 6/13/19, to restrict fluid to 1500 cc in 24 hours. During an interview on 8/14/19 at 8:40 a.m., registered nurse K (RN K) reviewed the record and stated Resident 78 had an arteriovenous fistula (AVF, surgically created connection between an artery and vein on a person's limb to allow dialysis to occur) on 6/30/19. RN K stated she did not know if Resident 78 was supposed to be on 1200 or 1500 cc of fluid and when a resident had an AVF, the care plan was to have approaches such as to not draw blood or take blood pressures from the limb with the AVF. A sign was to be posted in the resident's room to remind certified nurse assistants about AVF precautions. During an observation and interview with RN K on 8/14/19 at 9:15 a.m., there was no sign about AVF precautions posted in Resident 78's room. RN K stated the dialysis care plan needed to be revised and a physician needed to be contacted to clarify Resident 78's fluid order. Review of the Care of Residents on Dialysis policy, dated 10/3/05, the license nurse was to notify the resident's physician if the dialysis unit recommended changes. Review of the Care of a Resident with End-Stage Renal Disease, (kidney failure), dated September 2010, indicated the resident's comprehensive care was to reflect the resident's needs related to dialysis care.
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 timely replace one of 13 emergency kits (E-Kit, emergency medications that needed for immediate administration) medications f...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to timely replace one of 13 emergency kits (E-Kit, emergency medications that needed for immediate administration) medications from the provider pharmacy. This failure had the potential to cause delay in treatment and compromise residents' medical health. Findings: During a medication storage observation and concurrent interview with unit manager A (UM A) on 8/11/19 at 9:19 a.m., a requisition slip indicated the intravenous (IV) E-Kit was opened on 8/3/19. UM A confirmed the IV E-Kit was opened eight days ago. She confirmed a replacement for the IV E-Kit had not been delivered. Review of the facility's policy, Medication Ordering and Receiving from Pharmacy Provider dated 9/10, indicated Emergency medications and supplies are provided by the pharmacy in compliance with the applicable state and federal regulations. According to the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 3. Skilled Nursing Facilities: § 72377(b)(2), indicated emergency drugs shall be replaced within 72 hours.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0757 (Tag F0757)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure one of 27 sampled residents (Resident 39) was free from unne...

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 27 sampled residents (Resident 39) was free from unnecessary drugs when Resident 39's A1C (A1C test result reflects the average blood sugar level for the past two to three months) laboratory sample was not drawn for monitoring. This failure had the potential affect Resident 39's medical condition. Findings: Review of Resident 39 clinical record, indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including diabetes mellitus (DM, chronic disease characterized by high levels of sugar in the blood). Resident 39's current physician (MD) orders included an order for insulin (a hormone that lowers the level of sugar in the blood) glargine (type of long-acting insulin) solution 12 units subcutaneous at bedtime related to type 2 DM and laboratory (lab) order for A1C for the use of insulin every [DATE] and August 4. Resident 39's clinical record indicated the last A1C result was drawn on 12/21/18. During an interview with registered nurse C (RN C) on 8/15/19 at 3:31 p.m., RN C was unable to find documents that the facility checked Resident 39's AC lab on 8/4/19. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 8/15/19, at 3:31 p.m., she stated the facility did not follow the physician's order for Resident 39's A1C lab on 8/4/19. Review of the facility's policy, Diabetes - Clinical Protocol revised on December 2015, indicated the physician will order appropriate lab test, such as A1C and adjust treatments based on the results and other parameters such as . hypoglycemic episodes, etc.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0800 (Tag F0800)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a pureed diet was provided to one of 27 sampled residents (Resident 116) per order when the certified nursing assistant...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure a pureed diet was provided to one of 27 sampled residents (Resident 116) per order when the certified nursing assistant B (CNA B) assisted fed Resident 116 with regular scrambled eggs and bacon during breakfast. This failure had the potential to prevent meeting Resident 116's special dietary needs. Findings: 1. Review of Resident 116's clinical record indicated he had diagnoses including dysphagia (difficulty swallowing) and multiple sclerosis (MS, a long-term progressive disease can affect central nervous system to disable functional of body). Review of Resident 116's physician's orders dated 7/9/19, indicated the physician prescribed a fortified diet, with pureed texture and thin liquids consistency. Review of Resident 116's a care plan dated 7/10/19, indicated he was identified at risk for aspiration. During an observation on 8/13/19 at 8:24 a.m., CNA B assist fed Resident 116 with regular scrambled eggs. During a concurrent interview with CNA B, she stated she also fed Resident 116 two pieces of bacon this morning. During a follow-up observation on 8/13/19 at 8 :32 a.m., Resident 116 was coughing while sipping grape juice by a straw. During an interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 8/13/19 at 9:35 a.m., the DON stated Resident 116's MS was progressing, so staff should be aware of safe swallowing guidelines. During an interview with the registered dietician (RD) on 8/14/19 at 4:20 p.m., she stated staff should not have served regular scrambled eggs and bacon to Resident 116.
CONCERN (D)

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

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure garbage was disposed properly when one of three facility dumpsters lid was left opened. This failure had the potential...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure garbage was disposed properly when one of three facility dumpsters lid was left opened. This failure had the potential to result in spread of disease from vermin infestation and unsanitary environment for the residents. Findings: During a concurrent observation and interview with the maintenance director (MD) on 8/12/19 at 3:49 p.m., the lid of one dumpsters located near the kitchen was not closed. The MD confirmed this observation. Review of the facility's policy, Waste Management/Disposal, dated 3/25/11, indicated dumpster lids are to be closed at all times. According to the FDA Food Code 2017 as specified in paragraph 5-501.113, Covering Receptacles, indicated waste handling for refuse shall be kept covered.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0849 (Tag F0849)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate care with a hospice provider (service that provides care for the sick or terminally ill) for one of one sampled res...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to coordinate care with a hospice provider (service that provides care for the sick or terminally ill) for one of one sampled resident (Resident 99) who was on hospice services. There was no hospice calendar and facility staff did not follow-up on hospice notes of Resident 99's desire to change her diet and a black discoloration of her right foot. These failures had the potential of not meeting the needs or not improving the quality of life for the resident. Findings: Review of Resident 99's clinical record, indicated she was admitted to hospice services on 7/12/19 and had diagnoses including peripheral vascular disease (poor circulation to the extremities) and chronic ulcer of right lower leg. Resident 99's physician's order dated 6/14/19 indicated to provide a no added salt pureed texture, thin liquids consistency. Resident 99 did not have a current wound treatment order to her right foot. During an observation and interview on 8/11/19 at 8:54 a.m., Resident 99 was eating breakfast and consumed about 25% of her pureed meal. Resident 99 stated did not want to eat her breakfast because she did not like her food, she wanted a regular diet. Review of Resident 99's hospice note, dated 8/2/19, indicated the resident stated she was not eating well and had a black discoloration on the right foot. The hospice note dated 8/9/19 indicated the resident was requesting a diet change and the hospice nurse had coordinated with the charge nurse for a speech therapy evaluation. The hospice calendar was left blank resulting in no information of when and what staff (i.e. RN, home health aide) were to provide hospice services. During an observation and interview on 8/14/19 at 8:51 a.m., registered nurse (RN) K stated Resident 99's right front foot wound was old, and described it as scaly, whitish, and approximately 3.5 cm (centimeter, a metric unit of measurement where one inch is 2.54 cm) by 3 cm and 0.3 cm high. During an interview on 8/14/19 at 9:36 a.m., RN K reviewed the record and stated there was no hospice schedule. RN K stated licensed nurse needed to read hospice notes and concerns of the black foot wound and diet request should have been followed-up. Review of the Hospice Program policy, dated July 2017, indicated it was the responsibility of the facility to meet the resident's personal care and nursing needs in coordination with the hospice representative.
CONCERN (E)

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

Menu Adequacy (Tag F0803)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure 8/13/19 menu was followed. This failure could 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 ensure 8/13/19 menu was followed. This failure could result to resident's dissatisfaction to the food served and dietary services. Findings: Review of the weekly menu dated 8/12/19 to 8/18/19 indicated, the menu for 8/13/19 was chicken cordon bleu, the menu further indicated French Day. During an interview with the dietary cook (DC) on 8/13/19 at 10:19 a.m., she stated she was preparing chicken [NAME]. During an interview with the registered dietitian (RD) on 8/13/19 at 10:32 a.m., the RD stated the DC would follow the chicken [NAME] menu because they don't observe the French Day. The RD confirmed the menu posted for residents was chicken cordon bleu. During concurrent observation and interview with the DC on 8/13/19 at 10:36 a.m., the DC prepared unbreaded baked chicken to puree. The DC confirmed she followed the chicken [NAME] recipe in preparing for the puree food. During the resident council meeting on 8/13/19 at 2:03 p.m., Residents 24, 25, 68, 71, 75, 77, and 99 all stated knowing the menu was important for them. Review of the facility's undated policy, Menu Planning, indicated menu changes should be noted on the menus that were posted.
CONCERN (E)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions when: 1. There were five uncovered deli containers fill...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure food was stored, prepared and served under sanitary conditions when: 1. There were five uncovered deli containers filled with salad dressing; 2. The kitchen drawer used to put kitchen utensils had reddish yellowish flaky color substances; 3. The can opener had a black substance; 4. The walk in refrigerator condenser fan cover had grayish substance; 5. Fruit cocktail was uncovered in the preparation sink area and the dietary aide R (DA R) disposed the quaternary solution in the preparation sink; 6. DA R did not demonstrate the proper procedures for testing the strength of sanitizer used for sanitizing food contact surfaces; 7. Quaternary ammonium log policy was not implemented; 8. The dishwasher log was not completely filled out. These failures had the potential to cause food borne illness (illness resulting from contaminated food) for 128 residents who received food from the kitchen. Findings: 1. During concurrent kitchen observation and interview with the dietary manager (DM) on 8/11/19 at 10:42 a.m., there were five uncovered deli containers (small plastic containers) filled with salad dressing in the refrigerator. The DM confirmed the observation and stated the lid did not fit the container. Review of the facility's policy, Storage of Food and Supplies, dated 2017, indicated food should be stored properly. 2. During concurrent kitchen observation and interview with the DM on 8/11/19 at 10:51 a.m., the kitchen drawer containing cooking utensils had reddish yellowish flaky color substances. The DM confirmed the observation and stated it needed to be replaced. 3. During concurrent observation and interview with the DM on 8/12/19 at 3:42 p.m., the can opener had a blackish substance. The DM stated to confirm the observation. During an interview with the DM on 8/14/19 at 1:37 p.m., she stated there was no log for cleaning the can opener. Review of the facility's policy, Sanitation, dated 2018, indicated All utensils, counters, shelves and equipment shall be kept clean, maintained in good repair and shall be free from breaks, and corrosions, open seam, cracks and chipped areas. 4. During concurrent observation and interview with the maintenance director (MD) on 8/11/19 at 11:22 a.m., the walk-in refrigerator fan cover was noted with grayish substances. The MD confirmed the observation and stated it needed to be cleaned. Review of the facility's policy, Refrigerator and Freezer, dated 2018, indicated clean refrigerator could improve safety and food quality. 5. During kitchen observation on 8/12/19 at 2:21 p.m., fruit cocktail mix in a mixing bowl was left uncovered near the preparation sink. At 2:23 p.m., DA R disposed the used sanitizer solution (chemical solution) in the preparation sink. During concurrent interview with the dietary cook (DC) she confirmed the fruit cocktail was left uncovered and DA R stated she disposed the sanitizer solution in the preparation sink. Review of the facility's policy, Sanitation, dated 2018, indicated Do not use cleaning products or sanitizer in the food preparation or food storage areas in any way could result in contamination of exposed food items. This included spraying or pouring cleaning products near food items during preparation or cooking. 6. During concurrent observation and interview on 8/12/19 at 2:26 p.m., DA R demonstrated how to test the strength of a quaternary ammonium (QUAT, used to sanitized food contact surface areas). DA R dipped the quat strip for one second. The DC was reading a different brand of test strip and stated it should be dipped for 10 seconds. DA R confirmed she dipped the test strip for one second. She further stated it should be four minutes. Review of the manufacturer's instructions for the QUAT test strip indicated hold the test strip in the solution to be tested for 90 seconds. The facility's policy, Quaternary Ammonium Log Policy dated 2018, indicated the concentration of the ammonium in the quaternary sanitizer will be tested to ensure the effectiveness of the solution. 7. Review of the August Quaternary Sanitizer Log indicated, the quat solution was checked once a day. During an interview with the DM on 8/12/19 at 2:35 p.m., she stated the quat solution was only tested on ce a day. She further stated it was advised to only check once a day. Review of the facility's policy, Quaternary Ammonium Log Policy, dated 2018, indicated the solution concentration should be tested at least every shift and if it is cloudy. The result should be recorded once in AM and once in PM. 8. During an observation on 8/12/19 at 3:20 p.m., dietary aide S (DA S) demonstrated how to check the dishwasher chlorine strength. Review of the dish machine temperature and sanitizer log for the month of May 2019 revealed, six out of 31 days was filled out. Review of the dish machine temperature and sanitizer log for the month of August 2019 revealed, there were no input on 8/3 and 8/4 at dinner time and there was no input on 8/11 for lunch and dinner. Review of the facility's policy, Dish Washing, dated 2018, indicated the temperature log should be completed each meal prior to dishwashing by the dishwashers.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

8. During a kitchen observation on 8/12/19 at 3:35 p.m., maintenance staff Q (MS Q) washed his hands in the food preparation sink. MS Q confirmed observation and stated he should wash hands in the sin...

Read full inspector narrative →
8. During a kitchen observation on 8/12/19 at 3:35 p.m., maintenance staff Q (MS Q) washed his hands in the food preparation sink. MS Q confirmed observation and stated he should wash hands in the sink designated for hand washing. According to the FDA Food Code 2017 as specified in paragraph 2-301.15 indicated sink used for food preparation may not be used for handwashing. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain proper infection control practices when: 1. Resident 390's oxygen nasal cannula (NC) tubing (a device that consists of a plastic tube that fits behind the ears, and a set of two prongs that are placed in the nostrils) was undated and was touching the bedside table; 2. Resident 66's unlabeled oxygen nasal cannula prongs and tubing was exposed, hanging and touching to the wheel of the wheelchair; 3. Resident 70's oxygen nasal cannula tubing was undated; 4. Resident 15's nebulizer tubing with mask piece (plastic mask and tubing used as a connection from compressor to deliver breathing mist to client) and yankauer suction tube (oral suctioning tool) were outdated; 5. Staff assigned to the dining room A did not changed gloves before and after completing a task; 6. Resident 83 was lying in bed and the resident's bedsheet had dried feces; 7. Resident 94's peripherally inserted central catheter (PICC line, a type of long catheter that is inserted through a peripheral vein, often in the arm, into a larger vein in the body, used when intravenous treatment is required over a long period) dressing was not changed per protocol; 8. Staff washed his hands in the food preparation sink. These failures have the potential to result in transmission of infection among residents. Findings: 1. During an observation on 8/11/19 at 8:02 a.m., Resident 390's NC tubing and prongs were touching the bedside table and was undated. During a concurrent observation and interview with the licensed vocational nurse E (LVN E) on 8/11/19 at 8:15 a.m., LVN E confirmed the above observation and stated Resident 390's NC should not be touching the bedside table. LVN E further stated that Resident 390 was using oxygen and NC should have been dated and changed every week. During an interview with Resident 390 on 8/11/19 at 8:18 a.m., Resident 390 stated that she was using the oxygen continuously as ordered per the physician. Review of Resident 390's minimum data set (MDS, an assessment tool) dated 8/14/19, indicated she was cognitively intact. Review of Resident 390's physician's order dated 8/8/19 indicated to change oxygen tubing if in use every two weeks and as needed. 2. During an observation on 8/11/19 at 11:00 a.m., Resident 66's oxygen NC prongs and tubing were exposed, hanging and touching the wheel of the wheelchair and was undated. During a concurrent observation and interview with the director of staff development (DSD) on 8/11/19 at 11:02 a.m., the DSD confirmed the above observation and stated Resident 66's NC prongs should not be touching the wheel of the wheelchair for infection control concern. The DSD further stated that Resident 66 was using oxygen and the NC should have been dated and changed every week. Review of Resident 66's physician order dated 6/14/19 indicated oxygen two liters/minute continuously to keep oxygen saturation above 92% for shortness of breath. 3. During an observation on 8/11/19 at 8:04 a.m., Resident 70's NC was undated. During a concurrent observation and interview with the LVN E on 8/11/19 at 8:37 a.m., LVN E confirmed the above observation and stated Resident 70 was using oxygen and the NC should have been dated and changed every week. 4. During an observation on 8/11/19 at 8:58 a.m., Resident 15's nebulizer tubing with mask and Yankauer suction tube were dated on 8/1/19. During a concurrent observation and interview with the LVN F on 8/11/19 at 9:03 a.m., LVN F confirmed the above observation and stated Resident 15 was using nebulizer machine with tubing and mask for breathing treatment and suction machine. LVN E further stated nebulizer tubing with mask and Yankauer suction tube should have been changed every week. 5. During a dining observation on 8/11/19 at 12:32 p.m., activity aid staff M (AAS M) was wearing gloves inside the dining room A while preparing the cups then she went out from the dining room with gloves on and took some disposable spoons from the medication cart, which was located in the hallway. AAS M then went inside to the dining room A without performing hand hygiene or changing gloves. AAS M was wearing the same gloves and started to pour hot water in each cup and opened the packets of cocoa and poured them into individual cups for residents. During a concurrent observation and interview with AAS M on 8/11/19 at 12:37 p.m., AAS M acknowledge the above observations. AAS M stated she should not have worn gloves in the hallway. She further stated the she should have performed hand hygiene and changed gloves after performed each task. 6. During multiple observations on 8/11/19 at 9:05 a.m., 9:12 a.m., 9:15 a.m., 9:20 a.m., and 9:25 a.m., Resident 83's bedsheet had dry brown color feces while he was lying in bed. During a concurrent observation and interview with certified nursing assistant G (CNA G) on 8/11/19 at 9:30 a.m., CNA G acknowledge the above observations and stated that she did not see the dry brown color feces in the bedsheet because Resident 83 was lying in bed. Review of the facility's revised policy, Handwashing/Hand Hygiene dated 8/2015, indicated .all personnel shall follow the handwashing/hand hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personnel, residents, and visitors Single-use disposable gloves should be used: When in contact with a resident, or the equipment or environment of a resident The use of gloves does not replace hand washing/hand hygiene. Integration of glove use along with routine hand hygiene is recognized as the best practice for preventing health care-associated infections . Review of the facility's revised policy, Personal Protective Equipment-Gloves, dated 7/2009, indicated .Gloves shall be used only once and discarded into the appropriate receptacle located in the room in which the procedure is being performed Wash hands after removing gloves . 7. During multiple observation on 8/11/19 at 8:52 a.m., 8/12/19 at 4:15 p.m., 8/13/19 at 11:00 a.m., 8/14/19 at 10:30 a.m., and 8/15/19 at 8:15 a.m., Resident 94's PICC line dressing was dated 8/5/19. During a concurrent observation and interview with the director of nursing (DON) on 8/15/19 at 9:48 a.m., the DON confirmed that Resident 94's PICC line dressing was dated 8/5/19. The DON further stated that PICC line dressing should have been changed every week. Review of Resident 94's physician order dated 5/29/19 indicated to change PICC line dressing every week and as needed. Review of the facility's policy, IV Site Care and Maintenance Dressing Change for Vascular Access Devices dated 4/08, indicated .the purpose to prevent local and systemic infection related to the IV site. Transparent membrane dressings (no gauze over site) are changed every 7 days and as needed . Initial dressings will be changed as needed if saturated, and 24-48 hours post insertion of PICCs, midlines, and CVADs .
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
  • • 37% turnover. Below California's 48% average. Good staff retention means consistent care.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 1 life-threatening violation(s), $35,874 in fines, Payment denial on record. Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 59 deficiencies on record, including 1 critical (life-threatening) violation. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • $35,874 in fines. Higher than 94% of California facilities, suggesting repeated compliance issues.
  • • Grade F (33/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 33/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is The Redwoods Post-Acute's CMS Rating?

CMS assigns THE REDWOODS POST-ACUTE an overall rating of 2 out of 5 stars, which is considered below average nationally. Within California, this rating places the facility higher than 0% of the state's 100 nursing homes. A rating at this level reflects concerns identified through health inspections, staffing assessments, or quality measures that families should carefully consider.

How is The Redwoods Post-Acute Staffed?

CMS rates THE REDWOODS POST-ACUTE's staffing level at 3 out of 5 stars, which is average compared to other nursing homes. Staff turnover is 37%, compared to the California average of 46%. This relatively stable workforce can support continuity of care. RN turnover specifically is 65%, which is notably high. RNs provide skilled clinical oversight, so turnover in this role can affect medical care quality.

What Have Inspectors Found at The Redwoods Post-Acute?

State health inspectors documented 59 deficiencies at THE REDWOODS POST-ACUTE during 2019 to 2025. These included: 1 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death) and 58 with potential for harm. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates The Redwoods Post-Acute?

THE REDWOODS POST-ACUTE is owned by a for-profit company. For-profit facilities operate as businesses with obligations to shareholders or private owners. The facility is operated by LINKS HEALTHCARE GROUP, a chain that manages multiple nursing homes. With 152 certified beds and approximately 143 residents (about 94% occupancy), it is a mid-sized facility located in SAN JOSE, California.

How Does The Redwoods Post-Acute Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, THE REDWOODS POST-ACUTE's overall rating (2 stars) is below the state average of 3.1, staff turnover (37%) is near the state average of 46%, and health inspection rating (2 stars) is below the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting The Redwoods Post-Acute?

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 The Redwoods Post-Acute Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, THE REDWOODS POST-ACUTE 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 2-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 The Redwoods Post-Acute Stick Around?

THE REDWOODS POST-ACUTE has a staff turnover rate of 37%, which is about average for California nursing homes (state average: 46%). Moderate turnover is common in nursing homes, but families should still ask about staff tenure and how the facility maintains care continuity when employees leave.

Was The Redwoods Post-Acute Ever Fined?

THE REDWOODS POST-ACUTE has been fined $35,874 across 1 penalty action. The California average is $33,438. 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 The Redwoods Post-Acute on Any Federal Watch List?

THE REDWOODS POST-ACUTE 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.