VILLA MARIN

100 THORNDALE DRIVE, SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 (415) 492-2408
Non profit - Corporation 31 Beds Independent Data: November 2025 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations
Trust Grade
49/100
#255 of 1155 in CA
Last Inspection: August 2023

Over 2 years since last inspection. Current conditions may differ from available data.

Overview

Villa Marin in San Rafael, California, has a Trust Grade of D, which indicates below-average performance and some concerning issues. It ranks #255 out of 1,155 facilities in California, placing it in the top half statewide, and #3 out of 11 in Marin County, indicating only two local options are better. The facility is currently improving, reducing its reported issues from 9 in 2023 to 1 in 2024. Staffing appears to be a strength, with a 4/5 star rating and an impressive 0% turnover, meaning staff are stable and familiar with the residents. However, the facility has faced significant challenges, including a serious incident where a resident at high risk for falls was left unsupervised and subsequently fell, injuring herself. Additionally, there were critical findings related to sanitation practices in the kitchen, which raised concerns about potential foodborne illnesses. The facility's $7,443 in fines is considered average, indicating some compliance issues but not among the highest in the state. Overall, while there are notable strengths, families should be aware of the facility's past challenges and ongoing improvements.

Trust Score
D
49/100
In California
#255/1155
Top 22%
Safety Record
High Risk
Review needed
Inspections
Getting Better
9 → 1 violations
Staff Stability
○ Average
Turnover data not reported for this facility.
Penalties
○ Average
$7,443 in fines. Higher than 66% of California facilities. Some compliance issues.
Skilled Nurses
✓ Good
Each resident gets 128 minutes of Registered Nurse (RN) attention daily — more than 97% of California nursing homes. RNs are the most trained staff who catch health problems before they become serious.
Violations
⚠ Watch
26 deficiencies on record. Higher than average. Multiple issues found across inspections.
★★★★★
5.0
Overall Rating
★★★★☆
4.0
Staff Levels
★★★★★
5.0
Care Quality
★★★★☆
4.0
Inspection Score
Stable
2023: 9 issues
2024: 1 issues

The Good

  • 4-Star Staffing Rating · Above-average nurse staffing levels
  • 5-Star Quality Measures · Strong clinical quality outcomes
  • Full Sprinkler Coverage · Fire safety systems throughout facility
  • No fines on record

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

The Bad

Federal Fines: $7,443

Below median ($33,413)

Minor penalties assessed

The Ugly 26 deficiencies on record

2 life-threatening 1 actual harm
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

Report Alleged Abuse (Tag F0609)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and records review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the California Department of Pub...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interviews and records review, the facility failed to report an allegation of abuse to the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) in accordance with Federal requirements for one of two sampled residents (Resident 1). This failure resulted in a delayed investigation of the alleged abuse by CDPH and had the potential for other residents to be at risk of abuse. Findings: On 4/02/24 at 1:42 p.m., CDPH received a Facility Reported Incident regarding a facility staff member being physically aggressive to Resident 1. A review of the Minimum Data Set (MDS - health status screening and assessment tool used for all residents) dated 1/16/24 indicated Resident 1 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with a diagnosis including but not limited to Dementia (impaired ability to remember, think, or make decisions that interferes with doing everyday activities); Left eye blindness and Anxiety (intense, excessive, and persistent worry and fear about everyday situations). The MDS indicated Resident 1 had a BIMS score of 3 out of 15 points (Brief Interview for Mental Status - a 15-point cognitive (relating to the mental process involved in knowing, learning, and understanding things) screening measure that evaluates memory and orientation. A score of 00 to 07 is severe cognitive impairment). A review of the facility document titled Nurse's Notes dated 3/30/24 at 11:00 p.m., indicated Unlicensed Staff A reported to Licensed Nurse B that she witnessed Unlicensed Staff C slapping Resident 1's left hand and pushed Resident 1 to bed. The Nurse's Notes indicated the Director of Nursing (DON), Social Service, and Administrator were notified of the incident. The Nurse's Notes indicated the facility had twenty four (24) hours from 11:00 p.m. to call and fax the incident to the ombudsman (an official who investigates complaints against businesses, public entities, or officials) and authorities. During a telephone interview with Unlicensed Staff A on 4/11/24 at 8:52 a.m., when Unlicensed Staff A was asked about the incident with Resident 1 on 3/30/24, Unlicensed Staff A stated she saw Unlicensed Staff C slapped Resident 1's hands twice during transfer when Unlicensed Staff C had Resident 1 hold on to the transfer lift (used for a patient who is unable to assist with transferring in and out of a bed or wheelchair). Unlicensed Staff A stated she reported the incident to Licensed Nurse B. During an interview with Licensed Nurse D on 4/10/24 at 3:05 p.m., when Licensed Nurse D was asked what she would do if she received a report of an abuse allegation, Licensed Nurse D stated she would report to the supervisor and ombudsman. She stated she would call the police immediately if the abuse resulted in an injury. When Licensed Nurse D was asked who was responsible for reporting when incident happened after hours, she stated the charge nurse could report to CDPH by leaving a message. When Licensed Nurse D was asked about the time frame of reporting an allegation of abuse, she stated immediately within 24 hours. During an interview with Licensed Nurse E on 4/10/24 at 3:10 p.m., when Licensed Nurse E was asked what she would do when she received a report of staff being rude or rough to residents, she stated she would step in, she would ask what happened and make sure to separate the staff from the resident. Licensed Nurse E stated she would report the incident to the police and ombudsman immediately. When Licensed Nurse E was asked if she would report the incident to CDPH, she stated yes. She stated the nurse was responsible for reporting to CDPH, the ombudsman, and police when an allegation or incident of abuse happened after hours or on the weekend. Licensed Nurse E stated they have a book at the nurses' station with a step by step instructions on who, and how to report abuse. When Licensed Nurse E was asked about the time frame for reporting an allegation of abuse, she stated immediately, within 24 hours. After review of the policy and procedure titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation – Reporting and Investigating revised on September 2022 with Licensed Nurse E, Licensed Nurse E verified the policy indicated to report an allegation involving abuse within two hours. During an interview with the DON on 4/10/24 at 3:29 p.m., when the DON was asked about her expectations from the nurses for reports of abuse. The DON stated the nurses were expected to report the incident to CDPH immediately. She stated they have a binder at the nurses' station with an algorithm (a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations) for the nurses to follow. The DON stated the incident with Resident 1 happened on p.m. shift on 3/30/24. She stated Licensed Nurse B started the report and was completed on 3/31/24 with the help of the Director of Staff Development (DSD). The DON concurred the facility's policy for reporting an allegation of abuse was not followed. A review of the Facility policy and procedure titled Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation or Misappropriation – Reporting and Investigating revised on September 2022 indicated, all reports of resident abuse (including injuries of unknown origin), neglect, exploitation, or theft/ misappropriation of resident property are reported to local, state and federal agencies (as required by current regulations) and thoroughly investigated by facility management.
Aug 2023 9 deficiencies 1 Harm
SERIOUS (G) 📢 Someone Reported This

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

Actual Harm - a resident was hurt due to facility failures

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

A resident was harmed · This affected 1 resident

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

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide adequate supervision to one of two residents at risk for falls (Resident 117) when Resident 117 was left unsupervised on her wheelchair after lunch. This failure resulted in Resident 117 getting up from the wheelchair unassisted, falling, injuring her head, right knee, elbow, and being sent to the hospital for evaluation and treatment of her injuries. Findings: A review of Resident 117's admission Record indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including hemiplegia (paralysis) and hemiparesis (weakness or inability to move) following cerebral infarction (stroke ) affecting the left side of the body. A review of Resident 117's Fall Risk Evaluation (a standardized tool that assesses the resident's risk for falls based on different parameters), dated 7/10/23, indicated Resident 117 was at HIGH RISK for falls. The Fall Risk Evaluation indicated Resident 117 had the following fall risk factors: a history of falls, was confused, had gait and balance problems, and had predisposing diseases and took medications that increased the risk for falls. A review of Resident 117's Fall Risk Care Plan (a document indicating the care and services to be provided to the resident), dated 7/10/23, indicated Resident 117 was at risk for fall/injury due to: impaired/limited mobility, poor balance, limited ROM [range of motion - the ability to extend and flex limbs], deconditioning [weakness], and aging process [old age]. The Fall Risk Care Plan indicated fall prevention interventions including, anticipate and meet resident's needs, transfer safely with the assistance of one or more staff, visual checks every shift when up, and place resident in areas where staff can monitor resident's activities and whereabouts. A review of Resident 117's Care Plan Conference Summary dated 7/13/23, indicated, under Safety Issues Identified, that Res[ident] stands on own. A review of Resident 117's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive, standardized, federally mandated resident assessment) dated 7/17/23, indicated Resident 117 had a BIMS (Brief Interview for Mental Status - the cognitive assessment tool of the MDS) score of 6 (scores of 0-7 indicate severe cognitive impairment), needed extensive assistance of at least two persons for transfers between surfaces such as bed, wheelchair and toilet, and was not steady, only able to stabilize with staff assistance with regards to balance during transitions and walking. A review of Resident 117's Progress Notes indicated Progress Note dated 7/21/23, at 2:50 p.m., indicating: Resident [117] was found on the floor by CNA [Certified Nursing Assistant], skin tear approx[imately] 1 inch to . head, X2[two] skin tears to R[ight] knee and X1[one] skin tear to R[ight] elbow . New orders to transport to [Hospital] for further evaluation. A review of Resident 117's Post Fall Assessment, dated 7/21/23, at 3 p.m., indicated: Per AM [day shift] nurse, Resident [117] was found on the floor by her wheelchair. Resident [117] told AM nurse and CNA she wanted to go back to bed. Resident sustained multiple skin tears on her head, right knee, and right forearm. The Post Fall Assessment indicated the following as contributing factors to the fall: Resident has intermittent confusion and lacks safety awareness. She is also impulsive and will get up w/o [without] assist from staff d/t [due to] confusion. The Post Fall Assessment indicated as recommendations to prevent further falls: Staff will . supervise resident at nursing station. Do not leave [Resident 117] alone in room. During an interview on 8/15/23, at 2 p.m., the Director of Nursing (DON) stated Resident 117 was admitted to the facility on [DATE] for rehabilitation following a stroke and was at high risk for falls. The DON stated that Resident 117 was extremely restless and impulsive and frequently tried to get out of bed. The DON stated on 7/21/23 Resident 117 had a late lunch in her room in her wheelchair assisted by CNA A. The DON stated Resident 117 finished her lunch and while CNA A was out of the room Resident 117 attempted to get up from the wheelchair unassisted and fell to the floor. The DON stated she heard CNA B shout she [Resident 117] is on the floor. The DON stated she went to Resident 117's room and found she had been assisted back to her wheelchair by staff. The DON stated Resident 117 had injuries to her forehead, right elbow, and right knee. The DON stated Resident 117 was sent to the hospital the same day for evaluation and treatment after her fall. During an interview on 8/16/23, at 9:10 a.m., CNA B stated she was assigned to care for Resident 117 when Resident 117 fell on 7/21/23. CNA B stated Resident 117 was really restless that day and trying to crawl out of bed. CNA B stated on 7/21/23 Resident 117 had lunch in her room, in her wheelchair, assisted by CNA A, and finished eating at around 2:30 p.m. CNA B stated after Resident 117 finished her meal, CNA A left Resident 117's room to take Resident 117's lunch tray to the cart on the hallway, and at this time CNA B heard Resident 117's wheelchair alarm go off (a type of alarm combined with a chair sensor or chair pad that operates, or sounds the alarm, by detecting a reduction of pressure, for example when the resident gets out of the wheelchair), ran towards her room, and found Resident 117 on the floor. CNA B stated Resident 117 had a cut on her forehead and was bleeding from it. A review of Resident 117's Hospital record titled History and Physical (H&P), dated 7/21/23, indicated, The patient was brought in as a limited trauma [some injuries] after an unwitnessed fall from her wheelchair at her care facility. The H&P's Physical Exam indicated She has a small laceration [cuts] on her forehead . She has several areas of skin abrasions [scratches] on both lower extremities. She also has some mild bruising on her upper extremities. During an interview on 8/17/23, at 11:22 a.m., the family of Resident 117 stated Resident 117 fell because she was left unsupervised in her wheelchair after lunch. The family stated Resident 117 had a routine of eating lunch, going to the commode (a portable toilet place next to the bed for residents with mobility difficulties), and then going to bed. The family stated Resident 117 should not have been left alone or unsupervised in her wheelchair because she had a history of trying to get up unassisted. The family stated she had discussed this fall risk factor with staff during the care plan conference after Resident 117's admission on [DATE]. During an interview and record review on 8/18/23, at 8:54 a.m., the MDS Coordinator provided the admission care plan conference for Resident 117's titled Care Plan Conference Summary dated 7/13/23. Resident 117's Care Conference Summary indicated, under Safety Issues Identified, that Res[ident] stands on own. The MDS Coordinator was asked what this meant. The MDS Coordinator stated it meant Resident 117 was at risk of falls because she attempted to get up on her own (from the bed or wheelchair). A review of facility policy and procedure titled Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, Revised March 2018, 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.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise at least quarterly the comprehensive care plan (a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to review and revise at least quarterly the comprehensive care plan (a document that lays out the care and services to be provided to the resident) of one of two residents (Resident 2). This failure placed Resident 2 at risk of not having her needs met. Findings: A review of Resident 2's admission Record indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke), hemiplegia and hemiparesis (weakness and/or paralysis to one side of the body), aphasia (a language disorder that affects a person's ability to communicate), difficulty in walking, muscle weakness, osteoarthritis (a type of arthritis that occurs when flexible tissue at the ends of bones wears down), and need for assistance with personal care. A review of Resident 2's Comprehensive Care Plan indicated an Activities Care Plan created 12/20/22, with no documented reviews or updates since its creation date. During an interview and record review on 8/17/23, at 2:06 p.m., the Life Enrichment Director (LED) stated the Activities Care Plan dated 12/20/22 was the current activities care plan for Resident 2. The LED confirmed it had not been reviewed or revised since its creation on 12/20/22. A review of facility policy and procedure titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, Revised March 2022, indicated: The interdisciplinary team reviews and updates the care plan: . at least quarterly, in conjunction with the required quarterly MDS assessment.
CONCERN (D)

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

Respiratory Care (Tag F0695)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not follow the procedure when they stored an oxygen tank, which was empty per the gauge, in the Resident's room (one of fifteen resid...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility did not follow the procedure when they stored an oxygen tank, which was empty per the gauge, in the Resident's room (one of fifteen residents, Resident 10.) This failure, storing oxygen tanks in residents' rooms, was a potential safety and/or fire hazard. The failure of having an empty oxygen tank puts the residents at risk of not getting supplemental oxygen in an emergency. Findings: During an observation on 8/14/23 at 11:55 a.m., Resident 10 was up in her chair in her room for lunch. Resident 10 was on oxygen at 1 liter (a measurement) per minute using a nasal cannula, tubing to the nose. The tubing was connected to an oxygen concentrator device. An oxygen tank stored in a corner just past the bathroom in Resident 10's room was found. The gauge on the tank read empty. During an interview on 8/14/23 at 2:20 p.m., Licensed Nurse C stated we keep the tanks in the rooms for emergencies. Licensed Nurse C stated Resident 10 only needed oxygen at night. Licensed Nurse C acknowledged that the tank was empty and took the oxygen tank out of Resident 10's room. During a review of the facilities policy and procedure titled Physical Environment -Fire and Life Safety, dated 5/2011, indicated under section: Oxygen Safety: Store oxygen in clean dry locations away from direct sunlight. Label all oxygen cylinders (tanks) to indicate the contents . i.e., full, half full or empty, etc. and . Do not store oxygen cylinders in any resident room or living area.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0838 (Tag F0838)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to indicate in its Facility Assessment the use of Agency/Registry (temporary) Licensed Nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). This fa...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to indicate in its Facility Assessment the use of Agency/Registry (temporary) Licensed Nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs). This failure resulted in an incomplete and inaccurate Facility Assessment. Findings: During an interview on 8/14/23, at 10:30 a.m., the Administrator provided a copy of the Facility Assessment, dated 6/9/23. A review of the Facility Assessment indicated no mention of the use of Agency/Registry Licensed Nurses or CNAs. During an interview and record review on 8/16/23, at 10:13 a.m., the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated the facility used Agency/Registry Licensed Nurses and CNAs. The DSD provided a ledger indicating the use of Agency/Registry staff in the past week, for the period of 8/9/23 to 8/15/23. The ledger indicated the use of Agency/Registry staff on six of seven days, as follows: 8/9/23: one CNA for two shifts (each shift consisting of eight hours); 8/11/23: one CNA for one shift; 8/12/23: one Licensed Nurse for one shift and four CNAs for a total of six shifts; 8/13/23: one Licensed Nurse for one shift and four CNAs for a total of four shifts; 8/14/23: one CNA for one shift; and 8/15/23: two CNAs for a total of two shifts. (Cross-reference to Tag F726).
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0909 (Tag F0909)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for the risk of entrapment by bed rails as part of its regular maintenance program. This fail...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to monitor bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for the risk of entrapment by bed rails as part of its regular maintenance program. This failure placed residents at risk of entrapment. Findings: During an interview and record review on 8/18/23, at 8:54 a.m., the Director of Maintenance (DM) stated the facility had in place a regular maintenance program. The DM was asked if bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails were inspected for the risk of entrapment as part of its regular maintenance program. The DM stated no. The DM stated resident beds were inspected for operation and condition only, not for the risk of entrapment. The DM provided records of the facility's regular maintenance program. A review of these records did not indicate the inspection of bed frames, mattresses, and bed rails for the risk of entrapment. A review of facility policy and procedure titled Bed Safety and Bed Rails, dated August 2022, indicated: Maintenance staff routinely inspects all beds and related equipment to identify risks and problems including potential entrapment risks.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0679 (Tag F0679)

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 program supporting the residents choice of a...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to provide a program supporting the residents choice of activities with activities supporting the residents physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being, and encouraging interaction with the community, for one of eight sampled residents (Resident 2), when the activities provided by the facility to Resident 2 were limited to having the TV turned on in her room, despite activity assessments which indicated Resident 2 enjoyed reading, listening to music, being around pets, and spending time outdoors. This failure resulted in Resident 2 not having her activities needs met. Findings: A review of Resident 2's admission Record indicated she was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including cerebral infarction (stroke), hemiplegia (paralysis on one side of the body), hemiparesis (weakness in one side of the body), aphasia (loss of ability to understand or express speech due to brain damage), difficulty in walking, muscle weakness, osteoarthritis (joint disease) and need for assistance with personal care. A review of Resident 2's Activities Assessment, dated 12/20/22, indicated Resident 2 enjoyed group activities, pet visits, intellectual activities, music, spiritual activities, television, and radio. A review of Resident 2's Comprehensive Care Plan indicated an Activities Care Plan, created on 12/20/22, which indicated Resident 2's current interests and preferences for activities and daily routine included, family involvement/visits, reading/keeping up with the news, listening to music, being around animals such as pets, and spending time outdoors. A review of Resident 2's Minimum Data Set (MDS - a comprehensive, standardized and federally mandated resident assessment), dated 12/21/22, indicated, under Preferences for Customary Routine and Activities, that Resident 2 preferred family involvement, reading books, newspapers, or magazines, listening to music, being around animals such as pets, keeping up with the news, spending time outdoors and participating in religious activities or practices. During an observation on 8/14/23, at 2 p.m., Resident 2 was in her room. Resident 2 was lying in her bed, supine (face upward). The TV was turned on. During an attempted interview, Resident 2 opened her eyes but did not answer questions. During an observation on 8/14/23, at 4:10 p.m., Resident 2 was in her room, lying in her bed, supine, eyes closed. The TV was turned on. During an observation on 8/15/23, at 10:07 a.m., Resident 2 was in her room, lying in her bed, supine, eyes closed. The TV was turned on. During an observation on 8/15/23, at 11:50 a.m., Resident 2 was in her room, lying in her bed, supine, eyes closed. The TV was turned on. During an observation on 8/15/23, at 3:30 p.m., Resident 2 was in her room, lying in her bed, supine, eyes closed. The TV was turned on. During an observation on 8/15/23, at 4:10 p.m., Resident 2 was in her room, lying in her bed, supine, eyes closed. The TV was turned on. During an observation on 8/16/23, at 10:10 a.m., Resident 2 was in her room, lying in her bed, supine, eyes closed. The TV was turned on. During an observation on 8/16/23, at 11:20 a.m., Resident 2 was in her room, lying in her bed, supine, eyes closed. The TV was turned on. During an observation on 8/16/23, at 1:50 p.m., Resident 2 was in her room, lying in her bed, supine, eyes closed. The TV was turned on. During an observation on 8/16/23, at 3:15 p.m., Resident 2 was in her room, lying in her bed, supine, eyes closed. The TV was turned on. During an observation on 8/17/23, at 10 a.m., Resident 2 was in her room, lying in her bed, supine, eyes closed. The TV was turned on. During an observation on 8/17/23, at 12:04 p.m., Resident 2 was in her room, lying in her bed, supine, eyes closed. The TV was turned on. During an interview and record review on 08/17/23, at 2:06 p.m., the Life Enrichment Director (LED), responsible for resident activities, stated the facility provided group activities daily for residents in the activities room at 11 a.m. and 4 p.m. For bed-bound residents, the LED stated activities were provided according to the resident's activity preferences, as indicated in the activities assessment and activities care plan. The LED provided Resident 2's activities assessment and activities care plan dated 12/20/22 which indicated Resident 2's preferences for activities including group activities, pet visits, intellectual activities, music, spiritual activities, television, and radio. The LED was asked for documentation of the activities offered to Resident 2. The LED stated she documented resident activities in their Activity Participation Record (APR). A review of Resident 2's APR for August 2023 indicated Resident 2 did not participate in any group activities, did not attend social dining, did not leave her room, and did not participate in physical activities for the period August 1-16, 2023. The APR indicated Resident 2 received Sensory Enrichment daily, which the LED stated meant hygiene/personal care provided by nursing staff. The APR indicated Resident 2 received daily room visits which the LED stated were family/friends visits on 8/2, 8/3, 8/6, 8/9 and 8/10, LED visits on 8/3 and 8/15, and nursing staff visits the other days. The only recreational activity provided by the facility to Resident 2 documented on the APR was TV. A review of the facility's Life Enrichment Calendar for August 2023, indicated at least 10 music activities for the period August 1-16 offered to residents in the activities room. The LED stated Resident 2 refused activities. The LED stated an RNA [Restorative Nursing Assistant - a type of CNA] recently reported to her that she tried to play music to Resident 2 but she cried. A review of facility document titled Facility Assessment dated 6/9/23, indicated the facility provides Opportunities for social activities/life enrichment (individual, small group, community) .
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0700 (Tag F0700)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure timely documentation of resident assessments for the risk of entrapment from bed rails and obtaining informed consent prior to insta...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure timely documentation of resident assessments for the risk of entrapment from bed rails and obtaining informed consent prior to installation of bed rails for 15 of 15 residents. This failure placed residents at risk of entrapment. Findings: During an interview and concurrent record review on 8/18/23 at 8:05 a.m., the DON (Director of Nursing) stated all 31 resident beds had bilateral quarter-size bedrails. The DON provided a copy of form titled Interdisciplinary Assessment and Progress Notes which had a field for evaluation of bed rails for entrapment risks and space to document informed consent completed for all residents upon admission. The DON reviewed the charts of all 15 facility residents and stated the entrapment risk assessment fields had not been completed. During an interview on 8/18/23, at 11:45 a.m., the DON stated assessment of bed rails for risk of entrapment had been completed and documented and informed consent obtained for all but two residents, and no residents were at risk for entrapment. A review of facility policy and procedure titled Bed Safety and Bed Rails, dated August 2022, indicated: Regardless of mattress type, width, length, and/or depth, the bed frame, bed rail and mattress will leave no gap wide enough to entrap a resident's head or body. Prior to the installation or use of a side or bed rail, alternatives to the use of side or bed rails are attempted . If attempted alternatives do not adequately meet the resident's needs the resident may be evaluated for the use of bed rails .The resident assessment to determine risk of entrapment includes .A resident or part of his/her body could be caught between rails, the opening of the rails, or between the bed rails and mattress . Before using bed rails for any reason, the staff shall inform the resident or representative about the benefits and potential hazards associated with bed rails and obtain informed consent .
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 Agency/Registry (staffing agencies that hire and train staff and place nursing professionals in a variety of nursing po...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to ensure Agency/Registry (staffing agencies that hire and train staff and place nursing professionals in a variety of nursing positions) Licensed Nurses and Certified Nursing Assistants (CNAs) had the competencies and skills necessary to care for its residents' needs when: 1) the facility did not verify that Agency/Registry Licensed Nurses and CNAs had valid and complete competency/skills checks to meet resident needs prior to working at the facility; 2) an Agency/Registry Licensed Nurse (Licensed Nurse E) did not perform hand hygiene per facility policies prior to medication administration to five residents (cross-reference to Tag F880 - Infection Control); 3) an Agency/Registry Licensed Nurse (Licensed Nurse E) attempted to perform a medical procedure involving blood draw using needles on a resident who did not have orders for and did not need the procedure, and was only stopped by the resident who refused the procedure; and 4) the facility did not have a policy and procedure governing its use of Agency/Registry Licensed Nurses and CNAs. These failures placed residents at risk of incompetent care and not having their care needs met. Findings: 1) During a resident group interview on 8/15/23, at 11:00 a.m., residents reported dissatisfaction with the services provided by Agency/Registry Licensed Nurses and CNAs. The residents reported the Agency/Registry staff were not familiar or knowledgeable about the residents and their needs. During an interview and record review on 8/16/23, at 10:13 a.m., the Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated the facility used a mix of directly hired and Agency/Registry Licensed Nurses and CNAs. The DSD stated directly hired Licensed Nurses and CNAs had to pass a skills/competency check demonstrating the skills to meet resident needs. The DSD provided the checklists he used to assess their skills/competency. A review of the Licensed Nurse skills/competency checklist indicated five pages with about 70 different skills/competencies. A review of the CNA skills/competency checklist indicated one page with about 72 different skills/competencies. The DSD stated their directly hired Licensed Nurses and CNAs must successfully complete these checklists upon hire and annually thereafter. For Agency/Registry Licensed Nurses and CNAs, the DSD stated the facility relied on skills/competency checks performed by the agencies that employed them, but he checked them online before the staff were allowed to work with residents. The DSD provided a ledger indicating the use of Agency/Registry Licensed Nurses and CNAs for the week of 8/9/23 to 8/15/23. The ledger indicated that Agency/Registry Licensed Nurses and CNAs worked on six of the seven days, as follows: 8/9/23: one CNA during two shifts (each shift consisting of eight hours); 8/11/23: one CNA during one shift; 8/12/23: one Licensed Nurse during one shift and four CNAs during six shifts; 8/13/23: one Licensed Nurse during one shift and four CNAs during four shifts; 8/14/23: one CNA for one shift; and 8/15/23: two CNAs during two shifts. The DSD was asked to provide the skills/competency checks for three agency staff that worked at the facility during the week of 8/9/23 to 8/15/23: CNAs G and H and Licensed Nurse I. The DSD accessed the website of Agency A that employed CNAs G and H and opened the staff profiles of CNAs G and H. The DSD stated the skills/competency checks were found under the Annual Competencies tab, which he opened. The Annual Competencies tab contained the following statement: I have read and been informed of facility mandated annual competencies related to my profession as a healthcare provider. and listed 29 topics including hand hygiene, patient rights, restraints, and sexual harassment and others. The list had an Expiration Date of 7/15/24. This was the only document related to skills/competencies found in their file. The DSD was asked what the statement in the Annual Competencies tab meant, if Agency A had verified the skills/competencies listed or it was merely an affirmation by the CNAs they had those skills/competencies, and what the Expiration Date meant. The DSD stated he did not know. The DSD then accessed the website of Agency B, which employed Licensed Nurse I. There were no skills/competency checklists for Licensed Nurse I available for verification there. 2) During five observations on 8/17/23, from 5:45 a.m. to 6:35 a.m., Licensed Nurse E, an Agency/Registry Licensed Nurse, prepared and administered medications to five residents without observing the facility's hand hygiene policies and procedures. (Cross-reference to Tag F-880). 3) During an observation and interview on 8/17/23, at 6:45 a.m., Licensed Nurse E stated she was going to check the blood sugar level of Resident 5, who received insulin (a medication to control blood sugar), and had orders to have his blood sugar level checked daily. (Blood sugar levels are checked by pricking the tip of the resident's finger with a small needle called a lancet to produce a blood drop which is placed on a test strip. The test strip is then inserted into a portable device called glucometer which analyses the blood and indicates the blood sugar level). Licensed Nurse E collected a plastic basked with Resident 5's name containing a glucometer, lancets, test strips, alcohol swabs, gloves, and other supplies, and entered Resident 9's room. Licensed Nurse E did not ask Resident 9's name or checked her wrist band (containing the resident's name and date of birth ) or identify Resident 9 by other means. Licensed Nurse E informed Resident 9 she was going to check her blood sugar level. Resident 9 asked what she was doing. Licensed Nurse E repeated she was going to check her blood sugar level, and asked if she could prick her right middle index finger. Resident 9 once more asked what she was doing. Licensed Nurse E again informed Resident 9 she was going to check her blood sugar level and proceeded to wipe Resident 9's right index finger with an alcohol swab. Licensed Nurse E then took a lancet and placed it against Resident 9's finger. Resident 9 recoiled her right hand and stated she did not have blood sugar checks done. Licensed Nurse E checked Resident 9's wrist band, stated she was the wrong resident, and left the room. A review of Resident 9's physician orders indicated no order for blood sugar checks. During an interview on 8/17/23, at 4 p.m., the MDS Coordinator/Case Manager stated only two residents at the facility had orders for blood sugar checks: Residents 5 and 6. 4) During an interview on 08/18/23, at 10:33 a.m., the DSD stated there was no policy and procedure on the use of Agency/Registry Licensed Nurses and CNAs. A review of facility policy and procedure titled Staffing, Sufficient and Competent Nursing, Revised August 2022, indicated: Our facility provides sufficient numbers of nursing staff with the appropriate skills and competency necessary to provide nursing and related care and services for all residents in accordance with resident care plans and the facility assessment.
CONCERN (E)

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

Infection Control (Tag F0880)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow best practices for infection prevention and control when three of three Licensed Nurses (Licensed Nurses D, E and F) di...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to follow best practices for infection prevention and control when three of three Licensed Nurses (Licensed Nurses D, E and F) did not perform hand hygiene (washed hands or used hand sanitizer) before preparing medications and administering them to eight of eight residents (Residents 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11) and when one Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA) provided care to a resident without performing prior hand hygiene. These failures placed Residents Residents 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10 and 11 at risk of the spread of infections. Findings: During an observation on 8/16/23, at 4:35 p.m., Licensed Nurse D began preparing medications for Resident 9 on the medication cart on the hallway outside Resident 9's room. Licensed Nurse D placed three medications in a cup and entered Resident 9's room and gave them to Resident 9. License Nurse D did not perform hand hygiene before preparing the medications and administering them to Resident 9. During an observation on 8/16/23, at 5 p.m., Licensed Nurse D began preparing medications for Resident 11 on the medication cart on the hallway outside Resident 11's room. Licensed Nurse D placed two medications in a cup and entered Resident 11's room and gave them to Resident 11. License Nurse D did not perform hand hygiene before preparing the medications and administering them to Resident 11. During an observation on 8/16/23, at 5:10 p.m., Licensed Nurse D began preparing medications for Resident 10 on the medication cart on the hallway outside Resident 10's room. Licensed Nurse D placed three medications in a cup and entered Resident 10's room and gave them to Resident 10. License Nurse D did not perform hand hygiene before preparing the medications and administering them to Resident 10. During an observation on 8/16/23, at 5:15 p.m., Licensed Nurse D began preparing medications for Resident 5 on the medication cart on the hallway outside Resident 5's room. Licensed Nurse D placed two medications in a cup and entered Resident 5's room and gave them to Resident 5. License Nurse D did not perform hand hygiene before preparing the medications and administering them to Resident 5. During an observation on 8/17/23, at 5:45 a.m., Licensed Nurse E began preparing medications for Resident 4 on the medication cart on the hallway outside Resident 4's room. Licensed Nurse E placed one medication in a cup and entered Resident 4's room and gave it to Resident 4. License Nurse E did not perform hand hygiene before preparing the medication and administering it to Resident 4. During an observation on 8/17/23, at 6 a.m., Licensed Nurse E began preparing medications for Resident 3 on the medication cart on the hallway outside Resident 3's room. Licensed Nurse E placed one medication in a cup and entered Resident 3's room and gave it to Resident 3. License Nurse E did not perform hand hygiene before preparing the medication and administering it to Resident 3. During an observation on 8/17/23, at 6:05 a.m., Licensed Nurse E began preparing medications for Resident 5 on the medication cart on the hallway outside Resident 5's room. Licensed Nurse E placed one medication in a cup and entered Resident 5's room and gave it to Resident 5. License Nurse E did not perform hand hygiene before preparing the medication and administering it to Resident 5. During an observation on 8/17/23, at 6:10 a.m., Licensed Nurse E began preparing medications for Resident 6 on the medication cart on the hallway outside Resident 6's room. Licensed Nurse E placed one medication in a cup and entered Resident 6's room and gave it to Resident 6. License Nurse E did not perform hand hygiene before preparing the medication and administering it to Resident 6. During an observation on 8/17/23, at 6:35 a.m., Licensed Nurse E began preparing medications for Resident 9 on the medication cart on the hallway outside Resident 9's room. Licensed Nurse E placed five medications in a cup and entered Resident 9's room and gave them to Resident 9. License Nurse E did not perform hand hygiene before preparing the medications and administering them to Resident 9. During an observation on 8/17/23, at 8:50 a.m., Licensed Nurse F began preparing medications for Resident 1 on the medication cart on the hallway outside Resident 1's room. Licensed Nurse F placed three medications in a cup and entered Resident 1's room and gave them to Resident 1. License Nurse F did not perform hand hygiene before preparing the medications and administering them to Resident 1. During an observation on 8/17/23 at 10:30 a.m., from the hall a CNA was observed answering a call light. A CNA walked down the hall, past several rooms and hand sanitizing stations and entered the resident's room and assisted the resident into the wheelchair. The CNA did not use the hand sanitizer just outside the room nor washed hands at the bathroom sink prior to helping the resident. During an interview on 8/17/23 at 1:35 p.m., the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated when staff should be doing hand hygiene. The IP stated the staff should be doing hand hygiene before entering the residents' rooms and when exiting the resident's room, and stated, Gel in, Gel out. During an interview on 8/17/23, at 4:20 p.m., the IP stated nurses should perform hand hygiene before preparing medications to administer to residents. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, dated 8/2018, indicated this Facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infection . All personal shall follow the Handwashing/Hand Hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personal, residents and visitors. During an observation on 8/17/23 at 10:30 a.m., from the hall a CNA was observed answering a call light. A CNA walked down the hall, past several rooms and hand sanitizing stations and entered the resident's room and assisted the resident into the wheelchair. The CNA did not use the hand sanitizer just outside the room nor washed hands at the bathroom sink prior to helping the resident. During an interview on 8/17/23 at 1:35 p.m., the Infection Preventionist (IP) stated when staff should be doing hand hygiene. The IP stated the staff should be doing hand hygiene before entering the residents' rooms and when exiting the resident's room, and stated, Gel in, Gel out. During an interview on 8/17/23, at 4:20 p.m., the IP stated nurses should perform hand hygiene before preparing medications to administer to residents. A review of the facility policy and procedure titled Handwashing/Hand Hygiene, dated 8/2018, indicated this Facility considers hand hygiene the primary means to prevent the spread of infection . All personal shall follow the Handwashing/Hand Hygiene procedures to help prevent the spread of infections to other personal, residents and visitors.
Mar 2019 6 deficiencies
CONCERN (D)

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

Comprehensive Care Plan (Tag F0656)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to include a level of supervision on the care plan of one of eight sampled residents (Resident 3) who had fallen repeatedly. This failure coul...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to include a level of supervision on the care plan of one of eight sampled residents (Resident 3) who had fallen repeatedly. This failure could potentially lead to future falls, fractures, or hospitalization when staff had not established how often Resident 3 needed safety checks to prevent him from falling. Findings: During an interview on 2/27/19 at 10:19 a.m., Resident 3 stated he had had a couple of falls when he had gotten up and lost his balance. During a medical record review on 2/28/19 at 9:12 a.m., Resident 3's nurses notes revealed Resident 3 was found by staff in his room on the floor on 10/30/18, 12/20/18, and 2/1/19. Resident 3's nurses notes indicated during all three falls Resident 3 had gotten up by himself without calling for assistance. Review of Resident 3's care plan titled CAA 11 Falls Care Plan, dated 2/1/19, revealed no indication of a level of supervision for Resident 3. During a record review and concurrent interview on 3/1/19 at 11:55 a.m., MDS Coordinator stated she participated in the development of care plans for residents. MDS Coordinator confirmed the care plan titled CAA 11 Falls Care Plan, dated 2/1/19, was Resident 3's long-term care plan for falls. MDS Coordinator confirmed the long-term care plan for falls did not indicate a level of supervision and it should include a level of supervision. During a record review and concurrent interview on 3/1/19 at 1:15 p.m., Director of Nursing confirmed the level of supervision should be included on Resident 3's long-term care plan for falls. When asked how she increased the level of supervision a resident needed if a timeframe had not been established on the care plan, Director of Nursing did not answer. Director of Staff Development (DSD) stated he had communicated to the certified nursing assistants (CNAs) that they needed to increase how often they checked on Resident 3. DSD stated his expectation was for CNAs to check on Resident 3 at least every hour and a half to two hours, but stated he had not told the CNAs a specific timeframe to check on him. DSD confirmed if the level of supervision was specific on the care plan it would be more effective in determining how Resident 3's supervision could be increased if he kept falling. Review of facility policy titled Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, dated 12/2016, revealed, 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. Review of facility policy titled Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, dated 3/2018, revealed, Based on previous evaluations and current data, the staff will identify interventions related to the resident's specific resks and causes to try to prevent the resident from falling and to try to minimize complications from falling.
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 maintain accurate medical records for one of six sampl...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain accurate medical records for one of six sampled residents. This had the potential for overmedication, inaccurate medication reconciliation of controlled substances, inappropriate pain control for Resident 7 and diversion of controlled drugs. Findings: Resident 7, a [AGE] year-old female was admitted to the facility on [DATE], with diagnoses including hemiplegia (complete paralysis or loss of function of one-half of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness of one-half side of the body) following cerebral infarction (a brain lesion in which a cluster of brain cells die when they do not get enough blood) affecting left non-dominant side. Resident 7's MDS (Minimum Data Set-part of the federally mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents in Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes), dated 12/10/18 indicated she frequently experienced pain during the last five days (12/6/18-12/10/18), and the intensity on a scale from zero to ten, with zero being no pain and ten being as the worst pain imaginable, had been a seven within the same five-day period of the MDS assessment. According to Resident 7's Medication Administration Record for the month of February, 2019, Resident 7 had a physician's order indicating, OXYCODONE (an opioid medication for the treatment of moderate to severe pain) IR (immediate-release medication that starts to works within a few minutes of administration) (BBW) (Black Box Warning- the strictest warning put in the labeling of prescription drugs or drug products by the Food and Drug Administration when there is reasonable evidence of an association of a serious hazard with the drug) 5 mg(milligrams) ONE TAB PO(by mouth) Q4HRS(every four hours) PRN(as needed) FOR MODERATE PAIN. During record review on 3/1/19 at 10:30 a.m., it was noted that the controlled medication oxycodone 5 mg tablet was signed out on 2/9/19 in the controlled drug record for Resident 7 but not documented in her Medication Administration Record (MAR) as administered, on 2/9/19. This medication had been signed out by Licensed Staff B, in the controlled drug record log book for Resident 7. During an interview with the DSD on 3/1/19 at 10:32 a.m., the DSD confirmed that this medication had not been documented as administered in Resident 7's MAR, but was logged out in the controlled drug record on 2/9/19. The DSD stated that all the administered controlled medications were required to be documented in the medication administration record of the resident receiving the medication. The DSD indicated that Licensed Staff B probably forgot to document the administration of oxycodone 5 mg tablet in Resident 7's MAR. During an interview on 3/01/19 at 10:37 a.m., Licensed Staff B stated that she forgot to document oxycodone 5 mg tablet on Resident 7's MAR on 2/9/19. She also confirmed forgetting to document the pain level which prompted the administration of this medication, and the effectiveness of the medication in alleviating pain. She stated that she was probably very busy. She stated that she would write a late entry documenting the administration of oxycodone 5 mg tab on 2/9/19, on Resident 7's MAR and proceeded to document the administration of this medication on 2/9/19. In another area of the MAR she wrote a note indicating, LE (late entry) 3/1/19 0900 (9:00 a.m.) oxycodone 5 mg given for L (left) arm pain-effective. During an interview on 3/01/19 at 11:55 a.m., Unlicensed Staff D, Resident 7's caregiver, stated that Resident 7 had pain on her left arm, so she needed oxycodone when showering and participating in physical therapy. Unlicensed Staff C stated that other, non-narcotic analgesics did not alleviate Resident 7's pain. Unlicensed Staff C stated that only oxycodone was effective in controlling Resident 7's pain. Resident 7 was hard of hearing and was unable to answer any questions. Resident 7 was observed with a contracted left hand bent at the level of the elbow. The facility's policy titled, Administering Medications last revised in December of 2012, indicated, As required or indicated for a medication, the individual administering the medication will record in the resident's medical record: a. The date and time the medication was administered; b. The dosage; c. The route of administration; d. The injection site (if applicable); e. Any complaints or symptoms for which the drug was administered; f. Any results achieved and when those results were observed; and g. The signature and title of the person administering the drug. The facility's policy titled, Documentation of Medication Administration last revised in April of 2007 indicated, A Nurse or Certified Medication Aide (where applicable) shall document all medications administered to each resident on the resident's medication administration record (MAR) . 2. Administration of medication must be documented immediately after (never before) it is given. This lack of documentation in the facility's MAR had the potential to cause overmedication of controlled substances to Resident 7, diversion of drugs, inability to reconcile controlled substances from the controlled drug record, and inappropriate pain control for Resident 7.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0578 (Tag F0578)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written information on Advance Directives to two of eight s...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on interview and record review, the facility failed to provide written information on Advance Directives to two of eight sampled residents. This failure had the potential to keep the residents uninformed of their rights to have their wishes honored in regards to health care decisions during incapacity. Findings: During record review on 2/28/19 at 11:22 a.m., Resident 6 and 17 did not have Advance Directives in their Medical Records. According to Resident 6's Face Sheet, she had been admitted to the facility on [DATE] with hemiplegia (paralysis of one side of the body) and hemiparesis (weakness of one side of the body) following a history of falling. According to Resident 6's MDS (Minimum Data Set) Assessment (a federally mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents in Medicare and Medicaid-certified nursing homes) on 12/10/18, her BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status- required screening tool used in nursing homes to assess cognition) score was 15, which indicated her cognition was intact. According to her POLST (Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment - a legal document for people with an advanced progressive or terminal illness that specifies the type of care a person would like in an emergency medical situation) dated 10/15/17, Resident 6's Advance Directive was available and reviewed by the facility. During an interview on 3/1/19 at 10:33 a.m., Resident 6 stated that she did have an Advance Directive. Resident 6 stated she did not know why the Skilled Nursing Facility would not include a copy of her Advance Directive in her chart. She was unable to remember if the facility provided any written information about Advance Directives upon admission, or if they had requested for a copy of her Advance Directives. According to Resident 17's Face Sheet, she had been admitted to the facility on [DATE] with Alzheimer's disease and Parkinson's disease. During an interview on 3/1/19 at 9:32 a.m. with Resident 17's legally-recognized decision maker, he stated that Resident 17 had an Advance Directive at home. He was unable to recall if the facility provided any written information about Advance Directives upon admission, or if they had requested for a copy of her Advance Directives. During a concurrent interview and record review on 3/1/19 at 9:50 a.m., the Social Services Director confirmed that Residents 6 and 17 did not have Advance Directives. The Social Services Director stated that he provided verbal information about Advance Directives to residents upon admission. He confirmed that he did not provide written information. He stated that he was not aware that written information had to provided. The facility's policy titled, Advance Directives dated December 2016, indicated, Upon admission, the resident will 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 (E)

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

Deficiency F0657 (Tag F0657)

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 revise Nursing Plans of Care and attempt new intervent...

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 revise Nursing Plans of Care and attempt new interventions to prevent falls for 2 of 2 sampled residents at risk for falls. This had the potential to cause severe injuries or death to Resident 6 and Resident 13 during new incidences of falls. Findings: Resident 6 Resident 6, an [AGE] year-old female, was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease, Mild Cognitive Impairment, Age-related Osteoporosis, and History of Falling according to Resident 6's Facility Face Sheet. Resident 6's MDS (Minimum Data Set-part of the federally mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents in Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes) dated 2/26/2019 indicated her BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status-A required screening tool used in nursing homes to assess cognition, 13 to 15 points: intact cognition, 8 to 12 points: moderately impaired cognition, 0-7 points: severely impaired cognition) score was 15 which indicated Resident 22 had intact condition. Resident 6's MDS dated [DATE] also indicated she needed limited assistance with transfers, toilet use and locomotion in the unit. Resident 6 needed one-person physical assistance with all the above tasks. A Nursing Plan of Care for falls dated 12/5/18 indicated, 1) Keep environment free of hazards, clutter free, call light within reach, 2) Keep personal items within reach, 3) Encourage/remind resident to ask for help when needed if able, 4) Provide assistance as identified in transfers and mobility, 5) Visual ? [checks] Q2H (every two hours), when up, place in areas where staff can monitor whereabouts. First Fall: The facility post-fall assessment dated [DATE] at 4:00 p.m. indicated, Landed on the floor while reaching for something, tripped on her shoes. The facility's Fall Risk Evaluation dated 10/26/18 indicated Resident 6 received a score of 10, which placed her at high risk for falls. Resident 6's Nursing Plan of Care to prevent falls titled CAA 11 FALLS CARE PLAN was revised on 12/5/18 with new effective interventions to prevent further falls. The facility also initiated a 72-hour short term care plan to monitor the resident after the fall. Despite the new interventions, Resident 6 suffered a fall on 10/29/18. Second Fall: The facility Post Fall assessment dated [DATE] at 7:30 p.m. indicated, [Resident 6] Landed on the floor-while, sitting on the chair. The facility's Fall Risk Evaluation dated 10/29/2018, indicated Resident 6 received a score of 10, which placed her at high risk for falls. The facility initiated a 72-hour short term care plan to prevent further falls. This short term care plan included the following new intervention, Encourage Resident to use w/er (wheelchair). Despite this new intervention, Resident 6 suffered another fall on 1/20/19. Third Fall: The facility's Post Fall assessment dated [DATE] at 8:45 p.m. indicated, Pt. [Resident 6] get out of bed uses her walker, let go her walker to check something in the wall, stumbled on the slippers she was wearing and lost her balance. The Fall Risk Evaluation dated 1/20/19 indicated Resident 6 received a score of 10, which placed her at high risk for falls. The Nursing Plan of Care dated 12/5/18, titled, CAA 11 FALLS CARE PLAN was not revised after this fall. There were no new interventions to prevent further falls. The facility started a 72-hour short term care plan with some new interventions such as, Visual/room visit more often, but did not specify how often Resident 6 was required to be monitored. The interventions in the short term care plan were not included in the long term Nursing Plan of Care dated 12/5/18. Resident 6 suffered another fall on 2/12/19. Fourth Fall: The facility's Post Fall assessment dated [DATE] at 8:45 p.m., indicated, RESIDENT FOUND SITTING ON THE FLOOR, STATED SHE WAS WALKING TO THE BATHROOM AND TRIPPED WITH HER SLIPPERS ON WALKER FOUND NEXT TO HER. The Fall Risk Evaluation dated 2/12/19 indicated Resident 6 received a score of 12, which placed her at high risk for falls. The Nursing Plan of Care to prevent falls titled CAA 11 FALLS CARE PLAN was not revised after the fall on 2/12/19, therefore there were no new interventions to prevent further falls. The facility started a 72-hour short term care plan to prevent further falls. One of the interventions in the short term care plan indicated, frequent room visits by staff (esp.[especially] at night) This intervention did not indicate how frequently Resident 6 was required to be monitored. Resident 13 Resident 13, an [AGE] year-old female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Muscle Weakness, Difficulty in Walking and History of Falling. Resident 13's MDS dated [DATE] indicated she had a BIMS score of 7, which indicated she was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS also indicated Resident 13 needed extensive assistance with transfers and was totally dependent on staff for locomotion on and off the unit. Resident 13's Nursing Plan of Care to prevent falls dated 12/28/18 had the following interventions to prevent falls: 1) Orient Resident to new room/environment, 2) Keep call light & personal items w/in reach, 3) Assist Resident to toilet per toileting schedule, 4) Keep bed at lowest position, lock wheels on bed/wheelchair when appropriate. Despite these interventions, Resident 13 suffered a fall on 2/26/19. First Fall: Resident 13's 72-hour short term care plan dated 2/15/19 indicated Resident 13 suffered a fall on 2/15/19. It indicated, PROBLEM Fall DATE IDENTIFIED 2/15/19 .Monitor VS & neuro check x 72 (hours). The Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident 13 received a score of 12 which placed her at high risk for falls. The Nursing Plan of Care dated 12/28/18, titled, FALL RISK CARE PLAN was not revised after this fall. A 72-hour short term care plan was initiated for this fall. The short term care plan indicated, Non-skid socks to wear when OOB (out of bed). This new intervention would not have been appropriate for Resident 13, who, according to her MDS dated [DATE], was totally dependent on staff for locomotion on and off the unit. Second Fall: The facility's Post Fall assessment dated [DATE] at 6:00 p.m. indicated, Resident felt an urgency to have a BM (bowel movement), was sitting in her w/c (wheelchair) eating dinner, got up and walked to the BR (bathroom) not using her walker (or call light). According to Resident 13's short term care plan dated 2/26/19, she suffered a fall. The Falls Risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident 13 received a score of 12 which placed her at high risk for falls. The Nursing Plan of Care dated 12/28/18, titled, FALL RISK CARE PLAN was not revised after this fall. A 72-hour short term care plan was initiated for this fall. The short term care plan did not indicate how often Resident 13 was expected to be monitored by level of care staff. The short term care plan indicated, Call light within reach and reminded to use, which was already part of the initial Falls Risk Care Plan, and was not effective in reducing the incidence of falls. During an interview on 2/28/19 at 12:16 p.m., the DON confirmed that the long term care plans to reduce new incidences of falls did not get revised after every fall. The DON stated that the short term care plans were active for 72 hours. She also stated that Resident 6 was monitored by staff every 15 to 20 minutes but there was no log to keep track of visual checks. In addition, while reviewing the Falls Plan of Care for Resident 6 the DON stated that the interventions from the short care plan for falls should have been added to the long term care plan. During an interview on 2/28/19 at 11:54 a.m., Unlicensed Staff C stated that she checked on Resident 6 every 10 to 15 minutes. During an interview on 2/28/19 at 11:48 a.m., Licensed Staff B stated that she checked on Resident 6 every hour, and confirmed that Resident 6 was at risk for falls. The facility's protocol titled, Falls-Clinical Protocol, last revised in March of 2018, indicated, If underlying causes cannot be readily identified or corrected, staff will try various relevant interventions, based on assessment of the nature or category of falling, until falling reduces or stops .The staff and physician will monitor and document the individual's response to interventions intended to reduce falling or the consequences of falling .If the individual continues to fall, the staff and physician will re-evaluate the situation and reconsider possible reasons for the resident's falling (instead of, or in addition to those that have already been identified) and also reconsider the current interventions. The facility's policy titled, Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, last revised in March of 2018 indicated, If falling recurs despite initial interventions, staff will implement additional or different interventions, or indicate why the current approach remains relevant .In conjunction with the attending physician, staff will identify and implement relevant interventions. The facility's policy titled, Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team, last revised in September of 2013 indicated, Our facility's Care Planning/Interdisciplinary Team is responsible for the development of an individualized comprehensive care plan for each resident. The facility's policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, last revised in December of 2016 indicated, Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change .The interdisciplinary Team must review and update the care plan: a. When there has been a significant change in the resident's condition; b. When the desired outcome is not met. The facility violated its own policies by failing to update and revise the Nursing Plans of Care after every fall for Resident 6 and Resident 13. The facility violated the regulations by failing to ensure that Resident 6 and Resident 13, who were at risk for falls, had effective revisions in the Nursing Plans of Care after every fall to prevent further falls.
CONCERN (E)

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

Accident Prevention (Tag F0689)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to attempt new interventions to prevent falls for 2 of 2 ...

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 attempt new interventions to prevent falls for 2 of 2 sampled residents at risk for falls. This had the potential to cause severe injuries or death to Resident 6 and Resident 13 during new incidences of falls. Findings: Resident 6 Resident 6, an [AGE] year-old female, was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Parkinson's Disease, Mild Cognitive Impairment, Age-related Osteoporosis, and History of Falling according to Resident 6's Facility Face Sheet. Resident 6's MDS (Minimum Data Set-part of the federally mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents in Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes) dated 2/26/2019 indicated her BIMS (Brief Interview of Mental Status-A required screening tool used in nursing homes to assess cognition, 13 to 15 points: intact cognition, 8 to 12 points: moderately impaired cognition, 0-7 points: severely impaired cognition) score was 15 which indicated Resident 22 had intact condition. Resident 6's MDS dated [DATE] also indicated she needed limited assistance with transfers, toilet use and locomotion in the unit. Resident 6 needed one-person physical assistance with all the above tasks. A Nursing Plan of Care for falls dated 12/5/18 indicated, 1) Keep environment free of hazards, clutter free, call light within reach, 2) Keep personal items within reach, 3) Encourage/remind resident to ask for help when needed if able, 4) Provide assistance as identified in transfers and mobility, 5) Visual ? [checks] Q2H (every two hours), when up, place in areas where staff can monitor whereabouts. First Fall: The facility post-fall assessment dated [DATE] at 4:00 p.m. indicated, Landed on the floor while reaching for something, tripped on her shoes. The facility's Fall Risk Evaluation dated 10/26/18 indicated Resident 6 received a score of 10, which placed her at high risk for falls. There was no documentation that an interdisciplinary team meeting was held to discuss the fall that occurred on 10/26/18. Resident 6's Nursing Plan of Care to prevent falls titled CAA 11 FALLS CARE PLAN was revised on 12/5/18 with new effective interventions to prevent further falls. The facility also initiated a 72-hour short term care plan to monitor the resident after the fall. Despite the new interventions, Resident 6 suffered a fall on 10/29/18. Second Fall: The facility Post Fall assessment dated [DATE] at 7:30 p.m. indicated, [Resident 6] Landed on the floor-while, sitting on the chair. The facility's Fall Risk Evaluation dated 10/29/2018, indicated Resident 6 received a score of 10, which placed her at high risk for falls. There was no documentation that an interdisciplinary team meeting was held to discuss the fall that occurred on 10/29/18. The facility initiated a 72-hour short term care plan to prevent further falls. This short term care plan included the following new intervention, Encourage Resident to use w/er (wheelchair). Despite this new intervention, Resident 6 suffered another fall on 1/20/19. Third Fall: The facility's Post Fall assessment dated [DATE] at 8:45 p.m. indicated, Pt. [Resident 6] get out of bed uses her walker, let go her walker to check something in the wall, stumbled on the slippers she was wearing and lost her balance. The Fall Risk Evaluation dated 1/20/19 indicated Resident 6 received a score of 10, which placed her at high risk for falls. There was no documentation indicating that an interdisciplinary team meeting was held to discuss the fall that occurred on 1/20/19. The Nursing Plan of Care dated 12/5/18, titled, CAA 11 FALLS CARE PLAN was not revised after this fall. There were no new interventions to prevent further falls. The facility started a 72-hour short term care plan with some new interventions including, Visual/room visit more often, but did not specify how often Resident 6 was required to be monitored. The interventions in the short term care plan were not included in the long term Nursing Plan of Care dated 12/5/18. Resident 6 suffered another fall on 2/12/19. Fourth Fall: The facility's Post Fall assessment dated [DATE] at 8:45 p.m., indicated, RESIDENT FOUND SITTING ON THE FLOOR, STATED SHE WAS WALKING TO THE BATHROOM AND TRIPPED WITH HER SLIPPERS ON WALKER FOUND NEXT TO HER. The Fall Risk Evaluation dated 2/12/19 indicated Resident 6 received a score of 12, which placed her at high risk for falls. An interdisciplinary meeting was documented on 2/26/19 but indicated, Scheduled Care Conference and was not conducted specifically to discuss the fall that occurred on 2/12/19. The Nursing Plan of Care to prevent falls titled CAA 11 FALLS CARE PLAN was not revised after the fall on 2/12/19, therefore there were no new interventions to prevent further falls. The facility started a 72-hour short term care plan to prevent further falls. One of the interventions in the short term care plan indicated, frequent room visits by staff (esp.[especially] at night). This intervention did not indicate how frequently Resident 6 was required to be monitored. Resident 13 Resident 13, an [AGE] year-old female was admitted to the facility on [DATE] with diagnoses including Muscle Weakness, Difficulty in Walking and History of Falling. Resident 13's MDS dated [DATE] indicated she had a BIMS score of 7, which indicated she was severely cognitively impaired. The MDS also indicated Resident 13 needed extensive assistance with transfers and was totally dependent on staff for locomotion on and off the unit. Resident 13's Nursing Plan of Care to prevent falls dated 12/28/18 had the following interventions to prevent falls: 1) Orient Resident to new room/environment, 2) Keep call light & personal items w/in reach, 3) Assist Resident to toilet per toileting schedule, 4) Keep bed at lowest position, lock wheels on bed/wheelchair when appropriate. Despite these interventions, Resident 13 suffered a fall on 2/26/19. First Fall: Resident 13's 72-hour short term care plan dated 2/15/19 indicated Resident 13 suffered a fall on 2/15/19. It indicated, PROBLEM Fall DATE IDENTIFIED 2/15/19 .Monitor VS & neuro check x 72 (hours). The Fall Risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident 13 received a score of 12 which placed her at high risk for falls. There was no documentation indicating that an interdisciplinary team meeting was held to discuss the fall that occurred on 2/15/19. The Nursing Plan of Care dated 12/28/18, titled, FALL RISK CARE PLAN was not revised after this fall. A 72-hour short term care plan was initiated for this fall. The short term care plan indicated, Non-skid socks to wear when OOB (out of bed). This new intervention would not have been appropriate for Resident 13, who, according to her MDS dated [DATE], was totally dependent on staff for locomotion on and off the unit. Second Fall: The facility's Post Fall assessment dated [DATE] at 6:00 p.m. indicated, Resident felt an urgency to have a BM (bowel movement), was sitting in her w/c (wheelchair) eating dinner, got up and walked to the BR (bathroom) not using her walker (or call light). According to Resident 13's short term care plan dated 2/26/19, she suffered a fall that same day (2/26/19). The Falls Risk assessment dated [DATE] indicated Resident 13 received a score of 12 which placed her at high risk for falls. There was no documentation indicating that an interdisciplinary team meeting was held to discuss the fall that occurred on 2/26/19. The Nursing Plan of Care dated 12/28/18, titled, FALL RISK CARE PLAN was not revised after the fall on 2/26/19. A 72-hour short term care plan was initiated for this fall. The short term care plan did not indicate how often Resident 13 was required to be monitored by level of care staff. The short term care plan indicated, Call light within reach and reminded to use, which was already part of the initial Falls Risk Care Plan, and was not effective in reducing the incidence of falls. During an interview on 2/28/19 at 12:16 p.m., the DON confirmed that the long term care plans to reduce new incidences of falls did not get revised after every fall. The DON stated that the short term care plans were active for 72 hours. She also stated that Resident 6 was monitored by staff every 15 to 20 minutes but there was no log to keep track of visual checks. In addition, while reviewing the Falls Plan of Care for Resident 6 the DON stated that the interventions from the short care plan for falls should have been added to the long term care plan. During an interview on 2/28/19 at 11:54 a.m., Unlicensed Staff C stated that she checked on Resident 6 every 10 to 15 minutes. During an interview on 2/28/19 at 11:48 a.m., Licensed Staff B stated that she checked on Resident 6 every hour, and confirmed that Resident 6 was at risk for falls. The facility's protocol titled, Falls-Clinical Protocol, last revised in March of 2018, indicated, If underlying causes cannot be readily identified or corrected, staff will try various relevant interventions, based on assessment of the nature or category of falling, until falling reduces or stops .The staff and physician will monitor and document the individual's response to interventions intended to reduce falling or the consequences of falling .If the individual continues to fall, the staff and physician will re-evaluate the situation and reconsider possible reasons for the resident's falling (instead of, or in addition to those that have already been identified) and also reconsider the current interventions. The facility's policy titled, Falls and Fall Risk, Managing, last revised in March of 2018 indicated, If falling recurs despite initial interventions, staff will implement additional or different interventions, or indicate why the current approach remains relevant .In conjunction with the attending physician, staff will identify and implement relevant interventions. The facility's policy titled, Care Planning-Interdisciplinary Team, last revised in September of 2013 indicated, Our facility's Care Planning/Interdisciplinary Team is responsible for the development of an individualized comprehensive care plan for each resident. The facility's policy titled, Care Plans, Comprehensive Person-Centered, last revised in December of 2016 indicated, Assessments of residents are ongoing and care plans are revised as information about the residents and the residents' conditions change .The interdisciplinary Team must review and update the care plan: a. When there has been a significant change in the resident's condition; b. When the desired outcome is not met. The facility violated its own policies by failing to update and revise the Nursing Plans of Care after every fall for Resident 6 and Resident 13. The facility violated the regulations by failing to ensure that Resident 6 and Resident 13, who were at risk for falls, were provided adequate supervision by direct care staff and had effective revisions in the Nursing Plans of Care to prevent further falls.
CONCERN (F)

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

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure: 1. One cook was able to correctly describe the cool down process for food and 2. The kitchen maintained an air gap for...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview, and record review the facility failed to ensure: 1. One cook was able to correctly describe the cool down process for food and 2. The kitchen maintained an air gap for kitchen appliances. This failure could potentially lead to food borne illness in a vulnerable population. Findings: 1. During an interview and concurrent record review on 3/1/19 at 10 a.m., [NAME] A stated the total time for cooling down cooked food was seven hours from start to finish. When asked if she used a cool down log, [NAME] A stated yes and got a binder that contained the log. Review of the log revealed a description of the cool down process at the top and then columns to record data, including temperatures, throughout the process. One of the columns indicated at the top Final [temperature] after 6 hours. When asked again how long the cool down process takes from start to finish, [NAME] A stated seven hours. When asked what she would do if a food was above 40 degrees after cooling for six hours, [NAME] A stated, I would add more time. Review of facility document titled HACCP Cooling and Reheating Chart, dated 9/2014, revealed, Cool food quickly from 140º F (degrees Fahrenheit) (60º C (Celsius)) to 70º F (21º C) . within 2 hours and then to 40º F (4º C) or below within an additional 4 hours (total cooling time 6 hours). Products that do not reach 40º F (4º C) within 6 hours must be discarded. 2. During an observation and concurrent interview on 2/28/19 at 10:46 a.m., a floor sink under the dishwasher had several pipes leading down into it: A black plastic pipe approximately three inches in diameter was approximately two inches below floor level. A copper pipe approximately one inch in diameter was approximately four inches below floor level. Two clear plastic pipes approximately 3/4 inch in diameter were approximately six inches below floor level. When queried, Registered Dietician confirmed the pipes were below floor level and stated maintenance needed to come cut off the pipes. During an observation and concurrent interview on 2/28/19 at 11 a.m., Assistant Maintenance Director stated the black plastic pipe was the drainage pipe from the dishwasher, the copper pipe released steam from the heat blaster that heated the water for the dishwasher, and the two clear plastic pipes came from the water softener and the backup sanitizer that sanitized the dishes if the heat blaster failed. Assistant Maintenance Director stated the pipes had been this way (below floor level) for 30 years. Registered Dietician stated the pipes needed to be cut, and Assistant Maintenance Director stated he would call and have a plumber come as soon as possible. In response to a request for an air gap policy, the facility produced an untitled document on facility letterhead that indicated, A. AIR GAP SEPARATION (AG) The term 'air gap separation' shall mean a physical separation between the free flowing discharge end of a potable water supply pipeline and an open or non pressure receiving vessel. An approved Air Gap shall be at least double the diameter of the supply pipe measured vertically above the overflow rim of the vessel - in no case less than 1 inch . All piping from the service connection to the receiving tank shall be above grade level and be entirely visible . Review of Federal Food Code 2017, section 5-202.13 titled Backflow Prevention, Air Gap revealed An air gap between the water supply inlet and the flood level rim of the PLUMBING FIXTURE, EQUIPMENT, or nonFOOD EQUIPMENT shall be at least twice the diameter of the water supply inlet and may not be less than 25 mm (1 inch).
Feb 2018 10 deficiencies 2 IJ (2 facility-wide)
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Food Safety (Tag F0812)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions as evidenced by: 1) Dietary Staff put used paper towels on a food prep area. 2) Dietary Staff touc...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to maintain sanitary conditions as evidenced by: 1) Dietary Staff put used paper towels on a food prep area. 2) Dietary Staff touched the lid of a dirty garbage can with clean hands and did not wash their hands. 3) Dietary Staff did not have a garbage can to discard dirty paper towels. 4) Dishes were not properly sanitized. 5) Potatoes were stored uncovered under meat prep area. 6) Cooking appliances were not cleaned. 7) Dietary Staff were not wearing proper hair and facial covering. The cumulative effects of the systemic failures resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy was declared on 2/1/18 at 2:30 p.m., and reported to Administrator and CEO due to unsanitary conditions and cross-contamination in the kitchen that had the potential for food borne illness that could cause serious illness and death. Findings: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 1/29/18 at 08:20 a.m., The hand washing sink did not have a garbage can available to discard paper towels after washing hands. Past Executive Chef found a garbage can for another area and placed it by the hand washing sink. During an observation on 1/31/18 at 12:20 p.m., kitchen staff were seen washing hands at the hand washing sink and walking over to the garbage can past the dishwasher area. They were seen using a clean hand to push open a dirty trash can lid to dispose the used paper towels. During an observation on 1/31/18 at 12:25 p.m., Food Service H used hand washing sink to wash hands, walked towards the garbage can and decided not to use it. She went to the food prep counter and put down the used paper towel. Food Service H then went to get knife and cutting board, came back to food prep counter, wiped the area off with the used paper towel, then put down the cutting board, and started to cut the vegetables. Food Service H paused, washed hands, and the used paper towels from that hand washing ended up on the cutting board, contaminating the food prep surface. During an interview on 1/31/18 at 2:40 p.m., Food Service H stated she did not want to use the garbage can with the lid that had to be pushed by hand because she knew it would contaminate her hands. Food Service H stated there had been a garbage can by the hand washing sink until it was broken and her supervisors had not gotten a replacement. During an observation on 1/31/18 at 9:00 a.m., the cooking appliances were dirty. The 'Hot Hold' warming oven had burnt residue at bottom of compartment. The Warming Oven next to the Hot Hold oven had baked on dirt on bottom shelf of oven, baked on food on racks, and the glass doors had a brown substance clinging to the glass. The large stand alone burner for huge pots and pans had food residue on the pan rack over the burner and the top of the appliance had fresh and burnt on food residue. The grill section of the main range had food residue on the rack and grease and black crumbs of food particles under the grill and on the supporting edges of the grill. The rack on top of the range to support the pans had food particles on it and under the rack there was aluminum foil covered with grease and burnt food residue. The 2 main ovens had burnt on food residual on the bottom and on the oven racks. The plate warmer has brown staining along the back of the compartment. During an interview on 1/31/18 at 9:10 a.m., Food Service H stated that she did not clean the appliances but a person comes in at night to do all the cleaning. During an observation and concurrent interview on 2/1/18 at 11:10 a.m., Food Service E acknowledged that the appliances were dirty and explained that it was from cooking that morning such as the pan on the large stand alone burner had boiled over. Food Server E stated that the facility had a company to come in and clean the kitchen during the night. Prep cooks were responsible to clean their work areas and place used cooking items to the dishwashing areas. During an observation on 1/31/18 at 9:15 a.m., clean cooking utensils and clean plastic mugs for the meal trays were stored in open bins, right next to the dishwasher. The cooking utensils were jumbled in the bins and heaped up above the rim of the bins. During an observation on 2/1/18 at 11:40 a.m., the clean mugs stored by the dishwasher, had visible food particles. The clean cooking utensils stored in the open bins next to the dishwasher had traces of food on the inside surface of the bin, water collected on the bottom of the bin and a candy wrapper mixed in with the utensils. During an observation of the ice maker on 1/31/18 at 9:30 a.m., the outside of the ice bin was visibly dirty. The ice bin was full of ice. Near the top of the bin was an area of brown substance, and when wiped with a dry white cloth a gray unknown substance was found. A log about the cleaning of the ice maker was not located with the appliance. During an interview on 2/1/18 at 12:30 p.m., Engineer stated that maintenance of the kitchen equipment was contracted out and the ice maker in the basement was maintained by a separate company. During an interview on 1/31/18 at 2:35 p.m., Food Service F stated that he thought the dishwasher used heat to sanitize the dishes. He stated the testing of the dishwasher with test strips was three times a week. During an interview on 2/1/18 at 11:00 a.m., Food Service E stated the dishwasher sanitizes the dishes by heat and the water temperature was checked three times a day when washing the dishes from the last meal served. During an observation on 2/1/18 at 11:50 a.m., the food service person washing the dishes ran the temperature test strip through the dishwasher. The test strip failed to react to the heat. A second test was ran because it was thought the test plate was removed before the cycle completed. Two more temperature tests were done and still the strip failed to react to the heat. New RD stated she would find a thermometer to run through the dishwasher to test the temperature again. During an interview on 2/1/18 at 9:00 a.m., Food Service F stated that they check the dishwasher temperature with the EcoLab strips. They do not have a thermometer. The temperature they had documented on the daily temperature log were based on readings from the temperature gauges attached to the dishwasher machine, not from test strips. Food Service F stated the EcoLab strips stopped turning black about a week ago. The turning of the strips from white to black would indicate that the temperature is appropriate for disinfecting the dishes. During an interview on 2/1/18 at 9:15 a.m., Food Service G stated that the EcoLab strips stopped working about five to six days ago, but he did not alert management about this issue. Food Service G stated he did not inform management because he figured somebody else would do it. During the initial tour of the kitchen on 1/29/18 at 08:20 a.m., Past Executive Chef had a baseball cap on to cover his hair and did not have a beard cover over his facial hair. Two food service staff had on hair nets but did not covering all of their hair. During an interview on 1/31/18 at 2:35 p.m., Food Service F sported a mustache and when asked if he needed to wear a beard cover he stated he did not need to wear one. During an observation on 2/2/18, Food Service E was wearing a hair net but it was not covering all of her hair. When asked if she knew that some of the staff did not have their hair completely covered, she stated OK I will go get a net for my hair. During an observation on 1/31/18 at 12:00 p.m., Food Service F put on an cloth oven mitt to place the the warmed metal plate holders onto the food trays and moved the food trays down the line wearing the oven mitt. The oven mitt was visibly soiled from prior uses. During on interview on 1/31/18 at 2:35 p.m., Food Service F stated that his duties included helping at tray line and he uses the oven mitt on the hot metal plates. Food Service F stated that the oven mitts are not washed and thrown away when worn out. During on observation on 1/31/18 at 9:15 a.m., the steam table pans, stored on shelving between the 3 compartment sink and the food prep tables, were found stacked together and wet. During an observation on 2/1/18 at 11:30 a.m., the food service staff was seen washing steam table pans at the 3 compartment sink and adding them to a stack of pans on the storage shelf, instead of onto a surface where they could air dry. During an observation on 2/2/18 at 8:30 a.m., steam pans on the shelving by the 3 compartment sink were stored wet. During an observation on 1/31/18 at 9:15 a.m., the food preparation table had 3 plastic bins with red onions, white onions and potatoes and the lids were loose. The lid over the potatoes only covered about half of the potatoes. During on observation on 2/1/18 at 1130 a.m., the food preparation table with the bins of onion and potatoes was being used to prepare meat. The meat was on a cutting board with no sides and meat juice was being released from the meat. The plastic bin holding the potatoes was under this food prep table and the lid on the potato bin left the potatoes uncovered. The cumulative effects of the systemic failures resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy was declared on 2/1/18 at 2:30 p.m., and reported to Administrator and CEO due to unsanitary conditions and cross-contamination in the kitchen that had the potential for food borne illness that could cause serious illness and death. During an observation and concurrent interview on 2/2/18 at 9:00 a.m., pans had been placed under the meat prep table. New Executive Chef stated thought if something dripped onto the bottom surface of the pan it would not matter, as the pans could be rewashed. Pans were sent to the dishwasher. The Immediate Jeopardy was abated on 2/2/18 at 3:20 p.m. Dietary Staff followed their plan of action, dated 2/2/18 at 11:20 a.m , as follows: 1) The facility bought a garbage can for the kitchen, 2) In-service and education to dietary staff on maintaining infection control practices, 3) Ice machine was cleaned and logs for cleaning and maintenance revised, 4) Silicon oven mitts were purchased, 5) Identified that dietary staff needed to use correct temperature test strips to verify sanitation by the dishwasher, 6) Throw out all contaminated vegetables and relocated the vegetables, 7) In-serviced on not stacking wet pans and ensuring steam pans were placed on drying rack, 8) In-service dietary staff on hair and facial covering. Dietary Manager will monitor use of hair/facial covering daily. The facilities Sanitation and Infection Prevention/Control policy dated 1/2016 instructed that All associates associated with the handling of food shall wash hands, Use sinks designated for hand washing For the kitchen it is indicated that the food contact surfaces of all cooking equipment shall be kept free of encrusted grease deposits and other accumulated soil. Nonfood contact surfaces of equipment . shall be cleaned as often as is necessary to keep the equipment free of accumulation of dust, dirt, food particles and other debris. The dishwasher temperatures procedure instructed that once a day, run a test strip through the dishwasher to verify the surface temperature of a dish. The test strip must verify that the surface temperature of the plate reached 160 degrees, and in the event of inappropriate temperature the director must investigate. Other parts of the policy include: Hair restraints are worn by all when in the kitchen, and the storage of pots, dishes and flatware section instructed the following: air dry food contact surfaces including pots, dishes, flatware and utensils before storage . Do not stack or store when wet. The ice machine's manufacture guidelines documented the storage bin must be cleaned and sanitized regularly to maintain a sanitary environment, and frequency of cleaning man need to be adjusted to local conditions and environment.
CRITICAL (L)

Immediate Jeopardy (IJ) - the most serious Medicare violation

Garbage Disposal (Tag F0814)

Someone could have died · This affected most or all residents

⚠️ Facility-wide issue

Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to have a trash receptacle located at the hand washing sink which led to the inability of staff to dispose of the used paper towel...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to have a trash receptacle located at the hand washing sink which led to the inability of staff to dispose of the used paper towels causing cross-contaminated. This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy called on 2/1/18 at 2:30 p.m., due to unsanitary conditions and cross-contamination that could affect the health and safety of residents causing serous illness and death. This was reported to Administrator and CEO at above date and time. (see F 812) Findings: During the initial tour of the kitchen on 1/29/18 at 08:20 a.m., The hand washing sink did not have a garbage can available to discard paper towels after washing hands. Past Executive Chef found a garbage can for another area and placed it by the hand washing sink. During an observation of the kitchen on 1/31/18 at 8:30 a.m., the hand washing sink did not have a garbage can nearby. Staff had to walk past the dishwasher area of the kitchen to a trash can with a lid that had to be pushed inwards by hand to place garbage inside. During an observation on 1/31/18 at 12:20 p.m., kitchen staff were seen washing hands at the hand washing sink and walking over to the garbage can past the dishwasher area. They were seen using a clean hand to push open a dirty trash can lid to dispose the used paper towels. During an observation on 1/31/18 at 12:25 p.m., Food Service H used hand washing sink to wash hands, walked towards the garbage can and decided not to use it. She went to the food prep counter and put down the used paper towel. Food Service H then went to get knife and cutting board, came back to food prep counter, wiped the area off with the used paper towel, then put down the cutting board, and started to cut the vegetables. Food Service H paused, washed hands, and the used paper towels from that hand washing ended up on the cutting board, contaminating the food prep surface. During an interview on 1/31/18 at 12:30 p.m., Past RD stated she had requested the hand washing sink to have a new garbage can about a week ago. During an interview on 1/31/18 at 2:35 p.m., Food Service G stated that the garbage can broke about a week ago and they asked their bosses for a replacement. During an interview on 1/31/18 at 2:40 p.m., Food Service H stated she did not want to use the garbage can with the lid that had to be pushed by hand because she knew it would contaminate her hands. Food Service H stated there had been a garbage can by the hand washing sink until it was broken and her supervisors had not gotten a replacement. Durning an observation on 2/1/18 at 11:00 a.m., the kitchen's hand washing sink lacked a garbage can for the used paper towels. Durning an interview on 2/1/18 at 11:00 a.m., Food Service E stated that a replacement garbage can had been ordered and would be there in a few days. Durning an interview on 2/1/18 at 12:30 p.m., requested a copy of work orders or requisitions and invoices for repairs for the kitchen. Food Service E stated that she did not have any work orders, that requests were made verbally or by telephone. During an interview on 2/1/18 at 12:50 p.m., Engineer stated that the kitchen maintenance was contracted out. The facilities maintenance department filled requests for the kitchen like changing light bulbs, adding bulletin boards or fixing clogged drains. Requests were made by phone and the maintenance department did not keep a log of repairs they did in the kitchen. This failure resulted in an Immediate Jeopardy called on 2/1/18 at 2:30 p.m., due to unsanitary conditions and cross-contamination that could affect the health and safety of residents causing serious illness and death. This was reported to Administrator and CEO at above date and time. (see F 812) During an interview on 2/2/18 at 9:00 a.m., Food Service E stated that she communicated with the past food service's General Manager by leaving notes and complained that they were not responsive to her requests. Food Service E stated that she rarely communicated with the facilities administration, she reported to the General Manager. The Immediate Jeopardy was abated on 2/2/18 at 3:20 p.m. The facility bought a new garbage can and Dietary Staff were in-serviced in how to maintain infection control practices. The facilities policy on Hand Hygiene, dated 1/2016, specified All hand wash sinks should be easily accessible with nothing blocking their access in food production, food service and dishwashing areas. Hand wash sinks . should be clean and stocked with soap, paper towels, a covered waste receptacle and a Hand Wash sign. Food safety code documents that a trash receptacle must be located at the hand washing sinks to discard disposable towels.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0573 (Tag F0573)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
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 a nursing care plan for Resident 4. This had the potential for Resident 4 to not receive needed treatment...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on observation, interview and record review the facility failed to develop and implement a nursing care plan for Resident 4. This had the potential for Resident 4 to not receive needed treatment if she were to have respiratory difficulties. Findings: During an observation on 01/29/18 at 11:08 a.m., Resident 4 had the oxygen concentrator, humidifier and an oxygen nasal cannula set up in her room. Resident 4's demographic sheet documented that she had a history of dementia, hypertension and pneumonia. Her physician had ordered oxygen on 1/12/18 to run at 2 liters per minute, using a nasal cannula, as needed for shortness of breath or an oxygen saturation level of less than 90 percent. This was ordered when she had a period of respiratory distress. Resident 4's record did not have a short term or a long term nursing care plan for the use of the oxygen. During an interview on 02/05/18 at 01:40 PM, Staff Nurse C stated that Resident 4 had not had shortness of breath for several days. Staff Nurse C stated that the staff were to monitor Resident 4 for complaints of shortness of breath and to check for the the oxygen saturation level of Resident 4. Staff Nurse C stated that the medication administration record had a place to document the oxygen. Staff Nurse C did not know if a nursing care plan about the use of oxygen was in Resident 4's record. During an interview and concurrent record review on 02/05/18 at 01:45 PM, MDS Coordinator looked at the nursing care plan and stated that she did not see a short term care plan for the use of oxygen and no long term care plan in the residents records. The facilities policy on Oxygen Administration, dated 10/2010, indicated that in reporting the use of oxygen the staff shall report other information in accordance with .professional standards of practice.
CONCERN (D)

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

Deficiency F0865 (Tag F0865)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Deficiency Text Not Available

Read full inspector narrative →
Deficiency Text Not Available
CONCERN (D)

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

QAPI Program (Tag F0867)

Could have caused harm · This affected 1 resident

Based on interview and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee was unaware of the severity of ongoing Dietary sanitation issues, did not determine ...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review, the facility's Quality Assurance and Performance Improvement (QAPI) Committee was unaware of the severity of ongoing Dietary sanitation issues, did not determine how this could have impacted Residents, and were unable to establish appropriate responses to mitigate kitchen issues. These failures prevented the QAPI committee from identifying issues, effectively communicating issues between Committee members in a timely manner, prioritizing, implementing and evaluating Dietary action plans to correct quality deficiencies, determine effectiveness of changes to be implemented, and resulted in the potential for resident harm from food borne illnesses. Findings: During an interview with the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) on 2/2/18, at 9:02, he stated he didn't know anything about the lack of sanitation in the kitchen because he thought the contractor for the kitchen was providing oversight. He stated he was embarrassed. During an interview with the Medical Director on 2/02/18, at 10:23 AM, he stated he was not aware of any kitchen sanitation issues. He stated most of the information he received came from informal, 1:1 discussions with the Administrator and Residents. The Medical Director stated he attended QAPI meetings and at one meeting, Dietary stated they wanted to create a more restaurant feeling to food service. The Medical Director stated there are no audits, and doesn't know really what any facility data is. Everything is very informal including any tracking and trending of infections, antibiotics, and other issues. He also stated the reason for the sanitary issues in the kitchen was there was no leadership responsibility. On 2/05/18, at 1:28 PM, during an interview and document review, the Administrator was asked to describe the facility's QAPI plan. She stated she was unaware of what was asked. She stated at a quarterly meeting anything that occurred in facility is discussed. The Administrator stated the performance project the QAPI committee spent 9 months working on addressed Forms. The Administrator stated the following: 1. QAPI has reviewed Resident Satisfaction Audits. A review of a document titled Patient Satisfaction Audit, showed a non-specific satisfaction survey that has not been updated since 1996. 2. The Director of Nursing (DON), reviewed the [NAME] 3 report (Certification and Survey Provider Enahnced Reports containing Quality information performance) and informed QAPI of the results. 3. Infection Control provided some data once a quarter. 4. The Minimum Data Set (MDS) Coordinator reported timeliness of MDS Assessments (part of the U.S. federally mandated process for clinical assessment of all residents in certified nursing homes that provides a comprehensive assessment of each resident's functional capabilities and helps nursing home staff identify health problems). When asked how the committee addresses Resident Council grievances, the Administrator stated the QAPI does not review the grievances. She confirmed there are no medication error audits, no medication administration audits, no handwashing audits or care plan audits. The Administrator stated there is no tracking or trending of data to determine if any issues are increasing or decreasing. She stated she was not aware of any sanitation issues in the kitchen, except for a report on 1/18/18, from the Dietician indicating carrots were found past due date and the Administrator believed Dietician had taken care of it. She stated, she and the CEO went into kitchen 6 days later and spoke to staff on 1/24/17. They observed cardboard boxes on floor in freezer, gaskets on the refrigerator needed replacement and typical kitchen preparation litter on the floor. She stated she and the CEO developed a plan after the observation, to make phone calls to cleaning people. No other issues were brought to QAPI before January. The Administrator retrieved an audit she provided to Management and staff on 1/26/18 for the kitchen. She stated the audit was done due to concerns in kitchen. She stated she was surprised by the amount of sanitation issues discovered. During an interview with the Director of Staff Development (DSD) on 2/5/18, at 3:30, he stated he did not do any medication administration audits or handwashing audits. He stated he was unaware of any facility goals or trends for those areas. A review of the document submitted as the QAPI plan on 1/29/18, was titled, Just an outline -- Let me know what needs to be changed to fit for our facility, MINUTES OF THE MEETING, Name of Meeting: QAPI, . indicated the following topic 6. Dietary Consultant Report Follow Up--all f/u is completed the following day including weights, Resident meal satisfaction-, Inspection-, Contracted.
CONCERN (E)

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

Deficiency F0658 (Tag F0658)

Could have caused harm · This affected multiple residents

**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure: 1. Medications were being administered accord...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, interview, and record review, the facility failed to ensure: 1. Medications were being administered according to accepted standards of clinical practice. 2. Medications administered were based on accurate and pulse and blood pressure reading equipment (Cross Reference F908). This failure had the potential for resident harm for 5 of 18 residents, (Residents 2, 4, 5, 16, and 68), who received the following medications; Digoxin, Metoprolol, and Midodrine. Findings: 1. During an observation on 1/31/18, at 8:23 AM, Staff Nurse A administered Digoxin (a medication that helps make the heart beat stronger and with a more regular rhythm), to Resident 5 without taking an apical pulse (a pulse completed by placing a stethoscope chest and counting heart beats for one minute). Nurse A used the Omron Wrist Blood Pressure Monitor model BP 652 (a digital pulse and blood pressure monitor designed for single user, home use, applied to the wrist only) to obtain an electronic, digital blood pressure and pulse result. During an observation on 1/31/18, at 9 AM, Staff Nurse A administered Digoxin to Resident 2 without taking an apical pulse. Nurse A used the V100 Generic ATO model digital blood pressure monitor (a digital pulse and blood pressure monitor), applied to the upper arm to obtain a blood pressure and pulse result. During an observation on 1/31/18, at 12:08 PM, Staff Nurse A was observed giving Resident 16 Midodrine (a medication to increase blood pressure when severe dizziness or a light-headed feeling caused by low blood pressure), without obtaining Resident 16s blood pressure. During an observation on 2/05/18, at 8:30 AM, Staff Nurse C administered Metoprolol, (medication used to treat high blood pressure), to Resident 4 without completing an apical pulse. Nurse C used a V100 Generic ATO model digital blood pressure monitor to obtain an electronic, digital blood pressure and pulse result. During an observation on 2/5/18, at 8:50 AM, Staff Nurse C administered Digoxin to Resident 68 without completing an apical pulse. Nurse C used a V100 Generic ATO model digital blood pressure monitor to obtain an electronic, digital blood pressure and pulse result. 2. During an observation and interview on 2/05/18, at 12:00 PM, Staff Nurse C stated she took Resident 4's blood pressure and pulse for Metoprolol (medication used to treat high blood pressure), according to doctors orders. A review of the medication administration record (MAR), for Resident 4 indicated for Metoprolol, to hold (not give the medication), for systolic blood pressure (the top number of a blood pressure reading) , <100 or pulse < 50. Nurse C stated she did not know which method of taking the pulse and blood pressure was the accepted standard of clinical practice. She stated she used the V100 Generic ATO model digital blood pressure monitor and was unaware of any servicing or calibrating service required for maintenance. A review of the nursing drug reference book (a list of prescription drugs and information designed to enhance medication administration safety) at the Nurse's station, indicated Nursing considerations for administering Digoxin include before giving drug (Metoprolol), take apical-radial pulse for 1 minute. Nurse C stated I guess I have been doing it wrong. During an observation and interview with the Engineer on 2/05/18, at 12:30 PM, he was unable to state what essential care equipment was and if he had maintained any equipment in the facility. He indicated he did not have any manufacturer's recommendations or maintenance logs to indicate he evaluated or maintained any blood pressure machines. He stated he only sent out a blood pressure machine for repair a while ago and stated he didn't know anything about the Omron Wrist Blood Pressure Monitor BP 652. During an observation and interview with the Engineer on 2/05/18, at 1:30 PM, he provided a document titled Certification of Inspection for a GE Healthcare V100 Generic ATO Model Serial Number SH613440309SA. A review of the document indicated, on 11/2/13 the device was tested and met the requirements specified by the manufacturer, and Service and manual recommendation: Cleaning and Integrity Checks of the Cuffs and Hoses: As Required and Perform Test Procedures Every 12 months. The Engineer stated he did not have any documentation for the Omron Wrist Blood Pressure Monitor BP 652. He stated he had no memory of sending out the blood pressure monitors since 2013. The Engineer stated he could not be sure the blood pressure monitors were providing accurate pulses or blood pressure readings. During an interview with the DSD on 2/05/18, at 2:30 PM, he stated he was unaware of the Manufacturer's recommendations for use and service on the Omron Wrist Blood Pressure Monitor BP 652 or the V100 Generic ATO Model Digital Blood Pressure machine. He was not able to describe with certainty that either machine was providing accurate blood pressure readings. During an interview with the DON on 2/5/18 at 2:35, she stated she was unaware of the maintenance or service requirements for any of the facility blood pressure monitors, and stated you could calibrate the digital blood pressure monitors using another blood pressure cuff to compare results. During a phone interview with the OMRON Representative on 2/8/18, at 10:55 AM, she stated the device is intended for home use only, designed for taking 3-4 readings per day and overuse will deteriorate the accuracy of the readings. A review of the document titled Omron Wrist Blood Pressure Monitor BP 652 Instruction Manual indicatedon page 4 The monitor is not intended to be a diagnostic device. A review of of the book titled Nursing 2008 DRUG HANDBOOK 28th Edition, published by Wolters Kluwer/ [NAME] & Wilkins indicated the following Nursing Considerations for; Digoxin Administration - Before giving drug, take apical - radial pulse for 1 minute. Metoprolol Administration - Always check patient's apical pulse rate before giving drug. If it's slower than 60 beats/minute, withhold drug and call prescriber immediately. Monitor blood pressure frequently; drug masks common signs and symptoms of shock. Midodrine - Monitor supine and sitting blood pressures closely, and notify prescriber if supine blood pressure increases excessively. Monitor patient for signs and symptoms of bradycardia, such as slowed pulse, syncope or dizziness, especially after giving the drug. '
CONCERN (E)

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, staff interview, and document review, the facility failed to have an effective Infection Control Program d...

Read full inspector narrative →
**NOTE- TERMS IN BRACKETS HAVE BEEN EDITED TO PROTECT CONFIDENTIALITY** Based on observation, staff interview, and document review, the facility failed to have an effective Infection Control Program designed to prevent the spread of infection, when the facility staff failed to prevent the contamination of diabetic glucometers, diabetic test strips, sterile diabetic supplies and blood pressure cuffs for Residents 4, 5, 11 and 16. This failure had the potential for the development and transmission of diseases and epidemic infections, in residents who possessed a range of functional disabilities and were weakened by other co-morbidities. Findings: During an Medication Pass observation on 1/31/18, at 8:23 AM, Licensed Nurse A was observed applying a wrist digital blood pressure monitor to Resident 4's bare left wrist Licensed Nurse A did not clean the blood pressure cuff before or after obtaining a blood pressure cuff. During Medication Pass observation on 1/31/18, at 12:08 PM, Licensed Nurse A gathered Resident 16's tote (holds individual resident's diabetic supplies), from the locked Medication Room to perform a blood sugar test using a glucometer (a device that measures the amount of sugar, called glucose, in the blood). Nurse A did not sanitize the glucometer prior to entering the Resident's room. Licensed Nurse A removed the glucometer device from the the tote, took a reading of Resident 16's blood, and returned the contaminated glucometer to the tote without sanitizing the device. Resident 16's tote was returned to the medication room and placed the tote with the contaminated glucometer and supplies next to the other two diabetic Resident's totes. All three of the totes were located next to the handwashing sink, without sanitizing the glucometer or removing any contaminated supplies. During the Medication Pass observation on 2/1/18, at 3:55 PM, Licensed Nurse D entered the locked medication room and gathered Resident 11's diabetic supplies including the glucometer, without gloves, into a disposable cup from Resident 11's tote. She did not sanitize the glucometer before use. Licensed Nurse D went to Resident 11, removed the glucometer device from the cup containing contaminated diabetic testing supplies with her gloved hand, took a reading of Resident 11's blood, and returned the contaminated glucometer to Resident 11's cup. She went to the nurses station, removed the glucometer from the cup and laid it on the counter and threw away the cup. She washed her hands for 15 seconds, picked up the contaminated glucometer with clean hands, went to the locked medication room and placed Resident 11's contaminated glucometer into the incorrect Resident's diabetic supplies tote. She was observed to have picked up the contaminated glucometer and place into the correct bin without sanitizing the glucometer or removing any contaminated supplies from any bins. During the Medication Pass observation on 2/1/18, at 4:10 PM, Nurse D was observed in the medication room gathering, with her bare hands, Resident 16's blood glucose monitor and diabetic testing supplies out of Resident 16's tote, placing them into a disposable cup. She did not sanitize the glucometer. She went to Resident 16's room with a cup containing blood glucose testing supplies. Nurse D attempted to get Resident 16's blood glucose reading using the contaminated glucometer. During Medication Pass observation on 2/5/18, at 8:35 AM, Nurse C obtained a blood pressure reading on Resident 4's upper arm by applying a reusable cuff from theV100 Generic ATO model digital blood pressure machine. She did not sanitize the blood pressure cuff before or after the reading was completed. During an interview with the Director of Nursing (DON), on 2/1/18, at 4:20 PM, she stated her expectation for nurses to clean the blood glucose monitor before and after use. During an observation and interview with the Director of Staff Development (DSD), on 2/5/18, at 3:15, in the locked medication room, he stated all the nurses know blood glucose monitors are supposed to be cleaned before and after use, with facility approved wipes. He observed there was no facility approved bleach wipes in the medication room. He left the room and returned with bleach wipes. With gloved hands, he demonstrated a 3 minute dwell time (how long an item stays wet) by rubbing a blood glucose monitor with a bleach wipe for 3 minutes. The DSD stated the monitor had to be wet for 3 minutes and he was continuously rubbing for 3 minutes just because . The DSD returned the blood glucose monitor to the incorrect diabetic supply tote, picked it up with his gloved hand and placed it into the correct tote. The DSD removed his gloves and attempted to wash his hands at the medication room sink and realized there were no paper towels. He left the room to wash and dry his hands, and returned to put on gloves, and retrieved the contaminated monitor, cleaned it with a bleach wipe, and returned it to the correct Resident tote. He stated the contaminated supplies in the totes should probably be replaced. An observation of a small drop of dried, pink fluid on the inside one of the tote cups containing cotton balls used to place on Resident's fingers after retrieving blood for blood glucose testing. The DSD stated he did not know what it was and it should be replaced. He could not say with certainty that any of the supplies had been contaminated by splashes from the hand washing sink because of the close proximity to the sink. The DSD stated they would be moved further away to prevent any future contamination from the handwashing sink. The DSD was asked to provide a copy of the facility's policy for blood glucose monitors and blood pressure cuffs and Infection Control. The DSD stated the facility's Policy and Procedures titled Cleaning and Disinfection of Resident-Care Items and Equipment provide guidance on how to clean blood pressure cuffs and blood glucose monitors. When asked if nurses are evaluated for correct Blood Glucose Monitor use, and cleaning the blood pressure cuffs, the DSD stated he observed them but has not done any observation audits on nurses for medication pass. When asked what standards he uses for Infection Control he stated the facility uses the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Standards. The DSD confirmed the blood glucose monitors beings used for Resident's 11 and 16 were; -Freestyle Freedom Light manufactured by [NAME] -Trumetrix Air manufactured by Nipro A review of a document titled Owners Manual Freestyle Freedom Lite Blood Glucose Monitoring System indicated the following, IMPORTANT: The device must not be used on more than one person including other family members due to the risk of spreading infection. If the meter is being operated by a second person who is providing testing assistance to the user,the meter and lancing device should be cleaned and disinfected prior to use by the second person. A review of a document title Owners Manual .TrueMETRIXAIR Self Monitoring Blood Glucose System indicated If the meter is being operated by a second person who provides testing assistance, the meter and lancing device should be disinfected prior to use by the second person. A review of a CDC document title Recommended Practices for Preventing Bloodborne Pathogen Transmission during Blood Glucose Monitoring and Insulin Administration in Healthcare Settings, indicated Unused supplies and medication should be maintained in clean areas separate from used supplies and equipment (e.g., glucose meters.). Training and Oversight, Assess adherence to infection control recommendations for blood glucose monitoring and insulin administration by periodically observing staff who perform or assist with these procedures and tracking use of supplies. A review of the label on the facility's Dispatch Hospital Cleaner Disinfectant Towels with Bleach, indicated Recommended in cleaning and care guides for disinfecting equipment, including ultrasound probes, blood glucose meters and infusion pumps. In the section titled Instructions for Use, Step 3,To DISINFECT, allow surface to remain wet for contact time listed below: Bacteria, Viruses, Fungi: 1 minute TB: 2 minutes C. difficile spores: 3 minutes
CONCERN (F)

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

Room Equipment (Tag F0908)

Could have caused harm · This affected most or all residents

2. During an observation on 1/31/18, at 8:42 AM, Staff nurse A was observed using an Omron Wrist Blood Pressure Monitor BP 652 (a wrist blood pressure monitor for home use) to obtain a pulse and blood...

Read full inspector narrative →
2. During an observation on 1/31/18, at 8:42 AM, Staff nurse A was observed using an Omron Wrist Blood Pressure Monitor BP 652 (a wrist blood pressure monitor for home use) to obtain a pulse and blood pressure reading for Resident 5. During an observation on 1/31/18, at 9 AM, Staff nurse A was observed using a V100 Generic ATO model digital blood pressure monitor to obtain a pulse and blood pressure reading for Resident 2. During an observation on 2/05/18, at 8:30 AM, Staff Nurse C was observed using a V100 Generic ATO model digital blood pressure monitor to obtain a pulse and blood pressure reading for Resident 4 and Resident 68. During an observation and interview on 2/02/18, at 12:00 PM, Staff Nurse C stated she was uncertain how to describe if the blood pressure machine is accurate. She stated she didn't know it had to be checked. She looked for a maintenance sticker on the machine to see the last time the V100 Generic ATO model digital blood pressure machine was checked by engineering, and was unable to locate any documentation indicating a service was performed. During an observation and interview with the Engineer on 2/05/18, at 12:30 PM, he was unable to describe any essential resident care equipment. He indicated he did not have any manufacturer's recommendations or maintenance logs to indicate he evaluated or maintained any blood pressure machines. He stated he only sent out one blood pressure machine for repair a while ago. A review of a document titled Certification of Inspection for a GE Healthcare V100 Generic ATO Model Serial Number SH613440309SA, indicated on 11/2/13, the device was tested and Meets the requirements specified by the manufacturer. Service and manual recommendation: Cleaning and Integrity Checks of the Cuffs and Hoses: As Required and Perform Test Procedures Every 12 months. The Engineer stated the blood pressure monitor had not beensent out for maintenance every 12 months. The Engineer stated he could not be sure the blood pressure monitor was accurate. During an interview with the DSD on 2/05/18, at 2:30 PM, he stated he was unaware of the Manufacturer's recommendations for maintenance and service on the Omron Wrist Blood Pressure Monitor BP 652 or the V100 Generic ATO Model Digital Blood Pressure machine. He was not able to describe with certainty that either machine was providing accurate blood pressure readings. During an interview with the DON on 2/5/18 at 2:35, she stated she was unaware of the maintenance or service requirements for any of the facility blood pressure monitors. She stated you could calibrate the digital blood pressure monitors using another blood pressure cuff to compare results. During a phone interview with the OMRON Representative on 2/8/18, at 10:55 AM, she stated the device is intended for home use only, designed for taking 3-4 readings per day and overuse will deteriorate the accuracy of the readings. A review of the document titled Omron Wrist Blood Pressure Monitor BP 652 Instruction Manual indicated on page 4 The monitor is not intended to be a diagnostic device. A review of the facility provided document titled How to perform a Blood Pressure calibration indicated Blood pressure (BP) varies by individual so each User must complete his/her own calibration before using the Performance Monitor <Body Check> function to measure or track your blood pressure. There was no indication of what BP monitor make or model these instructions were intended for. A review of the document titled GE Healthcare V100 Generic ATO Model Service Manual, dated 2008, indicated the following, on page 4-3, under Preventative Maintenance, WARNING, Failure on the part of all responsible individuals, hospitals or institutions, employing the use of this device, to implement the recommended maintenance schedule may cause equipment failure and possible health hazards. General, Preventative maintenance tasks include cleaning the V100 Monitor, checking pressure calibration, pneumatic leakage, pneumatic system overpressure point, temperature calibration, and verification of the SpO2 system. Perform the following maintenance procedures as required. Visual Inspection, The monitor and its components should be carefully inspected prior to installation, once every 12 months thereafter and each time the equipment is serviced. Based on observation, interview and record review, the facility failed to maintain kitchen equipment in a safe operating condition, 1 refrigerator not working, 1 Freezer thermometer not functioning, ovens ran at uneven temperatures and 1 food warmer's built in thermometer was not working. This failure had the potential for any of the Residents to suffer a food borne illness when food is not stored and served at safe temperatures. In addition, the facility failed to ensure essential resident blood pressure monitoring equipment was in safe operating condition. This failure had the potential for resident harm from inaccurate measurement of pulse and blood pressure readings for 5 of 18 Residents (Residents 2, 4, 5, 16, 68). Findings: 1. During the initial kitchen observation on 1/29/18 at 8:20 AM, Freezer number 8's electronic temperature on the outside read 16 degrees. The thermometer inside the freezer on the left read 50 degrees. The tubs of ice cream were not solidly frozen as the sides could be pushed in. During an observation and concurrent interview on 1/29/18 at 3:25 AM, Old Food Service's Executive Chef checked freezer 8 and the thermometer on the left side and said the thermometer was broken. He found a second thermometer in the freezer on the right side and he stated it read 20 degrees. Old Food Service's Executive Chef stated that the Freezer may have just been restocked or that it was going through a defrost cycle. Freezer 8's temperature readout on the outside was 24 degrees. Old Food Service's Executive Chef had the ice cream and other contents moved until Freezer 8 could be checked. During the initial kitchen tour on 1/29/18 at 8:30 a.m., the Hot Hold warming oven's thermometer was pointing to the highest number on its face, but the inside of the warming oven felt to be room temperature. During an observation on 1/31/18 at 9 a.m., Freezer 8 had a temperature of 2 degrees and the ice cream inside was hard. The Hot Hold warming oven was not in use but the thermometer read 120 degrees. The Microwave had a loose handle. Refrigerator 7 was empty and room temperature. Did not have anything on it to indicate that it was out of service. During an interview on 1/31/18 at 9:10 a.m., Food Service Staff X stated the ovens did not work. The ovens could not be trusted because the temperature was uneven. Food Service Staff X stated that they had told administration that the ovens were not working but they have not been fixed. This had been that way for a few months. During an interview on 1/31/18 at 9:20 a.m., Dietary Supervisor stated that Refrigerator 7 was to be repaired and that the ovens were maintained by an outside company every 3 months. Stated that the oven's temperature was calibrated at the time of maintenance. She did not know about the Hot Hold warming oven's thermometer. When asked for requisitions Dietary Supervisor answered that she did not have requisitions, repair requests were done by phone or verbally. The kitchen did have a clipboard with Refrigerator 7 listed as needing repair. During an interview on 1/31/18 at 9:30 a.m., Old Food Service's RD stated that she had told administration that the Hot Hold Warming Oven's thermometer was broken and that the ovens were not working correctly, and that administration did not do anything. During an observation and concurrent interview on 2/1/18 at 11:30 a.m., New Food Service's Executive Chef was shown that the thermometer on the outside of the Hot Hold warming oven read 120 degrees but the inside of the oven was only a bit warmer than the room. When asked if he thought it was broken he replied that he could not at this point confirm if thermometer was broken. New Food Service's Executive Chef checked the setting and asked if it was plugged in, asked when it was turned on. A few moments later he moved the pan with some flank steak into the warming oven next to it. During an interview on 2/1/18 at 12:30 p.m., Engineer stated that maintenance of the kitchen equipment was contracted out and the ice maker in the basement was maintained by a separate company. Stated that the facilities maintenance team would take care of plumbing repairs or changing light bulbs but do not keep a log of service requests for the facility. During an interview on 2/2/18 at 8:30 a.m., Dietary Supervisor stated that to communicate with the Old Food Services Staff, she would leave notes. Stated that there was a General Manager from the food company but that person was often absent and that the old food service company was not responsive to her requests. When asked if she reported to her administrator Dietary Supervisor stated that was something she rarely needed to do. Dietary Supervisor stated that some of the communication was done by using a white board to leave messages and a sheet to write down what needed to be repaired. The facilities policy called Maintenance Service indicated that the maintenance department is responsible for maintaining the buildings, grounds, and equipment in a safe and operable manner at all times. They are to maintain the heat/cooling system, plumbing fixtures, wiring etc. in good working order. It further indicated that the Maintenance Director is responsible for developing and maintaining a schedule of maintenance service to assure the . and equipment are maintained in a safe and operable manner. The facilities policy called Work Orders, Maintenance indicated that in order to establish a priority of maintenance service, work orders must be filled out and forwarded to the Maintenance Director.
MINOR (C)

Minor Issue - procedural, no safety impact

Deficiency F0577 (Tag F0577)

Minor procedural issue · This affected most or all residents

Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure that the resident were aware of how to contact the Department about complaints and how to review survey results from the Department. Th...

Read full inspector narrative →
Based on interview and record review the facility did not ensure that the resident were aware of how to contact the Department about complaints and how to review survey results from the Department. This had the potential that the residents would not contact the Department for concerns regarding patient care and service, and residents and visitors would not have knowledge of survey results. Findings: During Resident Group Meeting on 1/31/18 at 10 a.m., Residents 2 and 3 stated they did not know that they could call the Department with complaints and did not know how to find the Department's survey results. The facility utilized The California Standard admission Agreement for Skilled Nursing Facilities. The Resident [NAME] of Rights in Appendix F instructed for a statement that the resident may file a complaint with the State survey and certification agency concerning resident abuse, neglect, misappropriation of resident properly in the facility and non compliance with the advance directive requirements. It further instructed that A resident has the right to examine the results of the most recent survey of the facility conducted by State surveyors and any plan of correction . The facility must make the results available for examination in a place readily accessible to resident .
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
  • • Licensed and certified facility. Meets minimum state requirements.
Concerns
  • • Multiple safety concerns identified: 2 life-threatening violation(s), 1 harm violation(s). Review inspection reports carefully.
  • • 26 deficiencies on record, including 2 critical (life-threatening) violations. These warrant careful review before choosing this facility.
  • • Grade D (49/100). Below average facility with significant concerns.
Bottom line: Trust Score of 49/100 indicates significant concerns. Thoroughly evaluate alternatives.

About This Facility

What is Villa Marin's CMS Rating?

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

How is Villa Marin Staffed?

CMS rates VILLA MARIN's staffing level at 4 out of 5 stars, which is above average compared to other nursing homes.

What Have Inspectors Found at Villa Marin?

State health inspectors documented 26 deficiencies at VILLA MARIN during 2018 to 2024. These included: 2 Immediate Jeopardy (the most serious level, indicating potential for serious harm or death), 1 that caused actual resident harm, 22 with potential for harm, and 1 minor or isolated issues. Immediate Jeopardy findings are rare and represent the most serious regulatory concerns. They require immediate corrective action.

Who Owns and Operates Villa Marin?

VILLA MARIN is owned by a non-profit organization. Non-profit facilities reinvest revenue into operations rather than distributing to shareholders. The facility operates independently rather than as part of a larger chain. With 31 certified beds and approximately 11 residents (about 35% occupancy), it is a smaller facility located in SAN RAFAEL, California.

How Does Villa Marin Compare to Other California Nursing Homes?

Compared to the 100 nursing homes in California, VILLA MARIN's overall rating (5 stars) is above the state average of 3.2 and health inspection rating (4 stars) is above the national benchmark.

What Should Families Ask When Visiting Villa Marin?

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 Villa Marin Safe?

Based on CMS inspection data, VILLA MARIN has documented safety concerns. Inspectors have issued 2 Immediate Jeopardy citations (the most serious violation level indicating risk of serious injury or death). The facility has a 5-star overall rating and ranks #1 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 Villa Marin Stick Around?

VILLA MARIN has not reported staff turnover data to CMS. Staff turnover matters because consistent caregivers learn residents' individual needs, medications, and preferences. When staff frequently change, this institutional knowledge is lost. Families should ask the facility directly about their staff retention rates and average employee tenure.

Was Villa Marin Ever Fined?

VILLA MARIN has been fined $7,443 across 1 penalty action. This is below the California average of $33,153. 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 Villa Marin on Any Federal Watch List?

VILLA MARIN 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.